|
|
As just about anybody who has talked to me about film knows, I have been a fan of lower-contrast films for some time now. With black and white especially, I tend to favor tones to contrast.
I've been re-reading "The Negative" again lately, though, and Adams talking about contrast control through development has me re-thinking things a little bit. I've been a little bit frustrated lately when using lower-contrast films like XP2 in situations which are already low-contrast. The resulting negative is incredibly flat and it ends up being a bit difficult to achieve a pleasant tonality and level of detail. I have to pump the contrast quite a bit and the result is... less than desirable. Anyway, Adams has me thinking of choosing the right contrast level of film for the scene that I'm shooting.
XP2 handles high-contrast scenes wonderfully. I used some at a friend's wedding and the details in her white gown are visible as are details in his black tux and dark blue vest. Though when they're in shade, his dark hair tends to blend into the trees more.
So... I'd like to open up the topic for discussion here. It may have relevance to color photography as well.
Does anybody here do full zone system adjustment of contrast for their film based on the contrast level of the day when it was exposed? Or does anybody maybe just choose contrastier film for lower-contrast days - like, it's overcast... better break out the T-Max.... now it's sunny... time for Pan-F!
If so, please relate experiences, thoughts, etc.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
This may sound naive, as I have only been shooting for a couple years.
What about the huge variety of developers out there. If you have an exposed roll of what tends to be really low contrast, or flat film shot in a low contrast setting, why not use a higher contrast or Pyro developer. You could also use a High Acutance developer to decrease the contrast of high contrast seen. There are a bunch of formulas listed at digital truths website.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/data.html
Also, You have a large format setup, where you can develop each negative depending on each situation. In your case, over expose / under develop shooting high contrast scenes to curtail contrast, and under expose / over develop to shooting low contrast ones to promote it. Balancing that should produce the long tonal range your after. It's not like grain will be a factor.
The rest is in the print. Toning and contact prints should also help extend the tonal range of the print. Self masking prints like ones on POP or print out paper sound really cool. I would be interested in splitting the cost of a box of that stuff with you if you want.
| |
i over expose by 1 stop and then cut the developement time to 75% of the original
| |
Posted by west_end_chud
This may sound naive, as I have only been shooting for a couple years.
What about the huge variety of developers out there. If you have an exposed roll of what tends to be really low contrast, or flat film shot in a low contrast setting, why not use a higher contrast or Pyro developer. You could also use a High Acutance developer to decrease the contrast of high contrast seen. There are a bunch of formulas listed at digital truths website.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/data.html
|
I know about using developer to control the level of contrast.
Also, You have a large format setup, where you can develop each negative depending on each situation. In your case, over expose / under develop shooting high contrast scenes to curtail contrast, and under expose / over develop to shooting low contrast ones to promote it. Balancing that should produce the long tonal range your after. It's not like grain will be a factor.
|
I know I can do this. In fact, that's one of the reasons I opened this topic for discussion. I'm looking for people who are doing these things already to maybe relate experiences. I know people who favor low-contrast film and people who favor high-contrast film, but nobody who tries to use the right contrast for the right subject.
The rest is in the print. Toning and contact prints should also help extend the tonal range of the print. Self masking prints like ones on POP or print out paper sound really cool. I would be interested in splitting the cost of a box of that stuff with you if you want.
|
Yes. Toning extends the apparent tonal range a bit. There's not much about a contact print specifically that necessarily increases tonal range though most of the contact processes do have extended tonality as a benefit.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
Posted by IHateSnow
i over expose by 1 stop and then cut the developement time to 75% of the original
|
What does that have to do with the topic?
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
Posted by EatsTooMuchJam
I know about using developer to control the level of contrast.
|
So why not use lower contrast films most of the time and increase the contrast as needed in specific situations. It is a lot easier to increase contrast at will with filters or type of developer.
Posted by EatsTooMuchJam
Yes. Toning extends the apparent tonal range a bit. There's not much about a contact print specifically that necessarily increases tonal range though most of the contact processes do have extended tonality as a benefit.
|
I disagree with regarding contact prints. Contact prints by principal are not prone to the same loss of information, resolution, or lens defects or distortions caused by enlargements. A good contact print should provide an easily noticable increase in tonal range over an enlargement with even the best of lenses.
As for shooting with different contrast films to suite the enviroment. I personally only try and shoot lower contrast films, and increase contrast through filters, development, or during the enlargement process.
Down with T-Max
Tmax is the flatist most predictably boring film ever.
| |
Posted by west_end_chud
So why not use lower contrast films most of the time and increase the contrast as needed in specific situations. It is a lot easier to increase contrast at will with filters or type of developer.
|
I already use low-contrast film most of the time. However, I shoot a lot more roll film than LF film for various reasons including price and ease of scanning. Also, keeping track by photo of how to process is very annoying.
I disagree with regarding contact prints. Contact prints by principal are not prone to the same loss of information, resolution, or lens defects or distortions caused by enlargements. A good contact print should provide an easily noticable increase in tonal range over an enlargement with even the best of lenses.
|
Can you quantify that? I agree that the sharpness/resolution should be improved, but a good enlarger lens should be virtually distortion-free.
As for shooting with different contrast films to suite the enviroment. I personally only try and shoot lower contrast films, and increase contrast through filters, development, or during the enlargement process.
Down with T-Max
Tmax is the flatist most predictably boring film ever.
|
I shoot lower contrast film almost exclusively now. But as I said in the initial portion of the post - in situations that are already very low-contrast, it becomes very difficult to seperate the tones on the negative. They all get too close together.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
Well, I won't quantify anything except to say it works for me, but I usually shoot Pan F for black and white. I hate carrying multiple brands/iso ratings of film, I find it to be a pain in the ass. Usually I've got either a bunch of Pan F, or a bunch of Provia. Sometimes both, if I forget to clean out my camera bag in between shoots. Anyway, if it's a sunny day, particularly when it's close to noon, I rate Pan F at 25, occasionally 12 iso, and develop with gentle agitation. On overcast/rainy days, or indoors in low contrast situations, I push it to 125, and my agitation during development is a little more...agitated. Medium situations (partly cloudy, golden light, indoors with lots of high-contrast light coming into a dark room, etc) I shoot it at 50, develop normal. This is usually enough for me to get fairly consistent results from roll to roll (this is 6x7, btw). And this is all in the name of contrast, not for ease of use - my mf camera is tripod-only shooting, regardless of the light conditions. Of course, this was all arrived at by trial and error experimentation, with next to no scientific method applied whatsoever to properly analyzing the results - if it's easy to print and it looks good to me, then it worked.
When I shoot street stuff, it's a different story, I love big fat grain. Tri-X all the way, preferably pushed to at least 800, usually 1600, although I usually only shoot street stuff either at night, or during rain or snow storms. In those cases, I usually aim for film so contrasty, it's just this side of a photocopy of a photocopy of a contrasty print.
None of that probably helps you, but you asked, so there you have it.
yep. | |
Posted by west_end_chud
Down with T-Max
Tmax is the flatist most predictably boring film ever.
|
Tmax is just a difficult film to get right, temperature, developer and time must be right to get good results from this film.
Regarding the question, I think you have to chose the right film for the right scenery. Low contrast scenes with low contrast film is searching for trouble.
A 1000 days of sorrow can disapear in a split second, it takes only one person to make it happen. | |
Posted by Uncle Goose
Tmax is just a difficult film to get right, temperature, developer and time must be right to get good results from this film.
|
Bahh I use a lot of Tmax (both 120 and 35mm) and 99.9% of them time I use X-TOL and it's always worked for me. If done right I think it's a great film.
"Toyota vehicles are marketed to people who would be more excited about getting a new fridge than a new car I think." -Bandi | |
I've always been happy with my negs results following the regular deveopement for iso. Not voluntary heavier shake of my negs may influence more contrast than anything else in my process. I want my negs to be predictable, I have different condintions on my negs and I don't want to start playing different exposure for specific developing contrast. By normal dev and process I Know what I'll get, And it will be constant. I'll change the film instead of tweaking the process, I can predict my Tri-X very well, otherwise I'll plow in my APX25 for special situations.
[last edit 11/18/2006 12:40 AM by SPEK Photo - edited 1 times]
Pour fins d'archives.
WWW.EXPLORATIONURBAINE.CA |
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 78 ms
|
|
Ethics
