Q. I've been playing around with different films and developers and combinations for the past couple of months. I want to branch out from HC-110 and see what else is out there, and what else I like.
I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.
Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.
Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.
I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.
Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.
Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.
A. Like more density on the negatives you work with do you?
A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.
If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!
But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions
Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!
Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.
This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.
A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.
If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!
But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions
Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!
Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.
This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.
Why is the Leica M8 so good?
Q. Why is the Leica M8 good what makes it Unique from the Dslr's?
A. Well, in a lot of ways, in 2013, the Leica M8 is actually not so good by current standards. It's a crop sensor digital camera with, what is now considered, poor high ISO noise redux. The M9 is another story however.
The reason the M8 used to be considered a great digital camera and still is if you're on a budget, is that it is a rangefinder camera. That in itself makes it unique from DSLR's because it is simply not a Single Lens Reflex camera.
If you want to study up on the differences between rangefinders and SLR's, there are hundreds of in-depth discussions all over the internet. Essentially it boils down to rangefinders being smaller, quieter, better at manual focusing in low light and due to the lack of a flipping mirror, viewing is more of the moment as well as handheld slow shutter speeds more free of vibration. The problem is that there are limitations to composition and use of macro and longer telephoto lenses as well as zoom lenses with rangefinders. Also, some folks just don't like focusing through them.
Whats-more, Leica build quality far exceeds those of most popular manufacturers. They hand-assemble their camera and lenses with higher quality materials and more tightly fitting parts. This results in cameras and lenses that feel very enjoyable to use but also that last through extreme abuse and continue to work well for decades.
Leica is also world renowned for the high optical performance of their lenses. They are virtually devoid of optical abberations commonly found in Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and other more popular lensmakers products.
Hope this is useful!
The reason the M8 used to be considered a great digital camera and still is if you're on a budget, is that it is a rangefinder camera. That in itself makes it unique from DSLR's because it is simply not a Single Lens Reflex camera.
If you want to study up on the differences between rangefinders and SLR's, there are hundreds of in-depth discussions all over the internet. Essentially it boils down to rangefinders being smaller, quieter, better at manual focusing in low light and due to the lack of a flipping mirror, viewing is more of the moment as well as handheld slow shutter speeds more free of vibration. The problem is that there are limitations to composition and use of macro and longer telephoto lenses as well as zoom lenses with rangefinders. Also, some folks just don't like focusing through them.
Whats-more, Leica build quality far exceeds those of most popular manufacturers. They hand-assemble their camera and lenses with higher quality materials and more tightly fitting parts. This results in cameras and lenses that feel very enjoyable to use but also that last through extreme abuse and continue to work well for decades.
Leica is also world renowned for the high optical performance of their lenses. They are virtually devoid of optical abberations commonly found in Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and other more popular lensmakers products.
Hope this is useful!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar