Metering Technique...any problems here?

[Michael R]

Drew and I have a history of arguing about these things here and on APUG (Photrio now). But it’s all in good fun and neither of us ever gets bent out of shape.

Michael R,

Two things.

Your post is hilarious, and....
This totally explains why I like TMax and Delta 100 so much!!!

Thx!!!

[Michael R]

A few films have different curves. As you know, TMY-2 has a longer straight line than most current films, extending well further into the highlights. Acros is also like that. Then, as you also know, there is classic TXP which has a longer toe and relatively “upswept” curve.

But some other general purpose films do not differ much at all when it comes to “native” (your term) curves/tonality. The question you ask why bother marketing them if they are the same is a non starter. They are being sold by different companies, that’s why. They are competitive products.

Now, this is not to say there are no differences. They do differ in image structure characteristics - most noticeably graininess. However since we are talking large format, that’s a non issue unless one is making really big prints.

Different films may (or may not) also behave differently in terms of curve shape when processing with more exotic developers.

Delta has a slightly longer toe, Michael. FACT. And due to this, one can shoot TMax a full speed faster, or in effect place your shadow threshold values a full zone lower than Delta, and be on the straight line. FACT. All this is engineered in to the native curves of the respective film, Michael. I don't know where your get your ideas. If all these films are the "same" - then why do they even bother to market them all ????? Maybe you should go argue with the manufacturers rather than me. Now if I can be allowed to address a sincere question :

[Drew Wiley]

Delta 100 would be my less than ideal substitute for TMX100 if Kodak Alaris ever does take a final nose dive. It's spectral sensitivity is different, and long exposure curves with respect to deep contrast filters veer off quite a bit, unlike TMX100. I've experimented quite a bit regarding the pro and cons, mostly with respect to roll film applications. Once LF sizes are involved there are more options because such fine grain is no longer a priority. I distinctly prefer TMY400 to either TMX or Delta in sheet film sizes. FP4 is OK when things aren't blowing around - I rate it at 50 except in softer light. In other words, I sure hope Kodak stays around, but if it doesn't, I've got a workable Plan B.

[Vaughn]

Answer: As thick as a brick.
Question: In what way is my head and my negatives alike.

I usually just hope I have enough sheets of a film and keep good enough notes, so that if I blow the first few sheets, I have enough of the same to carry on and do it properly. A view on a light table says a lot, but the proof in is the printing. Rich beefy detailed shadows with small clear areas on the neg. Probably a stop 'overexposed' by some people's preferences.

Long exposure times for the prints, of course -- processes that create a printing-out image (such the image one sees after pulling the neg off one's cyanotype) can benefit from longer printing times. In any case, I get the shadows on the negative that works well with my processes and vision. The DR of the negs range about from 2.5 to 3.0. Whatever works.

Edited to add -- all this just means I expose and develop to match my 'normal' printing process.

[Alan Klein]

One thing so far needs to be said: those less concerned with going up to zone X and beyond are doing printing in a dark room. The same approach won’t yield as good results if you’re scanning. In that case you should strive for a little flatter, less contrast and dynamic range, to match the scanner’s linear range, and you add it back in post processing.

I do my development outside in a lab - "normal development". I don't use the zone system although the lab could pull and push if I ask. I expose so the picture fits into the range per my metering. I might add a grad ND filter for too bright skies. I then scan and keep the image in the middle of the histogram range by setting the black and white points just past the histogram range for each image. Then I adjust final exposure, contrast, curves, etc in Lightroom to satisfy my eyes.

Any recommendations?

[Alan Klein]

Yes, I'm sorry. I totally wrote the wrong word. I mean overexposed and wrote under....thank you for the clarification.

But this leads to another question....you mentioned 'when it comes to the print...'




In my case, I use a DSLR to scan my images. So, in this example, I overexposed the shot. Now when I take my DSLR image of the negative, I have found I can "push" and "pull" with my exposure. In this case being I overexposed, I can under expose my scan and get back some of the detail (Zone III on the rock).

But here's my question, is doing this with a DSLR or a flatbed scanner just as effective as contact printing or final printing?

I think it is as I've been able to recover some pretty good (bad) screwups with my DSLR scans. The only problem I've run into, well it's not so much a problem, but....I often don't know I have an exposure problem on my first scan. I have to process the negative and then "discover" it's overexposed and then go back and re-scan it.

I find that the shot when I bracket is where the picture sits closest to the middle of the histogram is the best exposure. You can see the histogram info after the prescan.

[Kiwi7475]

I do my development outside in a lab - "normal development". I don't use the zone system although the lab could pull and push if I ask. I expose so the picture fits into the range per my metering. I might add a grad ND filter for too bright skies. I then scan and keep the image in the middle of the histogram range by setting the black and white points just past the histogram range for each image. Then I adjust final exposure, contrast, curves, etc in Lightroom to satisfy my eyes.

Any recommendations?

That’s what I do as well, I scan at 48bit (color)/16 bit (b&w), which gives you plenty of latitude for adjusting later provided you don’t clip anything.

In terms of post-processing you have it exactly right, I also add localized dodge/burn as needed (sometimes nothing). Depending on taste you can also add/remove vignetting, a digital ND filter (gradations), etc.

And then the clone tool to get rid of dust and other artifacts!

[Doremus Scudder]

One thing so far needs to be said: those less concerned with going up to zone X and beyond are doing printing in a dark room. The same approach won’t yield as good results if you’re scanning. In that case you should strive for a little flatter, less contrast and dynamic range, to match the scanner’s linear range, and you add it back in post processing.

In other words, the "Normal" you are developing to is simply a different contrast index than that for traditional photo paper. In all other respects, the Zone System applies to scanning just as well as to "analog."

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

That’s what I do as well, I scan at 48bit (color)/16 bit (b&w), which gives you plenty of latitude for adjusting later provided you don’t clip anything.

In terms of post-processing you have it exactly right, I also add localized dodge/burn as needed (sometimes nothing). Depending on taste you can also add/remove vignetting, a digital ND filter (gradations), etc.

And then the clone tool to get rid of dust and other artifacts!

We're on the same wavelength here too. Thanks.

[Alan Klein]

In other words, the "Normal" you are developing to is simply a different contrast index than that for traditional photo paper. In all other respects, the Zone System applies to scanning just as well as to "analog."

Best,

Doremus

Doremus or anyone else who wants to jump in. Let's take your point one step further. I want to see if I can use your calculation methods whether zone system or other, to apply to my exposure settings and scanning to make it better and more consistent. A little challenge of thinking out of your usual box.

So when I shoot for "normal" development in a lab, I try to capture in the negative the full range in the exposure, if possible, from black blacks to white whites. As long as I can do that, then I can handle whatever I want to do in post-processing after scanning. The "pushing" and "pulling" occur then.

So if you were scanning and printing digitally rather than chemically, what adjustments would you do to your capture exposure settings to accomplish it to have the best negative to work with?