Metering Technique...any problems here?

[AdamD]

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...'

When it comes time to print, it will just take a longer exposure to get that rock back down to Zone III -- and depending on where the highlights fell and how you developed the film, the highlights might take some skill to handle nicely.

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.

[Vaughn]

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

Scanning can pick up detail in the shadows that are difficult to work with in silver gelatin printing. Scanning will have problems with blocked up highlights. There are work-arounds -- for example if your DSLR can not fit all the values of the negative onto its histogram in one go (too much contrast), two images can be made, one for shadow detail and one for highlight detail, then combined -- HDR stuff I guess they call it.

Negatives that are to be scanned typically have lower contrast...well exposed shadows and no blocked up highlights. All the info is there to be used or discarded as desired for the image.

But if one is going to make wet prints -- contact or enlarged -- then the negative can be crafted specifically for one's print material, chemicals, and process.

And it is the same when crafting an enlarged inkjet negative from the scans for contact printing alt and silver processes. As long as you got all the info you need on the neg, then into the scan, then you can make a negative to match whatever printing process you are using.

What do you see as your final product? On screen image, inkjet print, silver print, alt process print?

[AdamD]

That's interesting. It seems most often that I shoot in high contrast situations. My digital histogram looks like a "tooth"!!

I never thought about making an HDR negative!! I should just try it and see.

[Joe O'Hara]

Joe, I'm one of those persons who finds Barnbaum's advice ludicrous and counterproductive. Why even buy a light meter if you have to be that paranoid about shadows? With certain films like Super XX or Bergger 200, I've even placed the deepest shadow values on Zone 0 with complete predictability. Only with Pan F do I ever use ZIII for sake of shadow detail threshold. Is Barnbaum's meter three stops off, or does he just think a good negative is one that needs dynamite to crack through all that needless extra density?
TMax 400 will begin to hit the straight line around Zone 1-1/2 with most developers except compensating ones like D23. And I never need to fight shadows; they do exactly what I want. Crisp separation, no problem. And not overexposing the shadows is the best way not to blow out the highlights with TMax films, while retaining excellent tonal separation in between. Glad I never spent a dime on any of Barnbaum's how-to books. I like many of his pictures, but am convinced he did some the hard-headed hard way.

Drew, I think it depends on things like what developer you use and how you "rate" the film. For me, placing shadows on Zone III and using box speed ISO results in anemic density there that is hard to print. If course if you rate a box speed 400 ISO film at 200 based on your own testing, you'll get exactly the same results as mine if you place the shadows on Zone III. Probably if I were still using Xtol I would get similar results placing shadows on Zone III-1/2. BTW I have two Pentax digital spotmeters and they agree with each other and are exactly right on with exposure for color reversal film.

My negatives are by no means bulletproof, as Barnbaum's are said to be. You could probably read a newspaper through the high tones if you put it on the light table. There's nothing to be gained from more exposure once the detail and contrast you want is recorded, I think we can all agree with that.

Books, advice from others, and data sheets are all a starting point, like a recipe. A good cook knows when to stop cooking!

[Drew Wiley]

Joe, I'm glad you are getting negatives satisfactory for your own expectations. But for the record, TMax films are easily capable of high gamma development, and are in fact among the most flexible films ever made in terms of development. That's what they were engineered to do, essentially replacing multiple previous films, or at least that was the idea, although people whined back then with the discontinuance of Plus-X Pan, Super-XX, and nearly Tri-X, due to the silver bullet of TMax with its sheer versatility. Because of its very long straight line in most developers, one can rely on much lower zones than III and still have excellent shadow gradation. I gave up on both D23 and D76 long ago in favor of pyro and certain other developers. But by using of D23, you're creating more of a long upswept toe on this film than is typical, in effect, making it behave more like old Plus-X Pan itself. I've done hundreds of densitometer plots with TMax films for all kinds of applications and respective developers, so understand its curves very well.

As far as the "thick neg" school of men like Barnbaum and Tice goes, I wonder how much of that is simply a holdover from azo and pt/pd days with Tri-X addicts. It doesn't make much sense for silver printers today.

[AdamD]

Drew, are you saying or suggesting that TMax has a broader exposure tolerance? So for instance, you can place "Zone III" on Zone II?

If this is true, you may have identified something for me. My eye has been gravitating towards TMax for some time. I really like the blacks. They tend to look jet black. I've stated re-learning on FP4+ and one of my gripes is that it looks too grey. The blacks are not inky black.

Now for possibly misguided reasons, my eye also gravitates to Delta 100. Any thoughts on how to meter Delta 100?

Thx!!

[Michael R]

In the case of Barnbaum, it appears to be a classic case of “not getting what you think you’re getting”. He talks in detail about sensitometry but at the same time proclaims he has never owned a densitometer. I’m certainly not suggesting anyone needs a densitometer to make great prints, but if you are going to teach people about sensitometry and use diagrams of characteristic curves to support your exposure and development stuff, then I would say it is problematic to not have done any actual sensitometry.

Tice is in a totally different category. He’s not basing his technique on anything like that. It’s sheer decades and decades of having done things in a relatively simple way which works perfectly fine for both silver and platinum. Tice has never been interested in the minutiae of film curves. It’s Tri-X for everything, and killer printing/finishing.

[Michael R]

Drew, are you saying or suggesting that TMax has a broader exposure tolerance? So for instance, you can place "Zone III" on Zone II?

If this is true, you may have identified something for me. My eye has been gravitating towards TMax for some time. I really like the blacks. They tend to look jet black. I've stated re-learning on FP4+ and one of my gripes is that it looks too grey. The blacks are not inky black.

Now for possibly misguided reasons, my eye also gravitates to Delta 100. Any thoughts on how to meter Delta 100?

Thx!!

Be careful. Drew has very strange beliefs on these things. For example, he will no doubt tell you TMX 100 has a short toe and Delta 100 has a long toe and/or that Ilford’s ISO speed ratings are optimistic (?). Nope. Those two films are virtually identical in “tonality” (tonality being nothing more obscure or complicated than a simple characteristic curve). As for FP4+, also the same.

Attached is an example - comparison of TMX 100 and Delta 100.

[AdamD]

Michael R,

Two things.

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

Thx!!!

[Drew Wiley]

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 :

Adam - Let me phrase it this way, from a logistical standpoint. TMax films are not very forgiving of exposure errors. In other words, they're not a good choice for someone who wants to rely on exposure "latitude" in lieu of careful metering. But they are very versatile films. For example, if I want extreme shadow separation in a high contrast scene, TMax is the best choice out there now that classic straight line films like Super XX are gone. But if you underexpose it a bit, then you will get hard black shadow placement, those kind of pure graphic blacked-out shadows reminiscent of Brett Weston's work, for example. With a longer toed film, a bit of underexposure is still likely to give you some shadow gradation, but not as well defined. FP4 would be a good choice for that kind of thing - a long straight line but somewhat more toe. (FACT, Michael).
That's why FP4 is more popular with beginners. I use it too, but for slightly different applications than TMax. For instance, TMax is way more versatile at high altitude or out in the desert where contrasts tend to be extreme. It will handle everything from deep shadows to shiny full sun ice glare in the same shot without resorting to minus development, whereas FP4 will not.