Highly dependent on the lighting and scene. Incident light meter reading work if the lighting is mostly uniform within the scene without intense sunny sky and extremely dark shaded areas. To make this large range of light intensity to work, will require some Foto futzing and how that large range of light intensity wants to be rendered on the print.
Bernice
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
Yes, it works when the scene fits into the normal characteristics, “dynamic range, if you will allow that phrase, of the film. We absolutely agree. When the scene exceeds that or there is a desire for specific rendering then spot meter is a necessary tool. I think, especially for a beginner or someone struggling to expose correctly/consistently that denouncing time-honored and effective, albeit within certain limitations, exposure methods like incident and general-coverage reflected metering may not be all that helpful. They could be part of the road to success, and knowledge of when to meter differently is essential for creative growth. I’m totally perplexed why the OP is getting the variability that we have been shown, but convinced that making the process more complicated will not make finding the source of process error any easier. Back to simplicity and square-one might be best at this point.
Yes and much agreed. Incident light meter reading work.. If the light dynamic range in the scene to be images is not large. Once the light dynamic range is large, making a good-printable B&W image is a real challenge. This is where mastery of technique and photographic materials used becomes a must.
In the keep it simple goal, best to stay away from making images with lots of bright sunny sky combined with dark shady areas in the beginning. Once some mastery of how this B&W stuff works, then more scenes with more challenging lighting can be tried.
BTW, since the early 1980's.. never used B&W negative film at "box rated" speed. That does not accomplish what is needed for the prints to be done.
Bernice
LOL, Bernice we've been LF photographers for about the same amount of time yet have totally different experiences. To be exact, February of 1980 for me and with 35mm photography experience before that. (I'll never forget that because a dear friend and colleague sold me an enlarger and threw in a SuperGraphic. I still have the receipt from taking it to Graflex Western Division to replace the missing GG and Ektalite. I could have been one of their last customers!)
I almost never use something other than box speed. I also process "by the spec sheet". Not very adventurous, huh? At times, I've been told by another photographer that my negs were "a bit thin" but never had one that wasn't printable as I desired. Oh well.. that's a difference between you and me, our methods, and our expectations I suppose.
I'm well aware of your on-going philosophy that it's all about the print, and I don't disagree, but in this case it isn't... it's about getting negs that show consistent exposure. I'm totally perplexed by Havoc's situation. What I know for sure is that LF photography actually works as advertised, even when exposure metering and exposure methods aren't optimal. Havoc should not be seeing so much difference in his negs. That isn't normal under any circumstances if the process was really consistent. LF photogprhy isn't "broken" as Havoc might be feeling at this time.
Last edited by BrianShaw; 9-Jun-2021 at 15:24. Reason: fixed the last edit, which was out of place
Heh... we have been at this view camera stuff for too many decades.. with too many ingrained habits gained along the way.
Equally perplexed with why Havoc's situation persist, out of insatiable curiosity and want to understand has been the passion and motivation for trying to figure this out.
"Thin" negatives are not always bad, it comes down to the print. Too much overall density in the negative can result in a absurd to print negative with a lot more grain in the print than could be with a lower density negative. This and a very long list of other reasons on the print making journey is why all that lens-camera and hardware stuff is at best one component of what results in the finished print.
That said, a bit of incident light meter "needle_ing".. These images have been posted in LFF before. How does incident metering apply to these two images (made circa early 90's):
The only significant source of light in this room is from that window..
Much the same with this image:
The prints are MUCH better than these low quality quick_ie scans done many years ago. None of the details on white or shadow details are seen on the digital version (and yes, futzing with print making via Durst 138 and etc... makes a very real difference).
Bernice
LOL, Bernice we've been LF photographers for about the same amount of time yet have totally different experiences. To be exact, February of 1980 for me and with 35mm photography experience before that. I almost never use something other than box speed. I also process "by the spec sheet". Not very adventurous, huh? At times, I've been told by another photographer that my negs were "a bit thin" but never had one that wasn't printable as I desired. Oh well.. that's a difference between you and me, our methods, and our expectations I suppose.
I'm well aware of your on-going philosophy that it's all about the print, and I don't disagree, but in this case it isn't... it's about getting negs that show consistent exposure. I'm totally perplexed by Havoc's situation. (I'll never forget that because a dear friend and colleague sold me an enlarger and threw in a SuperGraphic. I still have the receipt from taking it to Graflex Western Division to replace the missing GG and Ektalite. I could have been one of their last customers!)
What I know for sure is that LF photography actually works as advertised, even when exposure metering and exposure methods aren't optimal. Havoc should not be seeing so much difference in his negs. That isn't normal under any circumstances if the process was really consistent. LF photogprhy isn't "broken" as Havoc might be feeling at this time.
Easy quiz... it doesn't (or shouldn't).How does incident metering apply to these two images (made circa early 90's)
You’re not doing anything wrong, as you know. You’re just ignoring a lot of bad information.
Yea, some element in the chain is causing this...You’re not doing anything wrong, as you know. You’re just ignoring a lot of bad information.
It's like being a chef... Your soup might be near perfect, but you can't serve it up if there's a fly in it... Get the fly out, and enjoy...
I'm on the road right now, but will post some other suggestions later... Good suggestions posted here, but you gotta find that fly!!!
Steve K
Looking at your samples (before), it is clear there is a big difference with the overall density of the negatives... I think not the developing because on the thinner negs, there is a lack of detail in the shadow areas...
The film ISO rating is based on how much light it takes to start the density reaction in the darkest (thinnest) part of the negative, where you have the start of shadow detail... This is controlled by exposure level... This level is fairly constant even with differing development... It develops early in the processing, and stays constant unless over developed and a layer of fog comes in...
As development proceedes, the highlight areas have more activity until they block up the density (d-max)... These areas become harder to print through...
I think that the lack of shadow information is being caused by lack of sufficient exposure, while the overall energy of the image is also lower...
Underdevelopment would allow shadow detail to be there, but highlights would be flat and weak, but not enough exposure would cause the shadow information to not be recorded...
I think something like a malfunctioning shutter or not setting iris correctly is likely...
It seems to be about exposure level, as just some variation of developing would affect the density somewhat less than the range of differences you have...
Steve K
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks