haste makes waste

John Bartley wrote:

I'm watching for a new meter at a price which will let me keep my house
mortgage free, but in the meantime, I've been applying the "sunny F/16"



The small incident meters are about $50 to $100 new . Used they aren't much
cheaper and you run the risk the thing might have a problem. The more
expensive models tend to add convience. The spot models are more money. The
best prices are from the large US based retailers. That means you'll have to
pay shipping but you'll find quite a few things for less then Canadian prices.



Nick

On 8/17/2004 3:44 AM John Bartley spake thus:

jjs wrote:

Do you recall the shadow and highlight readings? Three stops is quite a
pull, but if your metering was a off, and the scene was contrasty, you might
have inadvertently (does anyone do something Vertently?) done (dare I say
it?) a Zone Perfect negative.

Ummmm - meter?

Seriously though, I have a meter, quite old, a Sekonic with a selenium?
sensor and the readings that it gives me don't come anywhere near the
"sunny F/16" rule. I assume that the sensor has gone south. It always
wants me to expose at a second or 1/2 second regardless of the light.
I'm watching for a new meter at a price which will let me keep my house
mortgage free, but in the meantime, I've been applying the "sunny F/16"
rulle and it seems to have been working well.

You shouldn't let your experience with a bad selenium-cell meter sour you on
their use.

I have several old (many decades old) selenium meters, and not long ago got
the chance to test them against someone's "real" meter--a Sekonic, as I
recall. Turned out that the two that I use regularly--a Weston and a
GE--registered within *one stop* of the fancy, battery-using meter.

They're not as sensitive in low light, but they're plenty accurate within
their working ranges.

I got mine from eBay, for very cheap. You might have to pick through a couple
of bad ones, but if the meter works at all, chances are it works well. Worth
trying, anyway.

(I recommend the GE meters for ease of use. Unlike the Westons, you simply
take a reading, then read the f-stop directly from a scale where the needle
points. With the Weston, you have to transfer a light value reading from the
meter to the dial.)


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:15:34 -0400, John Bartley
wrote:

Now I've done it!

I have the week off, and there was a photo I've wanted to take for a
while now, so this morning when I thought the sun was just right, I set
up, donned the blackout curtain, got out my magnifier and negatives and
set up my shot.
The film is Ilford FP4, 125ASA and the conditions called for "sunny 16",
but as I finished the focussing I realised that the sun was moving
faster than I had expected, so I whipped the holder into the camera,
exposed the first side at 1/100 and the second side at 1/50. I've been
doing this as a learning exercise, so that I can get an idea of the
changes between exposure lengths, and it's been a good thing for me to
do so far.
What did I forget?
During the setup, I always have the aperture set at max open, f5.6. This
time, I forgot to close it down and recheck the focus. I know that the
focus should be ok, but now I have two very much overexposed negatives.
I guess that this is where I learn about modifying the developing
technique? I'll need to develop as if this was 400 or 800 film? I guess
there's some web searching and self educating in order now.

cheers


This afternoon I was developing some 4x5 negs from a recent trip to
Eastern Kentucky. One neg came out perfectly clear. Must've
forgotten to pull up the envelop on the TMX Readyload (3rd time in 2
years that's happened!) Luckily, I shot a duplicate on FP4+ (which I
usually NEVER do!)
Duh!
-Chase

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:15:34 -0400, John Bartley
wrote:

Now I've done it!

I have the week off, and there was a photo I've wanted to take for a
while now, so this morning when I thought the sun was just right, I set
up, donned the blackout curtain, got out my magnifier and negatives and
set up my shot.
The film is Ilford FP4, 125ASA and the conditions called for "sunny 16",
but as I finished the focussing I realised that the sun was moving
faster than I had expected, so I whipped the holder into the camera,
exposed the first side at 1/100 and the second side at 1/50. I've been
doing this as a learning exercise, so that I can get an idea of the
changes between exposure lengths, and it's been a good thing for me to
do so far.
What did I forget?
During the setup, I always have the aperture set at max open, f5.6. This
time, I forgot to close it down and recheck the focus. I know that the
focus should be ok, but now I have two very much overexposed negatives.
I guess that this is where I learn about modifying the developing
technique? I'll need to develop as if this was 400 or 800 film? I guess
there's some web searching and self educating in order now.

cheers


This afternoon I was developing some 4x5 negs from a recent trip to
Eastern Kentucky. One neg came out perfectly clear. Must've
forgotten to pull up the envelop on the TMX Readyload (3rd time in 2
years that's happened!) Luckily, I shot a duplicate on FP4+ (which I
usually NEVER do!)
Duh!
-Chase

"John Bartley" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:

No, you didn't overexpose - you merely "overcompensated
for shadows".

FWIW, should you ever win a lottery, Sinar has a shutter
that closes and
resets the aperture when you put in the film holder.




Well !!!

Just taking a break from my cramped and fume filled
darkroom / bathroom.
I've developed the first of the two overexposed negatives
and just have
to report. The web is a wonderfull resource. I cruised it
for the last
couple of hours and the information that I was able to
glean led me to
do the following:

1) mixed my usual Rodinal at a new ratio of 1:50 (always
used 1:25 before)
2) used a figure (ball parked from my web research) of 25%
time
reduction for each stop of overexposure, so the first one
was 18 min
-25% - 25% - 25% = 8 minutes.
3) agitated all of the steps 100%, but lightly enough to
just keep the
negative moving on the tray bottoms
4) washed in cold running water

The first inspection of this negative seems to show the
absolute
clearest, sharpest, best photo I've taken yet, of the
seventeen I've
taken so far (all documented)

I'm thrilled !!!

I think qualifies as winning at least a small lottery :-)
..

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

I am surprized that the negatives are not very low in
contrast. Have you tried printing them yet? What grade paper
do they print on? Generally a one stop pull will also lower
the contrast by about one paper grade. However, if your base
exposure gets the shadows well into the toe, as it often
toes when using ISO speeds, the contrast index may be higher
than expected because the shadows will by pushed up to a
more contrasty part of the film curve. Also, Rodinal may
loose nearly a stop from the ISO speed, depending on what
developer was used to get the ISO speed (it is supposed to
be specified. More complications, Ilford does not use the
ISO system because it gives developing instructions for a
lower contrast, something midway between diffusion and
condenser type negatiges. The speed is probably a bit lower
than the strict ISO speed would be.
Another complication: ISO speeds have practically no
safety factor. It is very common for there to be inadequate
shadow detail at the ISO speed. About 3/4 stop increase
often improves the tonal rendition. More, because of the
lack of safety factor films have a very limited
underexposure latitude but very great overexposure latitude.
About one stop is the maximum underexposure without severe
loss of shadow detail, about two stops is maximum with push
developing. Many modern films have an overexposure latitude
of 10 to 12 stops. This is not the brightness range, mind
you, but the amount of error in exposure the film will
tollerate and still record a reasonable image. Three stops
is nothing. Minimum exposure that gives good shadow detail
results in the least grainy and sharpest negatives but the
tone rendition will stay the same over a very long range of
exposure error.
I find using a view camera as sort of Zen experience. One
must be relaxed and concentrated on the operation. It is so
easy to forget something, such as locking down the back
after focusing so it isn't displaced when the holder is put
in, or stopping down (I generally check both focus and depth
of field at the operating stop). Or pulling out the
darkslide (I use mine for lens shades, even if I have a real
lenshade. Sort of a safety precaution. Oh golly, I didn't
really do that... did I?


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"John Bartley" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:

No, you didn't overexpose - you merely "overcompensated
for shadows".

FWIW, should you ever win a lottery, Sinar has a shutter
that closes and
resets the aperture when you put in the film holder.




Well !!!

Just taking a break from my cramped and fume filled
darkroom / bathroom.
I've developed the first of the two overexposed negatives
and just have
to report. The web is a wonderfull resource. I cruised it
for the last
couple of hours and the information that I was able to
glean led me to
do the following:

1) mixed my usual Rodinal at a new ratio of 1:50 (always
used 1:25 before)
2) used a figure (ball parked from my web research) of 25%
time
reduction for each stop of overexposure, so the first one
was 18 min
-25% - 25% - 25% = 8 minutes.
3) agitated all of the steps 100%, but lightly enough to
just keep the
negative moving on the tray bottoms
4) washed in cold running water

The first inspection of this negative seems to show the
absolute
clearest, sharpest, best photo I've taken yet, of the
seventeen I've
taken so far (all documented)

I'm thrilled !!!

I think qualifies as winning at least a small lottery :-)
..

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

I am surprized that the negatives are not very low in
contrast. Have you tried printing them yet? What grade paper
do they print on? Generally a one stop pull will also lower
the contrast by about one paper grade. However, if your base
exposure gets the shadows well into the toe, as it often
toes when using ISO speeds, the contrast index may be higher
than expected because the shadows will by pushed up to a
more contrasty part of the film curve. Also, Rodinal may
loose nearly a stop from the ISO speed, depending on what
developer was used to get the ISO speed (it is supposed to
be specified. More complications, Ilford does not use the
ISO system because it gives developing instructions for a
lower contrast, something midway between diffusion and
condenser type negatiges. The speed is probably a bit lower
than the strict ISO speed would be.
Another complication: ISO speeds have practically no
safety factor. It is very common for there to be inadequate
shadow detail at the ISO speed. About 3/4 stop increase
often improves the tonal rendition. More, because of the
lack of safety factor films have a very limited
underexposure latitude but very great overexposure latitude.
About one stop is the maximum underexposure without severe
loss of shadow detail, about two stops is maximum with push
developing. Many modern films have an overexposure latitude
of 10 to 12 stops. This is not the brightness range, mind
you, but the amount of error in exposure the film will
tollerate and still record a reasonable image. Three stops
is nothing. Minimum exposure that gives good shadow detail
results in the least grainy and sharpest negatives but the
tone rendition will stay the same over a very long range of
exposure error.
I find using a view camera as sort of Zen experience. One
must be relaxed and concentrated on the operation. It is so
easy to forget something, such as locking down the back
after focusing so it isn't displaced when the holder is put
in, or stopping down (I generally check both focus and depth
of field at the operating stop). Or pulling out the
darkslide (I use mine for lens shades, even if I have a real
lenshade. Sort of a safety precaution. Oh golly, I didn't
really do that... did I?


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"John Bartley" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:

No, you didn't overexpose - you merely "overcompensated
for shadows".

FWIW, should you ever win a lottery, Sinar has a shutter
that closes and
resets the aperture when you put in the film holder.




Well !!!

Just taking a break from my cramped and fume filled
darkroom / bathroom.
I've developed the first of the two overexposed negatives
and just have
to report. The web is a wonderfull resource. I cruised it
for the last
couple of hours and the information that I was able to
glean led me to
do the following:

1) mixed my usual Rodinal at a new ratio of 1:50 (always
used 1:25 before)
2) used a figure (ball parked from my web research) of 25%
time
reduction for each stop of overexposure, so the first one
was 18 min
-25% - 25% - 25% = 8 minutes.
3) agitated all of the steps 100%, but lightly enough to
just keep the
negative moving on the tray bottoms
4) washed in cold running water

The first inspection of this negative seems to show the
absolute
clearest, sharpest, best photo I've taken yet, of the
seventeen I've
taken so far (all documented)

I'm thrilled !!!

I think qualifies as winning at least a small lottery :-)
..

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

I am surprized that the negatives are not very low in
contrast. Have you tried printing them yet? What grade paper
do they print on? Generally a one stop pull will also lower
the contrast by about one paper grade. However, if your base
exposure gets the shadows well into the toe, as it often
toes when using ISO speeds, the contrast index may be higher
than expected because the shadows will by pushed up to a
more contrasty part of the film curve. Also, Rodinal may
loose nearly a stop from the ISO speed, depending on what
developer was used to get the ISO speed (it is supposed to
be specified. More complications, Ilford does not use the
ISO system because it gives developing instructions for a
lower contrast, something midway between diffusion and
condenser type negatiges. The speed is probably a bit lower
than the strict ISO speed would be.
Another complication: ISO speeds have practically no
safety factor. It is very common for there to be inadequate
shadow detail at the ISO speed. About 3/4 stop increase
often improves the tonal rendition. More, because of the
lack of safety factor films have a very limited
underexposure latitude but very great overexposure latitude.
About one stop is the maximum underexposure without severe
loss of shadow detail, about two stops is maximum with push
developing. Many modern films have an overexposure latitude
of 10 to 12 stops. This is not the brightness range, mind
you, but the amount of error in exposure the film will
tollerate and still record a reasonable image. Three stops
is nothing. Minimum exposure that gives good shadow detail
results in the least grainy and sharpest negatives but the
tone rendition will stay the same over a very long range of
exposure error.
I find using a view camera as sort of Zen experience. One
must be relaxed and concentrated on the operation. It is so
easy to forget something, such as locking down the back
after focusing so it isn't displaced when the holder is put
in, or stopping down (I generally check both focus and depth
of field at the operating stop). Or pulling out the
darkslide (I use mine for lens shades, even if I have a real
lenshade. Sort of a safety precaution. Oh golly, I didn't
really do that... did I?


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"John Bartley" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:

No, you didn't overexpose - you merely "overcompensated
for shadows".

FWIW, should you ever win a lottery, Sinar has a shutter
that closes and
resets the aperture when you put in the film holder.




Well !!!

Just taking a break from my cramped and fume filled
darkroom / bathroom.
I've developed the first of the two overexposed negatives
and just have
to report. The web is a wonderfull resource. I cruised it
for the last
couple of hours and the information that I was able to
glean led me to
do the following:

1) mixed my usual Rodinal at a new ratio of 1:50 (always
used 1:25 before)
2) used a figure (ball parked from my web research) of 25%
time
reduction for each stop of overexposure, so the first one
was 18 min
-25% - 25% - 25% = 8 minutes.
3) agitated all of the steps 100%, but lightly enough to
just keep the
negative moving on the tray bottoms
4) washed in cold running water

The first inspection of this negative seems to show the
absolute
clearest, sharpest, best photo I've taken yet, of the
seventeen I've
taken so far (all documented)

I'm thrilled !!!

I think qualifies as winning at least a small lottery :-)
..

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

I am surprized that the negatives are not very low in
contrast. Have you tried printing them yet? What grade paper
do they print on? Generally a one stop pull will also lower
the contrast by about one paper grade. However, if your base
exposure gets the shadows well into the toe, as it often
toes when using ISO speeds, the contrast index may be higher
than expected because the shadows will by pushed up to a
more contrasty part of the film curve. Also, Rodinal may
loose nearly a stop from the ISO speed, depending on what
developer was used to get the ISO speed (it is supposed to
be specified. More complications, Ilford does not use the
ISO system because it gives developing instructions for a
lower contrast, something midway between diffusion and
condenser type negatiges. The speed is probably a bit lower
than the strict ISO speed would be.
Another complication: ISO speeds have practically no
safety factor. It is very common for there to be inadequate
shadow detail at the ISO speed. About 3/4 stop increase
often improves the tonal rendition. More, because of the
lack of safety factor films have a very limited
underexposure latitude but very great overexposure latitude.
About one stop is the maximum underexposure without severe
loss of shadow detail, about two stops is maximum with push
developing. Many modern films have an overexposure latitude
of 10 to 12 stops. This is not the brightness range, mind
you, but the amount of error in exposure the film will
tollerate and still record a reasonable image. Three stops
is nothing. Minimum exposure that gives good shadow detail
results in the least grainy and sharpest negatives but the
tone rendition will stay the same over a very long range of
exposure error.
I find using a view camera as sort of Zen experience. One
must be relaxed and concentrated on the operation. It is so
easy to forget something, such as locking down the back
after focusing so it isn't displaced when the holder is put
in, or stopping down (I generally check both focus and depth
of field at the operating stop). Or pulling out the
darkslide (I use mine for lens shades, even if I have a real
lenshade. Sort of a safety precaution. Oh golly, I didn't
really do that... did I?


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
...

I am surprized that the negatives are not very low in
contrast. Have you tried printing them yet? What grade paper
do they print on? Generally a one stop pull will also lower
the contrast by about one paper grade. However, [... snip good stuff ...]

Richard, just out of curiosity - when is the last time you saw Agfa paper
#6? Ah, the good ole days.

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
...

I am surprized that the negatives are not very low in
contrast. Have you tried printing them yet? What grade paper
do they print on? Generally a one stop pull will also lower
the contrast by about one paper grade. However, [... snip good stuff ...]

Richard, just out of curiosity - when is the last time you saw Agfa paper
#6? Ah, the good ole days.