Hi Frank, The only time I see anything from Caveman is when his comments are posted by others, in response to his messages. In this case his suggestion to refrain from referring to Adams work is just nonsense. What Adams did can still be translated to the use of roll film. After all, did not Adams himself use roll film cameras and use some or all of his well learned techniques?
Now that my rant is done, allow me to address your specific issue. One must accept that film has a certain latitude, and that some over and under exposure, without any processing adjustment, will still allow for printable negatives. If you shoot numerous frames such as those with Ricky, all of which you've "overexposed", you have the option of shooting the rest of the roll in the same manner, which, when processed, will yield printable negs with lots of good shadow detail. I've shot TX at 1 stop over in shade with compensated (not compensatING!) development and gotten gorgeous results. Of course, I knew exactly what I was doing and exactly how the film was going to be processed. Had the roll just been handed over to a lab to let them do what they do, the results would not have been quite so good ;-)) The problem comes, as has been suggested, when you're trying to mix your exposure choices on one roll - some over, some normal, maybe some under, and shooting in widely varying lighting situations. There, then, you have to find a processing time that will give acceptable results for the wider range of exposures you've created, or decide to process the roll for the most important photos it contains, and let the rest fall where they may. Of course, if one understands Adams work, which also implies understanding something about how film works with developers, one would also understand the latitude available for such situations. IIRC, he even addresses that situation in one of his books. In general, you can't go too far wrong if you just cut back on development time. Some frames will yield flat results, but they will be printable quite readily. Another option is to do what many photogs do ... if the light changes appreciably during the time you're shooting a particular roll of film, change the film. Then each roll can be optimized for a given shooting session. It's not as odd as it sounds, and, speaking for myself, I've done it numerous times. In fact, I bet you have as well. Think of the times you've left the house with a 100 speed film in the camera, shot about 1/2 the roll, and then found yourself in, for example, a tavern or a night club later in the day. If you've had the foresight to bring several different speed films you might well do a mid roll rewind and replace the slower film with a higher speed film. So, when shooting in varying lighting situations, change the film accordingly based on expected processing times and techniques. When you've got something you're photographing that's important to you, shoot for that scenario, and the hell with exposing the rest of the roll, or save the balance of the roll for a similar situation at a later time. But, Frank, here's where we go back to another conversation we had a couple of months ago, in which we discussed that, even though you don't have to process your own film and make your own prints, knowing how to do so properly is an advantage. If you understand the light, understand your emulsions and the possibilities available for development, you'll know just how far you can go from "normal" exposure and "normal" processing and still get good or acceptable results with a roll of mixed exposures. And then I'll come back to my original suggestion, the easy and mostly effective method: just shoot a stop or a stop and a half over for the whole roll, regardless of the lighting, and cut back the development time. Bada Bing! That'll cover most of your situations. Paul has suggested one range of speed and development variation, Bill Robb something different, and my suggestions seem to be between the two somewhere. We're all correct because we each have our own shooting styles, developer preferences, processes for agitation, different water at our homes, and so forth. A little bit of testing will allow you to arrive at the figures that work best for you. IAC, there is no "perfect" solution to shooting a roll of 36 exposures in widely mixed lighting situations and with a wide variety of subjects. Ideally you should avoid such scenarios <LOL>. Think of the number of photographers, some even considered great, who essentially eschew mid-day photography unless the sky is overcast. But, if you can't, you have to make some decisions as to what's most important, or where and how you want to compromise. Even when shooting "normally" and processing "normally" you're going to miss the ideal exposure or the ideal development time for some frames. That's just part of the price one pays for having the option to make 36 exposures under a variety of conditions. To ignore what Adams has to teach us, or what any skilled photographer has to teach us, just because it doesn't fit everything we are doing today or tomorrow, is foolish. What you learn today will be applicable down the line. Remember, the more you know the better your luck <vbg>. Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 10/22/2004 3:40:48 PM > Subject: Re: Proper Exposure ( wasRe: Ricky's Kung Fu Pose) > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:47:07 -0700, Shel Belinkoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm an impatient person, and wasn't able to read all that Adams published > > on the Zone System. For some, myself included, it can be daunting. But, > > the basic premise is simple, and understanding the general principle is > > really all that's needed to make a great improvement in our results, > > especially when using roll film. Thinking is a Good Thing ;-)) > > > > Shel > > Hi, Shel, > > You e-mailed me off list, and I still haven't had a chance to answer > that. But, since your e-mail was essentially what's being discussed > here, I'll ask you directly what Caveman brought up, since it may be > of interest to other list member still shooting black and white (all 6 > of us <g>). > > Since about 10 frames were of Ricky, and 26 were other, less > challenging situations, how can I expose for the shadows and cut back > developing time? Won't that affect the other 26 frames that may > (note, I said ~may~ <vbg>) have been properly exposed? > > I have to admit that, most likely, were I proficient with photoshop, I > could fix up the background somewhat. Maybe I can fool around with > it, and see what I can do, or maybe someone wants to try it as a WOW, > then tell me what they did? > > I know that doesn't really address the real problem, which is that I > exposed more or less properly, but didn't follow it up by telling my > lab how to deal with it. > > Still, I await your advice re: the rest of the roll. > > thanks, > frank > > Just curious... > > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
