joseph_michael1

<p>Answer to quiz question!<br> Underexposure and/or overdevelopment increases texture because it increases the grain. Over development increase contrast because they preferentially affect highlights - pushing them farther towards the shoulder and away from shadows. <br> Score one for the first year analog photographer!<br> BTW yes, craggy old coots smoke parliaments. I will have to try that trick (pulling film) once I get around to proper pushing :) </p>

<p>Thanks Glen!</p>

<p>Andrew, James, and Glen, <br> After carefully reading your responses (and thanks again - I am only just beginning to understand this!), I think the active phrase is "Maintaining the relationship between the tones." So I am actually saying, well, this bright sky (which may in reality be a zone 9) I want to capture detail, so I will set it as my Zone VII, and adjust, accordingly, my developing time to scrunch that value down. <br> Or, from what Ive learned, add a compensating developer in special instances, aka Ive got to check out Diafine, but Im going to learn the ins and outs of D76 first ;) <br> Thank you all!!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Btw that pic was very much edited in light room so as to be usable...thanks all!</p>

<p > Glenn and Larry, </p> <p >I know I was shooting mostly at f2 and 30, sometimes 60 in dimly lit indoors. MAYBE once I shot at f2 and 15. Theres a smattering of pictures that turned out ok, but most were faces of shadows!</p> <p >Also - It is a good point that meters dont work very well in low light - and I forgot that!</p> <p >Plus, everything I shot outside of the home was fine- high contrast, but midtones, shadows, and highlights were plainly visible. </p> <p >What is extra worrisome is that, indeed, pictures with a spare kitchen light or outdoor window do seem to be much darker. I think I made a noob mistake, and that exposure is the issue.... </p> <p >I guess thats the issue..because according to your pdf dev times were acceptable. </p> <p>But in some scenes with only milky darkness, Im getting jet back shadow and a lot of grain (see pic below). This was taken at night indoors...<br> <a href="/photo/18136417&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/18136417&size=lg</a><br /><br /><br> And Btw Larry thats awesome. You were a crime scene photographer? </p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Thank you all! I am sure this information will be useful for my next series of pushing film - I will have to push my Xmas photos as well, but I will practice before hand this time :)<br /> I used a 1+1 dilution of D76, which I always do. I use that particular dilution because I hear that it has a "compensating effect" which lowers the contrast of the image, and I usually shoot high contrast scenes and that squishes the image back into place. I have not yet deviated from that dilution for any purposes. <br /> It seems abundantly clear that the lower temperatures are not helping, and I will experiment at 68 for 14 minutes, combined with getting a better exposure...I set my ISO to 1600 and used center weighted metering on subjects in front of me.<br /> BUT the confusing thing is that the outside shots look normal - but the inside shots..oh no! Attached are the proofs.<br /> Any more help or insight is greatly appreciated !<br /> <img src="/photo/18136396" alt="" /><img src="/photo/18136395" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thank you James!</p>

<p>Thank you Maris!</p>

<p>Glen, </p> <p>Thanks again. OOOH I see. You are literally deciding to place that tone at a zone on the print. </p> <p>Perhaps I will just use the quick and dirty methods of metering that you use!</p> <p>Cheers, <br> -M</p>

<p>Thanks glen. I also used D76, which I heard, for some reason, isnt that great for pushing? It sort proves the maxim that you should try anything radical on anything important. And thus my family thanksgiving pics turned into mush! </p>

<p>Just curious..thank you!</p>

<p>Or does it work by leaving some silver undeveloped in the highlights? Or does it compress the range of the negative, similar to a graduated ND filter? </p> <p>Confusion!</p>