Flash

<p>After an almost 40-year hiatus from b&w, I've decided to return. I bought a brick of Tri-X, which is what I used to shoot 'back in the day'. My landscape pictures and general outdoor work is coming out good. However, I have been disappointed in the results indoors with flash.</p>

<p>Too many of my 'people shots' indoors with flash appear under exposed, too dark. I am using the same equipment I do with chromes and colour print films, but the results are disappointing--a Leica M7 with either a Metz dedicated TTL flash or a Leica dedicated TTL flash. The same set up with colour has never been a problem.</p>

<p>I'm wondering whether TTL flash exposure is not suited to a b&w emulsion, and maybe I should dust off the old reliable Vivitar 283 rather than rely on TTL exposure? Or should I just shoot the Tri-X at ISO 320? Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Get another camera..... :) OK that was my Leica joke. First of all are you processing your own B&W? And if not how is it being done and the developer being used. Are these Digital prints or scans for the B&W? Do you scan yourself? And another ? Have you checked out the other dusty flash before you asked this so you could then brag how good the damn old thing is... I know sounds like a ramble but between all that you may have a few answers and a brown bucket of more questions.</p>

<p> TTL works great with B&W. Thing is B&W is subjective to the light and development where Color C-41 and e6 is about as standard that it can be.</p>

<p> Larry</p>

<p>Your shots are underexposed. How about giving them more exposure? Next time you shoot, rate the film at 320 and then at 200. Check the results. Use the speed which gives you the best results from then on. </p>

<p>Hi Jeffrey,</p>

<p>Flash works very well in black and white. Most of the pictures in my portfolio are taken with flash. Some questions:</p>

<p>1) How are you evaluating your black and white flash pictures? Are you printing them? Is someone else printing them? Or are you evaluating or scanning the the negatives?</p>

<p>2) If you have mixed flash and available light pictures on the same roll, are only the flash pictures under exposed? If you do not have a mixed roll, please shoot one and compare the shots. </p>

<p>3) Are you using TTL control on the flash unit i.e. is the camera controlling the flash? If so, try setting the flash unit to "AUTO" where the flash unit meters the scene rather than the camera. If the pictrues improve, send the camera back to Leica for repair. Yes, I realize you have shot color with the same set up, but color prints are usually corrected automatically in the printing process which can easily compensate for a stop or so under exposure. The compensation, if any, should be recorded on the back of each color print.</p>

<p>4) Last, but not least, what is the back ground for you indoor flash shots? A light or dark colored background can fool the TTL system, just as it can fool the meter and cause under or over exposure. In that case, simple flash compensation solves the problem. </p>

<p>I think what baffled me is that when I was shooting Tri-X decades ago indoors with flash, I don't recall having to do much about tweaking the exposure, and I didn't rate it at 320. Back then, I did do my own developing and printing. But now I don't have a darkroom set up and have no inclination (or room) to do so. I've been sending the work out to Dwayne's, which is where I used to send all my Kodachrome (naturally) and still send the E-6 work.</p>

<p>I am using the TTL control with either a Metz 32Z or a Leica SF20. I did dig out the old Vivitar 283 and will take comparison shots. Maybe, as Brooks suggsts, the camera is getting fooled by diffrent backgrounds.</p>

<p>I also have to get out my Canon F-1 gear and run a few rolls of Tri-X with the Canon 299T flash for comparison.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with the M7 and Metz. Some TTL systems were off-the-film, some were off-the-shutter-curtain. I suppose it's possible there are enough differences in emulsions to fool a TTL flash.</p>

<p>But I'd bet on other factors: differences in surroundings - light, contrast, etc.; the lab doing the processing and printing. </p>

<p>If I'd had to continue to rely on most labs for b&w processing and printing I'd have given it up entirely years ago. Even my two local pro labs that did excellent color work produced only competent and often mediocre results with b&w. Unless I could afford a custom lab tech to work with closely, I'd have switched completely to C-41 process b&w films.</p>

<p>If I can't get satisfactory results from a lab, I may just have to bite the bullet and do it myself. The developing is easily enough done in a bathroom, but I don't have the space for a full set up like I did years ago, a real good enlarger, trays, all the size papers, big paper cutter, a dedicated two-basin commercial sink, etc. I suppose I could develop the negatives and then scan them. When you shoot slides, you get lazy as there is nothing to do except wait for the finished product to come back.</p>

<p>I had tried C-41 process chromogenic b&w, but I just didn't like the 'look' of the end result.</p>

<p>Hi Jeffrey,</p>

 

 

<p>I set my darkroom up in our second bathroom. My setup will break down in less than 30 minutes and move to any storage area, in my case the garage. It takes about the same amount of time to set up.</p>

<p><br />Here are some pictures:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00R3X4-75697984.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00R3X4-75697984.jpg</a><br>

<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00R3XC-75699584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00R3XC-75699584.jpg</a></p>

<p>You will notice that even with the darkroom set up, the toilet and one sink are available for use.</p>

<p><br />The platform for the enlarger is built of plywood. The 2x4's supporting the rack are held by rafter hangers attached to the plywood ends. The ends are held at the bottom by 1x2's. The rack itself is nothing more than closet basket material from the local hardware store. It works great. Any chemicals drip into the tub and can easily be washed down the drain.</p>

<p><br />The bathroom window is blocked off by a piece of plywood with foam rubber glued to the sides to provide a tight seal. I painted the wood with latex paint - a primer coat followed by two coats of flat black. I painted the hardware with flat black spray paint.</p>

<p>This set up is light tight enough for printing, but probably not for loading film into tanks. Since we are renting, I do not wish to make an alterations to the house. I use a changing bag to load the developing tank, and develop in the kitchen using the kitchen sink.</p>

 

 

<p>Well, TTL or not, your camera must either be set to, or set, the proper aperture and shutter speed for the given light output. You can test this. Set up your flash meter and take a flash picture. Make note of what aperture the camera set to, then look at the flash meter. If they aren't the same the flash is putting out too little light, BUT if they are the same, then the problem is with development and printing.</p>

<p>Tri-X (as well as Plus-X) can suffer reciprocity failure at extremely short exposure durations (such as the ultra short flash from TTL and other auto flashes). At close range most flashes produce light that can range from 1/10,000 sec. to 1/50,000 sec. While normally we think of reciprocity failure occuring at long exposures, it can also occur at extremely short ones. Regardless of shutter setting, the film gets the flash duration as its effective exposure time. If outdoor fill flash, the light has less influence than expected. IIRC, Tri-X at exposures shorter than 1/10,000 sec. would need slightly more exposure. I generally go an extra half stop when shooting flash photos at close range with Tri-X. Not sure about other black & white films, this is just what I remember about Tri-X and Plus-X.</p>

<p>Brooks,<br>

Nice compact set up. I could do something like that. When I first started in photography in the late 60s, I shared a set up with a late uncle who was my mentor in the craft. He had a whole dedicated area of his basement, it was pretty much a professional set up. Plenty of room to work, shelves for everything, storage of the chemicals. It was a totally windowless room. When he moved on, I took the set up with me for a few years. Then I mostly went to colour and got rid of everything.</p>

<p>Mike,<br>

I'm going to try that, opening up a half stop with close subjects. In fact, the close subjects came darker, but the flash shots of subjects farther away exposed perfectly.</p>