Second attempt ever at B&W

<p>Not sure if this is the correct forum for this question. I have an OM-1 that I ocassionally(ok rarely) pull out and use, I tell myself to do it more because it really is flat out an enjoyable experience, the fully manual experience is just so theraputic. I know that is an overused term but damn it that's what it is. And the viewfinder, ohhh the viewfinder size.</p>

<p>Anyhow, I picked up a roll of Kodak C-41 B&W, CN400 and took the OM-1 out on a walk with me during a deer hunting trip. Yes I was in the woods snapping pictures while my die hard hunting brothers were waiting for me! LOL. I got them developed at local CVS and got 4x6 prints and CD.</p>

<p>I know this may not be the forum for C&C but I would just like a quick look see from some folks to let me know if I'm at least on the right path of getting B&W exposed correctly. My first attempt last year was with T-MAX and I underexposed everything! So this time I exposed pretty much everything OVER by at least 1/3 some times 1/2 to +1 since everything was snow covered and I figured the meter on the OM was going to try to underexpose it. Here is one of the better one's I feel. Any thoughts on if this is correctly exposed and would any filters help with B&W. Sorry, total noob at B&W but do want to make this a more frequent thing.</p>

<p>BTW. As a note, I am pretty sure I need to clean the mirror on the OM-1. Last time I had film scanned I thought it was the scanner, pretty sure I need to do a little housekeeping on the mirror! Sorry.<br>

<img src="http://dynamicsportsimages.com/Other/For-Linking/032/734751824_5qzYU-M.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="450" /></p>

<p>Larger file maybe?<br>

<img src="http://dynamicsportsimages.com/Other/For-Linking/032/734751824_5qzYU-XL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Brian, Firstly, yes you are on the right track. Thats a nice shot and looks good on my screen but; its very difficult to say if the exposure is "correct" without seeing the negative. Personaly I would like to see a little more detail in the dark trees without blowing the snow out. This may be done with a combination of exposure, developing and printing and of course depends on the detail in the scene.<br>

To answer your questions fully would take pages as there is quite a bit to it but Goggle or look on this site for exposure tips and using exposure meters.</p>

<p>Generally 1/3 or even 1/2 a stop is not much with the type of shots you are taking at the moment on black and white film though you are correct in saying this snow scene will need overexposing if you are using a relected light meter and taking readings from snow (because the meter will want the bright snow to be middle grey)</p>

<p>Not sure what you mean about the mirror but remember the mirror will flip out of the way as the shot is taken so a dirty mirror will not effect the quality of the negative.<br>

Hope that helps a bit.</p>

<p>Jim,<br>

Thanks, your second paragraph is what I was looking for, that type of info, i.e. with B&W film what type of exposure compensation do I need to be making in order to get the details in the light to dark areas. I honeslty was expecting most of these to be blown but they weren't. I will defintely be doing more research because the more I look at these the more I like, and maybe I will get a film body to go with my Nikon lenses to add to the "experience".<br>

Interstingly, the printed 4x6's I got have a slight yellowish/green cat to them and seem a little darker compared to what I see on my calibrated monitor, I like what I see on my monitor better. Which leads me to another question, If I want to get larger prints of some of the shots will those have the same cast as the 4x6's I have or if I go to my local pro camera shop(I normally do but was curious how CVS would turn them out) and show them the 4x6 I have and tell them I don't like the cast can they correct that or is that set when the negative is first developed?<br>

Sorry, the mirror comment doesn't really show in this shot, some shots where there is not much going on, i.e. a portrait of my brother and dad you can see lots of hair and dust particles I assume from the mirror being dirty.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Brian, How much compensation is needed for dark/light areas can depend on a great many things including your style/method of processing/chemicals/personal choice and materials used. At the stage you are at it may be a good idea to research incident meter readings first, where the reading is taken of the light falling <strong>on</strong> the subject rather than light reflecting back <strong>from</strong> it. By taking an incident reading the meter would not be influenced by very bright or dark subjects. It looks as if the day you got that shot was overcast, if it had been in bright direct sun light and the meter didnt "see" any of those dark trees, the reading could have been 3 or more stops out.<br>

If you want more prints, take the ones you have to a lab and show them the cast. Ask them if it can be removed in future prints. (it can).<br>

The dust and hair you mention can not come from the mirror being dirty, unless of course the mirror is so dirty the dust etc is actually floating round inside the camera which is very unlightly. I would bet that dust/ hair on your negatives is sticking to the wet film when it is hanging up to dry. It can be removed by using a brush <strong>made for the job</strong> or rewashing the film and drying it away from the cat basket.<br>

1.20 a m now and work tommorrow but let us know if that makes sense.</p>

<p>I think 1/3 of a stop is immaterial; it should be easily absorbed by the influence of the ability of the film to record light; its latitude will make 1/3 stop unimportant.</p>

<p>I think the original photo was correctly exposed because of several areas on the image. They include:</p>

<ul>

<li>Snow, bottom right; snow is white, leaves are black, but the leaves show shadows cast upon the snow. If the area was exposed improperly, those shadows would fold into either the black or white areas.</li>

<li>Shadow, center frame, under log across trail: two forms of gray make up the shadow, showing umbra and penumbra; there are two kinds of shadow tones, showing how deep the shadow is here.</li>

<li>Twigs, center left and far trees beyond end of trail, center: lighter grays showing depth against both blacks and whites; tone pattern is not so over or under as to interfere with our perception of depth.</li>

<li>Full tree branches, center top: while initially looking like one dark tone, closer inspection shows one very dark tone where the branch and evergreen tufts are thick, but also a lighter gray tone where they are thin.</li>

<li>Snow on bark, top right, in tree branch fork: three kinds of grays show snow clinging to tree bark, or at least the texture of tree bark, maybe a highlight if not snow, against otherwise dark trees.</li>

</ul>

<p>These patterns of tonal detail show that the illusion of depth can be sustained throughout the photo, and not violate its composition. Other than telling you that I think you should try another angle or recompose, I wouldn't fuss about the photo. The exposure, in and of itself, is alright.</p>

<p>I am confident I can identify seven separate tones in the photo. I believe it is properly exposed and printed.</p>

<p>Brian,<br>

The mirror has nothing to do with the things you might be seeing on the film. It just reflects the image up to the viewfinder and then it pops out of the way when the picture is actually taken.</p>

<p>If the picture had looked like that, <strong>and</strong> <strong>there was no snow there</strong>, then you would have had a problem; if, what you were doing was what you thought would make a normal negative and print.</p>

<p>P.S. That meter returns a value for about what's mostly 18% gray. Of course metering this scene would appear over. It's mostly sky and snow, or gray and black tree branches. This means it is extremely reflective; reflecting mostly the value of the sky above. </p>

<p>Meter that same spot with leafy green vegetation present, in normal light, and that leafy green vegetation will return a value in the light meter that is right. Plant leaves and human skin will reflect at about the same rate as a gray card.</p>

<p>Snow, like all other forms of water, will reflect like a glass mirror: it will show what's beyond, but not itself.</p>

<p>In snow, or other white water, what's beyond is often the sky. You might as well meter the sky as 18% gray as meter white water. This applies to rapids, snow or ice.</p>

<p>Brian, there are so many variables in order for someone to determine whether your exposure is correct (and even then most of those variable are subjective). In this case, every monitor is different and most aren't calibrated with others across the world.</p>

<p>On my monitor, the snow in your scene appears as a somewhat middle gray and the dark tones don't hold much detail. What's difficult to say though is if it's simply from the scan. The best way to tell if you've exposed correctly would be to get a good loupe and look at it up close on a light table, or use a densitometer.</p>

<p>If this was taken at dusk and the snow really did look gray and if that's what you wanted, then this is correct. If you want the snow to be white with detail next time, don't count on the camera meter to get you there. As others have said, meter off something specific that you want to be middle gray toned...chances are you don't want the brightest thing in the scene to be middle gray, so if you're going to meter off the snow, be prepared to increase exposure time by a couple stops or more depending upon the film and development methods. If you develop your own traditional BW films, you will open up so many doors to great exposures in just about any situation.</p>

<p>In general, exposure will have more effect on the shadows, and development determines the dynamic range without doing much to the shadows, so its effects will mostly be seen on the highlights. If you want to know whether your exposure was right, it is more helpful to look at the dark areas of the picture, like the trees in this case, and not the snow. The snow would rather tell you whether you need to develop more or less.<br>

If you see spots on the image and they are there on more frames, it is probably the lens that is/was dirty. Like others have said, if your mirror is dirty, you will see it in the viewfinder, but will not show on the final picture, since the mirror gets out of the way when the exposure is taken. The mirror is not used in the picture taking process, only in the viewing.</p>