Jump to content

james_blachly

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by james_blachly

    Best Setup for Low Light Hospital / Baby Pictures

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Just like another poster, I am also reminded of when my own daughter was born, just this February. I purchased a D90 for her arrival and used the kit 18-105 with great success ( ! ). Now, the delivery rooms are not very bright, and the photos I took before birth looked great at ISO 1600 (without flash), but we ended up going to the operating room for an unplanned C-section and I am here to tell you that those rooms are QUITE bright!<br>

    I did use the 50mm 1.8 on a 35mm B&W film camera (loaded with ISO 1600 film) - this focal length would be about equivalent to you using the 35mm on your D5000. So I too recommend the 35mm 1.8 DX.<br>

    <img src="http://blachly.org/james/images/photos/78110004.jpg" alt="" /><br>

    <strong>Normal is a fine focal length.</strong></p>

    My first home dev! Delta 400 + HC-110 B. Thanks, and Questions

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    <p>Thanks everyone for their responses and the links as well!</p>

    <p>Most of my questions could be boiled down to: "is post processing acceptable, customary, and in fact frequently NEEDED?" It appears that the answer is yes, and I needed affirmation that PP was okay.</p>

    <p>My scanning setup is Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED with VueScan ; I set the black point in Vuescan by locking exposure on a transparent piece of the film base. I need to figure out how (if even possible) to set white point in Vuescan (WITHOUT using the auto levels feature). My highlights appear quite black - almost as dark as the leader - on the negative. Now knowing that setting levels is usually necessary, I think I'll have much better scans (after setting levels) straight off the film, which is my goal, but I am certainly not opposed to other post-processing.</p>

    <p>Thanks again everyone. I will continue to experiment with lighting, exposure, and development time as well, but I am very pleased with Delta 400 in HC-110 overall. Fair to good range of tones represented. The grain is fine and the results are quite sharp. If I have time after work tonight I'll post a 100% crop.</p>

    My first home dev! Delta 400 + HC-110 B. Thanks, and Questions

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    <p>I have just developed my first roll of B&W, and I want first to THANK EVERYONE HERE for all the years of insightful commentary they've posted. I've read more posts than I can count. I've been reading extensively on photo.net (and APUG and flickr) for about two weeks now regarding B&W development. Right now, <strong>I am scanning</strong>, but I would <em>also like to have good negatives for printing LATER</em>.</p>

    <p>This weekend, I gathered everything together (donated and borrowed tanks, reels, and chemicals; HC-110 expired in 2008 but unopened. Total outlay: $8 for some Photo Flo from my local shop) and developed a roll of Delta 400 (which I learned only after shooting a half-roll was probably NOT an ideal film to begin with!). I am surprised and pleased at how well everything went. No real complications, and better-than-mediocre results.</p>

    <p>I do have a couple of questions regarding exposure and contrast. First, take a look at my results:<br>

    <a href="http://blachly.org/james/delta400-1/">http://blachly.org/james/delta400-1/</a><br>

    then also see: <a href="http://blachly.org/james/16-as-scanned.jpg">http://blachly.org/james/16-as-scanned.jpg</a></p>

    <p>Take special note of the comments under the photos. Some I have presented as-scanned, others I felt looked TERRIBLE without some auto levels applied (for example, the linked jpeg). Overall, I feel that they were all pretty "flat" with poor contrast, but some were passable without any manipulation. I didn't have any blown highlights AND I had good shadow detail in all frames, so that's a plus I guess? However, the overall look of the scans is not very pleasing due to the compressed dynamic range. Not only do they have poor contrast, I feel like they are not bright enough either, although from a technical perspective, I have details in all shadow areas which I intended to. <br>

    My questions are, specifically:</p>

    <ol>

    <li>When we see these great scans that really pop, have most of those people adjusted the levels in digital post-processing?</li>

    <li>Because contrast and exposure are freq. altered when making traditional prints, is it "wrong" to pp my scanned negs?</li>

    <li>Do EVERYONE's scans look this flat without post-processing (at a minimum, setting white point)?</li>

    <li>If not, how does the scanner know how to set the white point? (I set black point by pointing to a clear part of the film)</li>

    <li>How much of the low contrast can be attributed to film, developer, development technique, and to scanner?</li>

    <li>Are these fair to good results in terms of a negative I'd want to use for printing later?</li>

    <li>Finally, would increasing my development time by, say, 20% improve contrast/ tone separation / overall brightness level ?</li>

    </ol>

    <p>I know that is a lot of questions, but I am working about 80 hours / week right now, and those are really the only questions I have regarding B&W development for which I never found good CONSISTENT answers in my reading.<br>

    Thanks in advance!</p>

    Found mystery roll Tri-X 400; unknown if exp at 800 or 1600...

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    <p>I recently found a mystery roll of Kodak Tri-X which must be a couple of years old now. I know for a fact I [intentionally] underexposed it, but unfortunately, I don't remember if this was 1 stop (at 800) or 2 (at 1600). Literally could be either, and I would give even odds.<br>

    I'm going to send it off to be developed (I haven't the time or space right now to do it myself). Afterward, I'll scan the negatives and do post-processing, if needed.<br>

    Would I be better off asking them to process it at 800, so that if it was actually shot at 1600, I may be able to lighten it up and then juice the contrast on the computer?<br>

    Or would I be better off to ask them to process it at 1600 and try to darken it (1 stop over shouldn't blow out too much on Tri-X right?) ?<br>

    Basically, I'm asking whether it would be easier to (digitally) recover detail from an underexposed negative or an overexposed Tri-X negative. Up until now my Tri-X shots have all been well exposed, so I honestly have no idea.</p>

    <p>Thanks all in advance.<br>

    James</p>

×
×
  • Create New...