max zappa

Basically by rating a film e.g. Ilford Pan F, from E.I.50 to E.I.25 ,(i.e. half the normal or recommended speed) you are increasing exposure by a factor of 2, or one stop. Camera meter readings will double in duration e.g. 60th sec will now become 30th sec, and so on.

 

This will require decreased development of the negatives to preserve the highlights. My understanding is that as a general rule of thumb, downrating a film by the equivalent of one stop, will require about a 30% decrease in devlopment time. Similarly when uprating or pushing a film, by the eqivalent of 1 stop, will require increased development by 30%. So in answer to your question, if you decide to rate any film at half the manufacturers rating then you will have to reduce development by around 30%. This is a very general rule of course, but should be close to the mark, and given the ability to vary contrast with multigrade papers, should allow you to produce a decent print, by increasing or decreasing the paper grade, should the negatives not be perfect.

 

Hope this helps

 

Max Zappa.

Naturally you have got several answers, with slightly different variables, as one might expect. So here is my 10 cents. I normally rate FP4 at E.I. 80 and develop in D76 at 1+1 dilution for 6 minutes at 20C. However I use a condenser enlarger, so times for a diffuser may be slightly longer.

 

For Ilfosol S , Ilfords recommendations for FP4 rated at EI 50 are 4.5 minutes at 1+9 dilution, or alternatively 7.5 minutes at 1+14 dilution. Providing you use these times, you are likely to produce negatives and hence prints, generally better than when rating the film at EI 125. I say this because, it appears to be generally accepted that manufacturers film speed recommendations are high, and in my experience this would appear to be borne out. Most of my photographer friends after thorough testing, usually rate film speeds at near or around half of the manufacturers recommendations. For example I rate Ilford HP5 at E.I. 160 (one and a third of a stop) and Ilford FP4 at E.I. 80 (two thirds of a stop).

 

I am sure you are now totally confused, lol, but here is the link to Ilfords Site http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/FP4Plus.pdf

As a rough guide, 10% reduction in development time per 1/3 stop or more simply 30% per stop. In other words pulling a film by 1 stop (halving the film speed)e.g. 400 to 200, reduce development by 30%.

 

I rate the great Ilford HP5 at EI160, which is 1+1/3 of a stop overexposure. I reduced the manufacturers development time by 40%. This seems accurate enough for me.

I am afraid I cannot give an opinion on different developers for HP5, but what I can say is that I was happy with Ilfords ID-11, grain and all. When I say I was, thats because I am now trying the Kodak D76 version which is supposed to be the same, because of the lack of availability of Ilford Chemicals.

As for contrasty shots, you may wish to consider exposing HP5 at EI 200, or even EI 160 (Ansel Adams, Fred Picker to name but 2) and reducing development time accordingly. I think it is acknowledged that overdevelopment produces contrasty negatives and certainly relying on manufacturers recommended development times is most unsatisfactory. Conducting development tests is the only way to reliably establish appropriate development times for your personal film speed and developer combination. I am currently re-testing for my personal EI for HP5 and then will be testing for the appropriate development time in D76, at 1:1 dilution.

Is less grain achieved by using developer at stronger dilutions?

For example, I could develop Ilford HP5 in stock solution for 7.5

minutes, 1+1 dilution for 13 minutes or 1+3 dilution for 20 minutes.

Which of those dilutions, developed for the associated time, will

produce the least grain?

 

Max

Ok I have 3 questions.

1. I have a Mamiya C330 and a Metz 45CT-1 flash. If outdoors in

daylight e.g. my hand-held light meter reads 125th at f8, that would

be correct settings on the C330 for correct exposure without flash.

If I now wish to use fill-in flash for the same shot, I believe I

would adjust the flash auto exposure setting to f5.6 which would

reduce the flash exposure whilst keeping the camera settings the

same as before i.e. 125th at f8. IS THIS CORRECT?

 

2. Now taking the above situation again, but setting the flash at

the same auto exposure setting of f8 as the C330, what will exposure

be like. Will the shot be properly exposed or overexposed?

Presumably the camera is now receiving not only the ambient light

but a burst of flash as well?

 

3. Ok now I find myself indoors, it is nightime, I have 400ASA film

in the C330, but the lighting is so poor that my light meter reads

8th second at f2.8, but ideally i want a greater depth of field, so

I might just want f5.6 which will now require a 1/2 second exposure.

No can do! Even with camera tripod mounted my subject aint gonna sit

still for 1/2 second.

 

I decide to use flash, but what are my options and what shutter

speed do I set on the camera. I understand that leaf shutters

syncronise with flash at any shutter speed.

 

Do I set the camera as indicated on the meter i.e. f5.6 at 1/2

second and set the flash auto exposure correspondingly to f5.6 (or

perhaps f4 for fill-in).

 

Or can I simply set f5.6 on both the camera and flash auto exposure

and choose almost any shutter speed e.g. 125th. My reasoning here

being that the flash at this setting will provide all the light that

is required to properly expose the subject and will be of such short

duration that exposure longer than the duration of the flash will

lead to overexposure. OR should I set the camera for some other

shutter speed and if so what?

 

Hope you cab help

 

Max Zappa

Let not the great Ilford die.

HP5

FP4

DELTA 100, 400, 3200

 

All excellent. Come on Ilford !

Although ethically I consider this wrong, I came across this quite by

experiment, believe me LOL. I just rated my own image 7/7. Presumably

this should not be allowed to happen, and therefore I should like to

bring it to the attention of the administrators. I presume this is

simply down to an oversight. In fact I cant quite believe it. LMAO

Max Zappa.

Constructive comments are far more valuable than ratings.

 

Max Zappa.

Consider this ! There is I would say some justification in a person rating an image say 1/1 and similarly 1/7. What is "originality", surely an image is either original or not original. To then ask individuals to measure originality on a scale of 1 to 7 is inherently problematic. For example I may be justified in giving your image above, a mere 1 for originality, and I would be quite right in doing so, because there is absolutely nothing about the conception of the image that is original, its just another portrait. Would I give it a 1 ? No I would not, because it is no less original than any other regular portrait, so I would give it no less than a 4. A portrait is a portrait is a portrait. Then how might one justify giving a score of 7 for a portrait. Well I think you ask yourself such questions as , what quality does this portrait have that sets it apart from all the other portraits, what is different or special about this particular image. And by the way I have myself suffered the odd 2/2, amongst the 6's and 7's, so I know it hurts, lol.

 

Ok now onto your image again. I would give it no less than a 4 for originality for reasons explained above. Now onto AESTHETICS, do I find the image pleasing or not pleasing ? Again this is as difficult as before, how pleasing do I find the image on a scale of 1 to 7. Ermmm, well its quite pleasing, but its a man looking at the lens with a hat on, its nicely exposed, but could be sharper. Its pleasing , but not particularly pleasing to my eye, its a good sort of basic pleasing, nicely exposed, well focused, depth of field maybe handled better, naturally lit, fellow with a hat on. Mmmm this really is difficult, its a just above average sort of pleasing, then I reckon its a score of 5. There ya have it mate, my final score 4/5.

 

A little bit tongue in cheek the above, but guess what my wife here sat besides me thinks that fellow there, is a good looking chap, and she really goes for a man with a cowboy hat on, she just reckoned your image is a sure 7 for aesthetics. She knows sweet FA about photography and thinks the image is quite original, mmmm, she reckons probaly a 6 for orginality. Way to go man, a 7 and a 6, whoppeeee.

 

Forgive me for being flippant, but thats the reality, we all want a 7/7 dont we, I do for sure. I have had my quota of 2/2 and 3/3 too, so as much as I sympathise with you, the simple basics of the ratings system here on photo.net is that is is not perfect. Take my advice, look at your ratings, remove every 1/1/ or 2/2 and then remove a 6/6 or a 7/7, you will then determine a more realistic average rating, without the extremes.

 

Max Zappa

Konica Minolota today made a development announcement about a new digital version of their Maxxum 7 / Dynax 7 SLR. The Maxxum 7 Digital will have a six megapixel APS sized CCD, will have body integrated anti-shake (just like the DiMAGE A1/A2) which will work with all lenses and will be fully system compatible. This camera should be available in 'Fall 2004'. We, along with a few others had an opportunity to take a few pictures of an early pre-production camera.

 

The link is here. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04021220maxxum7digital.asp

 

Oh great joy, I can use all my existing minolta AF lenses. YIPPEE

 

mAX zAPPA

I deleted the images , before I received your reply. Guess I lost my ratings then. Oh well, I'll just have to upload them again.

 

Thanks Max.

I still have 2 pictures which were posted on Thursday, which neither

appear in my folder or in the top photos section. Should I wait or

upload then again. I have read the other thread an it appears that

some folk have their images back ?

 

Thanks zappa

Just an idea, but maybe Sandy could be the judge of a competion in his name. I have no idea hoe easy or how hard that would be to set up or indeed whether it is a good or bad idea. But hey, what do ya think. Max Zappa

I see the point you are making. However, surely that should not be a problem if individual members exchange addresses. Email addresses are freely accessible on this site in any case.

 

Max

Since joining photo.net i've often thought how nice it would be to

chat to fellow members, maybe to discuss current issues, exchange

advise, maybe critique photos in groups, or in fact anything at all

photo related.

 

May I suggest the exchange of contact details for popular voice and

text messenging software. I would simply love to chat to some of

you. For example I have used both yahoo messenger and Microsoft

Messenger to great effect, in my gaming days. I currently have MSN

Messenger 6.1 installed, which allows both text and voice chat

(microphone required).

 

I'll start the ball rolling with my MSN Messenger contact details

which is simply my email address of maxzappa@hotmail.com Please

feel free to add me to your contacts list in MSN messenger or your

email for that matter, and lets get chatting.

 

For those without the technical knowhow, then simply email me and

I'll try to help you get up and running.

 

Max Zappa

I am not familiar with Carlos work, but even if I was, good or bad, I dont think low ratings are any reason to leave this excellent site. Hell I have also suffered the odd crazy score of 1 and 1 or 2 and 2. So what! Ignore them. Enjoy the 5's 6's and 7's and ignore anything below 3. Take notice of any comments and observations and enjoy each others art. Any photographer posting an image on this site will do so largely because they themselves like their own images, it is that individuals art, their own way of showing the world what they see and how they see it. Not everyones gonna like it, and maybe now and again someone simply wont understand it. Now and again some fool is gonna score an image 1/1 without telling you why they think its only worthy of a 1/1. I believe those people should be prepared to say why they rate ones image 1/1 as maybe they can help us all produce better images.

 

This game is surely not all about ratings, its about shared ideas and knowhow. I would rather have 10 comments on my images, than 10 ratings. There are some excellent images posted on this site each and every day, they are a delight, lets just enjoy each others art and learn from one another.

 

Anyone wanna leave because of a low rating, then go now because you dont believe in yourself. Any believers in themselves please stay and let me continue to enjoy your art, your interpretation of the world around you, and thanks for sharing it with me.

 

Max Zappa

I have the 1.7 it ROCKS. Cant speak for the 1.4 however if are interested in a few opinions and trust reviews go here http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/PLS_3111_770crx.aspx You will see that the f1.4 gets an average score of 4.95 out of 5, with 19 reviews in total. Whilst the f1.7 receives an average score of 4.5 , with 22 reviews in total.

Clearly both lenses are very very good, but if you trust reviews, looks like the f1.4 might just be worth it.

 

Max Zappa

I only recently started to look at the top rated photos section. I

seem unable to find any of my images. Waht are the criteria for

images to appear in the top rated photos section. One of mine in the

last 3 days has averaged at least 5 for both aestehtics and

originality, and yet does not appear to be in the folder. Do I have

to pay a subscription to have my images enetered into the folder.

 

Max Zappa<div></div>

I recently developed two rolls of 35mm HP5+, one I shot overseas on

holiday and the other 3 days ago at a wedding, fortunately as a

guest. Having been meticulous in the developing in Ilford ID11, with

precise temperature control, times, reduced time for rotary

processing, etc etc both films have printed highly contrasty, highly

grainy and lacking midtones.

 

Now my developer is about 10 months old, is this the problem, or is

this a silly question ? I only started developing and printing last

year and therefore forgive me if my question appears stupid.

 

So is my developer too old and how does one normally tell when a

developer is past its date.?

Well I'm no expert but the principle is something ,like this. 18% grey roughly represents half way between black and white. Assuming a scene you were photographing is a mixture of equal blacks,greys and whites, then reading a reflective light meter reading off a grey card should in theory give proper exposure for such a scene. This is because modern camera metering systems are I understand calibrated to calculate correct exposure of an 18% grey surface. The meter assumes that every scene is a mid grey .

 

Therefore lets assume we are taking a shot of a piece of card, the card has 3 bands of equal size, one white, one 18% grey and one black. If we take a reading off the central 18% grey section , then all 3 bands should be correctly exposed. Taking a reading from the white section would render the white section grey, the grey section a much darker grey and the black section, well black but underexposed. Taking a reading from the black section would render the black are now grey, the 18% grey section almost white, and the white section an overexposed white.

 

I think this is the theory, I fell sure I will be corrected if I am wrong.

 

 

Max

Hi Mike

 

Reckon your lenses are fine. I have a host of rokkors myself, including the 135mm f2.8 MC Tele Rokkor, which is really fine for portraits, although if I could get my hands on an 85mm or 100mm I surely would. I too like the 58mm f1.4 MC Rokkor-PF and my absolute favourite lens of all has to be the 50mm f1.4 MC Rokkor-PG. Its a beauty.

 

I also have a 200mm f4.0 MC Tele Rokkor, which I really havent tested much.

 

As for sharpness,well I think you have to try and always shoot at the best aperture for sharpness ( IF POSSIBLE ). I dont know what that figure is for different focal lengths, but I'm sure there will be someone who reads this who will be able to say if a general rule of thumb exists. I know it isnt as straightforward as this as of course depth of field and differential focusing come into play.

 

 

Max

I apologise if this type of subject has been discussed before, and yes I havent serached the archives. I can see from some replies that perhaps I ought to have done so. Nevertheless since I havent searched the archives I thought my topic worthy of discussion. It certainly wont be the only topic to be have discussed more than once.

 

Oh well lets discuss chromatic abberations.

I am a traditionalist and for a long time have resisted the move to

digital photography. I have some experience in the darkroom and love

to use old equipment, considering some of my manual lenses superior

to modern eqivalents ( thats a separate topic altogether ! ).

 

However I am coming to the conclusion that digital SLRs and digital

processing must be superior to the old silver halide photography for

the following reasons. Assuming a film is perfectly exposed, lets

now examine the processes involved to produce the final print, and

their inherent potential problems.

 

Any print made from a negative is reliant in my view upon too many

variables, and those variables are .

 

a. Correct developing of the film,which is itself affected

by such things as, correct temperature, freshness of chemicals, the

drying process, and storage.

 

b. Correct exposure in the enlarger.

 

c. Correct printing from the negative, which is reliant

on such things as the quality of the enlarging lens, accurate

focusing, temperature of chemicals, freshness of chemicals, flatness

of the film, flatness of the paper etc, and particularly a dust free

environment.

 

In short in order to get a near perfect print from a correctly

exposed film requires all of the above variables to be rigorously

controlled.

 

By comparison looking at the digital image captured by e.g. a 6

MegaPixel SLR , lets look at same process and make some

observations. Firstly the image captured by the digital camera onto

digital media will never deteriorate, it will be as crisp and dust-

free as the moment it was captured, it will never fade. It does not

need re-focussing by an enlarger to produce the final image, and

therefore the image is not distorted by another lens. The print will

not need re-spotting or touching up , as dust and hairs will never

appear on the digital image. The image is always perfectly flat and

therefore does not suffer from the problems of curling as negatives

in the carrier of an enlarger often do.

 

These are my views, but it seems to me that it is only a matter of

time before we see the death of silver halide photography. I would

imagine that silver halide photography will still exist but will be

considered an esoteric art and will only be practised by individuals

who will become the equivalent of master craftsmen, much like e.g. a

master carpenter.

 

What do you think?

 

Max Zappa

Well, my question got many responses. THANKS ALL!

 

I have to say I have adopted some of the advice given, particularly with regard to the calibration of my monitor and now I can report much better scans. I now am able to extract significantly more details from the shadow areas. My results arent yet perfect, but I guess this has more to do with my knowledge of scanning rather than hardware problems.

 

Once again, thank you all.

 

 

Max Zappa