ed_farmer

This has been done with film. It's also the way that projection TVs used to work (close). It's the that dye sublimation prints and color offset prints are made (close). Yes, you can do it.

This look isn't hard to mimic whatever you use for fill light . . . Put the subject in shade with a brightly lit background and the background will blow out on it's own when you expose for the subject. You don't necessarily need to even use a fill.

If you SEE a black spot in the viewfinder, it's not likely a lens problem and will not show on your images. A flaw in the lens isn't going to show up as a dot because no surface of the lens is in focus on the ground glass. The most common problem is the underside of the ground glass. This COULD still be a flaw in the ground glass but with a camera of this vintage, I would just be out shooting!

The clip is there for a reason: It prevents the film from sliding out of the reel while handling the loaded tank. The little balls in the Paterson type plastic reels serve the same purpose.

As I understand your question . . . Well, I'm not sure that I understand your question . . . Compensate in what way?

I have to disagree about developers having little effect. I don't like D76 even a little bit and for the last ten years that I shot a lot of film used only TMax developer on TMX and PMK on Tri-X. Very different looks for different subjects. If you are just going to scan . . . I'm with you 100%. Just shoot digital and add grain when you want it.

Double exposure isn't what you want. You only want selected parts of the second image to overlay first. You don't want to see the first image behind the portion of the second image that you want see. If you try it, I think you will see what I'm talking about pretty quickly. "double exposure has been used to do lots of interesting things. The MOST common is the over done, over wrought "person trapped in a glass" and "person trapped under a jar" type stuff. Or to make a photo of someone dressed up in charecter as say an elf, and then put them into a macro shot of grass and weeds to make them super tiny elf..." These are not done with in camera double exposures.

The OP already answered this. There are no edge markings. So, this is a processing problem and the most likely issues would seem to be depleted or improperly mixed developer or mixing up the CD and blix.

Lightroom . . . I regularly export files from weddings (shot with D7100 and D750 cameras) with a file size limit of 100K in order for the bride and groom to use them on Facebook and other social media sites. But, there are 100 or other products . . .

OK . . . So, you're an ass . . . It was YOU who introduced the Capa image, not me. Should I assume that you introduced in order to suggest that you and Capa were up against it in the same way? I'm fairly impressed with you as a photographer but that's about it. Out . . .

Tray processing for roll film is useful for development by inspection but a pain in the ass for anything else. Buy a reel and tank off of craigslist and enjoy your processing and printing.

Double exposure? No. Composite? Yes. These require two images and a mask/overlay. To do it well, you need to carefully match the lighting, color and shading of the two images. Then you mask off everything except the model in the live image and lay it over the model image.

In a word . . . No . . . In more words . . . There are two types of critiques . . . If you are looking to learn, from one or many other photographers, yes a conversation is worth while but you should be looking for ways to improve image not defending what you have done. These mostly deal with technical details as have been discussed here. You have insisted that these improvements were impossible at the time but lessons like this are often more about making the NEXT image better. The other type of critique talks about a work of art or a work as art. In this case, the "work" should stand alone. It it's a documentary work, there may be one or many images and there should be something included to put it in context. This may be as simple as a title, for example "A Day in the War in Syria" or it may be an entire book as, perhaps a collection or Robert Capa's war photographs. in this type of critique the entire project from title to text to images is critiqued together and in context. To go back to your example of Capa's image, context is very important. As a spur of the moment shot in a war zone, the image is incredible but if it was a still from a movie set, yes Capa could be told that the focus should be sharper and the image may be declared a failure. The dictionary definition, by the way, included assessment but not conversation or defense.

Here's another solution . . . I bought one of these a few weeks ago but haven't played with it due to my current workload . . . Meet Arsenal, the Smart Camera Assistant

You can't just put it on the lens. You will never get both in focus. A composite is a composite. You have to mask the top image and overlay it. This has been done in darkroom work (ILM was doing it by hand on film) for about 150 years. The early photographers exploring the west couldn't take images that showed both the landscape and the sky so they took two images, one exposed for each and then combined them when printing. ILM didn't really invest anything new for those films. They invented new ways to be more detailed.

RAW has nothing to do with getting information "onto the sensor" . . . RAW is about retaining all of the information that comes from the sensor in your file. Any software application (in camera or out) causes the file to be converted to a JPEG which, for the most part, will lose some of the information. However, the RAW file can be retained when this happens. I don't see any sense to filtering an image likes you describe. The thing to do is apply the filters digitally to the RAW file after capture. Think of it this way . . If you put a dark red filter over the lens, it will absorb the blue from the image and that blue data will never make it to the sensor and then will not make it to the file.

In my view, a critique isn't an argument or even, really, a discussion. It's an expression of the viewer's feelings about an image which are steeped in their own thoughts, dislikes, context and biases. They are neither right nor wrong. They simply are. This image was posted without context. To stand alone. Unlike if it were part of an exhibition or other group of images with a defined "reason". It's only when viewed in context that the blown highlights and lack of separation from the background shrink away to almost nothing. I have found, in many situations, that "grabbing the shot" is important. But, after that shot, I often try to correct the shortcomings of the situation. So, I may have moved the man for another shot, another background, maybe including an activity. The second shot may be better but it may not.

I like both the image and the story! I would try to clean up the catch lights in both eyes. The only other, minor, flaw is that the blown background prevents separation around the top of his head. It's tough when both the background and hair blow out.

Interesting to step in AFTER knowing that it's a model . . . I'm going to give you my thoughts as if I didn't know . . . The first thing that I see when I see great auto images is that the headlights are almost always on and it is usually made to look like the car was just rained on. I like the camera tilt very much and I even like the lighting on the back ground, it gives the look of natural light in an old French or Italian village. The only thing that does bother me is that reflection on the head light. It would be less identifiable on the fender or hood if the light can be moved. Overall though this is a great shot!

The BR2 cannot be used on DSLR bodies (or 35mm SLR bodies with electronic coupling) because the ring may damage the electrical contacts. As noted above, the BR2A was released to correct that problem.

Well . . . Since, as noted, someone may find this thread on a search, I'll throw out another possible answer: The OP was shooting in Nikon's Matrix metering mode with a, then, current Nikkor lens and a, then, new Zeiss. Nikon doesn't publish the CPU specs for their lenses so the third party suppliers need to reverse engineer the specs in order to produce CPUs for their lenses. It may be that Zeiss didn't have that engineering quite worked out. Or course, it would have been nice of the OP had told us which of the images was better exposed.

What's the provenance of the film? Do you know how it was stored? Is this film that you are shooting now or did you find this in a camera? Is the density over the entire film area or only in the frames with something different on the edges and between frames?

There are other options but take a quick look at this:

The OP hasn't been back since a few hours after posting this question . . . My advice, I don't see it specifically here, is to shoot in color, without filters, and convert in post processing. You can simulate the effect of pretty much any color filter and many "in between" colors as well. Allowing for the conversion after, you can experiment with several options for each image and even do split filtering and other effects. Let's hope that the OP comes back and let's us know if he has any questions and what he thinks of the advice . . .

The simplest answer (the more complex answers might be better) is that the timing of the first chemical step assumes that the developer will need to soak into dry film, not film that is already wet. A presoak will allow the developer to diffuse faster. In B&W processing, wet film requires a shorter developer time but in color film, which has many layers, the development may be uneven through the layers if the film is already wet.