joseph_michael1

<p>Answer to quiz question!<br> Underexposure and/or overdevelopment increases texture because it increases the grain. Over development increase contrast because they preferentially affect highlights - pushing them farther towards the shoulder and away from shadows. <br> Score one for the first year analog photographer!<br> BTW yes, craggy old coots smoke parliaments. I will have to try that trick (pulling film) once I get around to proper pushing :) </p>

<p>Thanks Glen!</p>

<p>Andrew, James, and Glen, <br> After carefully reading your responses (and thanks again - I am only just beginning to understand this!), I think the active phrase is "Maintaining the relationship between the tones." So I am actually saying, well, this bright sky (which may in reality be a zone 9) I want to capture detail, so I will set it as my Zone VII, and adjust, accordingly, my developing time to scrunch that value down. <br> Or, from what Ive learned, add a compensating developer in special instances, aka Ive got to check out Diafine, but Im going to learn the ins and outs of D76 first ;) <br> Thank you all!!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Btw that pic was very much edited in light room so as to be usable...thanks all!</p>

<p > Glenn and Larry, </p> <p >I know I was shooting mostly at f2 and 30, sometimes 60 in dimly lit indoors. MAYBE once I shot at f2 and 15. Theres a smattering of pictures that turned out ok, but most were faces of shadows!</p> <p >Also - It is a good point that meters dont work very well in low light - and I forgot that!</p> <p >Plus, everything I shot outside of the home was fine- high contrast, but midtones, shadows, and highlights were plainly visible. </p> <p >What is extra worrisome is that, indeed, pictures with a spare kitchen light or outdoor window do seem to be much darker. I think I made a noob mistake, and that exposure is the issue.... </p> <p >I guess thats the issue..because according to your pdf dev times were acceptable. </p> <p>But in some scenes with only milky darkness, Im getting jet back shadow and a lot of grain (see pic below). This was taken at night indoors...<br> <a href="/photo/18136417&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/18136417&size=lg</a><br /><br /><br> And Btw Larry thats awesome. You were a crime scene photographer? </p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Thank you all! I am sure this information will be useful for my next series of pushing film - I will have to push my Xmas photos as well, but I will practice before hand this time :)<br /> I used a 1+1 dilution of D76, which I always do. I use that particular dilution because I hear that it has a "compensating effect" which lowers the contrast of the image, and I usually shoot high contrast scenes and that squishes the image back into place. I have not yet deviated from that dilution for any purposes. <br /> It seems abundantly clear that the lower temperatures are not helping, and I will experiment at 68 for 14 minutes, combined with getting a better exposure...I set my ISO to 1600 and used center weighted metering on subjects in front of me.<br /> BUT the confusing thing is that the outside shots look normal - but the inside shots..oh no! Attached are the proofs.<br /> Any more help or insight is greatly appreciated !<br /> <img src="/photo/18136396" alt="" /><img src="/photo/18136395" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thank you James!</p>

<p>Thank you Maris!</p>

<p>Glen, </p> <p>Thanks again. OOOH I see. You are literally deciding to place that tone at a zone on the print. </p> <p>Perhaps I will just use the quick and dirty methods of metering that you use!</p> <p>Cheers, <br> -M</p>

<p>Thanks glen. I also used D76, which I heard, for some reason, isnt that great for pushing? It sort proves the maxim that you should try anything radical on anything important. And thus my family thanksgiving pics turned into mush! </p>

<p>Just curious..thank you!</p>

<p>Or does it work by leaving some silver undeveloped in the highlights? Or does it compress the range of the negative, similar to a graduated ND filter? </p> <p>Confusion!</p>

<p>I pushed my first rolls of Tri-x 400 film for thanksgiving. I rated it as a 1600 film, and developed it at 65 degrees for 15 minutes. <br> Almost the entire roll had no details in the shadows or midtones, but highlights (details through the windows, highlighted faces) were lustrous and clear. <br> This leaves me with a question - if pushing is effectively underexposing and overdeveloping a negative, is it humanly possibly to properly expose those dark, indoor overcast days if there are no highlights in a scene? Overdeveloping ensures that highlights are retrievable, but the shadows are determined by exposure. <br> Clearly I would have to change the exposure to get indoor shots, but pushing will only underexposue the neg and lose the shadow detail...so dont I need some highlights for pushing to actually work? </p>

<p>Hello Photo.net!</p> <p>I was reading Horenstein's incredible "Beyond Basic Photography", and reached the zone system section. In that section, it is suggested that we find the brightness range of our negative, to determine our development plan. To do this, Horenstein says to find both the brightest textured highlight (a zone VII reading) and darkest textured shadow (a zone III reading).<br> If the difference in indicated exposure from zone VII and zone III reading is seven stops, use an n-2 development.</p> <p>Wait, what??</p> <p>Shouldnt the difference between zone III and zone VII always be 5 stops? If not, does that mean the brightest texture highlight isnt always zone seven? </p> <p>Confusion!</p> <p> </p>

<p>I do, all the time. My favorite now is Provia 400x with warming filter, which just got discontinued (I was fortunate to squirrel away some before heavy price increases). I will not shoot slides once after my local lab (I live in Saint Louis) stops processing.<br> I shoot slides primarily because of the "trueness" of the color film rendition when projected. Think about how beautiful it is - when you expose a slide and project it - you can see, glowing in full 5x5 feet glory, that which was in your camera at the moment you pulled the shutter. There is no digital intermediary, like when you have to print a slide, or make a digital C-print on color print film (and I dont have access to a color enlarger). It is a very authentic form of photography that I intend to keep alive as long as labs process E-6.<br> To me, the straight film look only exists in black and white on photographic paper, and light shining through a positive slide. And I suppose that slides link me to my family heritage - my grandfather, who passed away, shot only slides, and some of my greatest memories (even though I am in my twenties) were sitting on the living room floor and watching his slide shows of his Grand Tours around Europe and the United States. Love it!</p>