The Gretsch Pages: Discussions: Miscellaneous Rumbles: Black and white photos

Black and white photos

« » Page 1 2

- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 4:46 p.m. Jehu:

I've been doing some 35mm black and white to work on my light metering. What better subject to practice on:
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 4:51 p.m. Catdaddy1967:

There's either no picture, it's a White Falcon in a snow storm or you've overexposed it!
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 4:52 p.m. Jehu:

I'll figure this picture posting out one way or another.
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 5:02 p.m. Jehu:

I'll figure this picture posting out one way or another.
- Rated: 49 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 5:20 p.m. Ric12string:

Nice job, Jehu! I love B&W photography. If you haven't done so already, you might want to read Minor White's book, The New Zone System Manual. I read his original book on the Zone System and found it to be quite informative, albeit somewhat technical.
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 5:42 p.m. Catdaddy1967:

Love the composition of the second one, but the metering on the first one is slightly better... (look at the pickup surrounds on the second one - they're slightly blown out!)

Do you have spot-metering on your cam? With digital photogaphy, you should expose for highlights. Meter for the brightest object in the scene and then increase the exposure by 2 to 2.5 stops.
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 5:46 p.m. Jehu:

It's funny that you said that. The photos I posted were from a roll of film I was shooting to experiment with the zone system. The wall was supposed to be in zones V and VI. I figured that the guitar body would be about zone V. The shadows should've been around IV. I think it's close.
- Rated: 31 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 5:54 p.m. Danman:

Hi Jehu,
Nice pictures. But did you print them yourself or have them printed. They look on the grey/soft side to me. I like them a bit harder but that could also be the scan or the internet or whatever.....

If you really want to work on your light metering you should take slides. That is the only way to find out if you really are exposing well.
Printing black and white pictures is nice but very forgiving. You can easily get good prints out of negs that are 1 stop under exposed and 2 stops over exposed and also beyond that. And you can darken and lighten parts while you are at it too. Nothing like that can be done with slides.

Ric12string: You are right that the zone system is a very interesting read and really good to know and have as your basic knowledge. But the zone system actually only works with large format printing where you can also over and under develop the negative according to the zone system. You can't do that with 35 mm or you would have to do the whole roll like that. Or is the new zone system something else than the original Ansel Adams books? But it is very good to understand how light and light gradations work. And you can definitely use the zone system in your light metering skills.
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 6:42 p.m. Catdaddy1967:

I think any zone metering system needs to tip its cap to Ansel Adams in one way or another, and you're right about the latitude of slides, Danman. I kinda forced myself to learn how to expose correctly in just the same way, and if you get it right, then the results more than justify the means - plenty of contrast, but nothing blown out.

The only thing that I have found is that spot metering is more-or-less a requirement, so if your camera can offer that (or you have your own meter), it takes a lot of the guesswork out of the equation.

EDIT: Having said all that, I don't want to appear to be too critical of your shots - I would be more than happy to enlarge them and get them framed as they are!
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 6:54 p.m. Jehu:

Danman, Thanks for the insight. There's a lot more photography advice here than I expected. The reason that I was shooting 35mm is because I was getting frustrated with 4x5. I knew I needed to work on metering. I kept very careful notes on that roll of 35mm. Now I'm pretty sure that my biggest problem is in the developing. The 35mm turned out but my 4x5 has mottling. I'm going to try tray developing next time.

I prefer shooting slides but it's kind of expensive to process. Here's a sunset shot over Reno:

Thanks for the advice guys. It's helpful.
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 6:56 p.m. Jehu:

Another slide:
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 7:03 p.m. Catdaddy1967:

Loving that balloon shot. Do you have any of those ones where the five inflated balloons are in the sky, but without the foreground?

What film was it shot on? At a guess I'd say that it wasn't Sensia... looks more like Ektachrome to me... unless my laptop screen needs calibrating!
- Rated: 11 ↑
Oct 7, 2008 9:57 p.m. reddog:

well done! I can't say I've ever got into that whole soul-stealing black box, but pics are purdy
- Rated: 31 ↑
Oct 8, 2008 6:29 a.m. Danman:
Hi Catdaddy: You are right about the spotmetering. That is the only way to get it exactly correct.
Before the digital ages I always used a spotmeter while working with my trusty Pentax 67's. Man I have done many photoshoots with those great camera's. And really enjoyed working with them. Too bad they are just lying in their case, rusting away so to speak.

But I must say that I only used the spotmeter and incident lightmetering when doing studio photography and using flash on location.

I normally always used the semispotmeter on my Leica M6's and in my Canons. Best average between spot and overal metering and if you get used to it and understand light you are always spot on. Spotmetering is too slow for most photography that I do.
Jehu:
I could never really take the time to use a large format camera well. Too impatient I guess. But if you do it well the results are just amazing. The detail is really something else.....
Basically if you follow the instruction well of the developing process it can't go wrong. Just really take care you keep the water temperature very constant also when rinsing the negs. And really make slow movements with the tank and then the tap to get rid of airbubbles. Man I hated doing that.

Now with digital I basically just shoot in raw, measure and then look at the histogram on my camera screen. I basically take care that most information is in there and in photoshop I create the contrasts that I want.

BTW: I like your colors. I like them contrasty and saturated too.
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 8, 2008 7:26 a.m. Catdaddy1967:

I never really had the room (or the patience) to really get into developing my own stuff, what with all the variables involved - water baths and all that kind of stuff. The results I DID obtain from developing my own slides were too unpredictable.

Shooting in RAW is definitely the way to go, but you still need to make sure that the highlights aren't blown out - you can never pull information back into a picture, whereas you can always boost brightness and contrast a touch...

Just managed to dig this shot out - taken with one of my old film Nikons... Thought I'd share...
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 8, 2008 10:04 a.m. Jehu:

Catdaddy, the film was 4x5 Kodak VS100. I like the E6 stuff. I wanted to use Velvia but most of the experienced people say that this is the same thing only cheaper. I like the results I've been getting.

I love your low key guitar shot. How did you do that? Was it as simple as a black light from the side?

Danman, The developing isn't as easy as I thought it would be. I've been using a Yankee daylight tank. The sky in this shot was pure blue. The mottling is purely from my developing. I still haven't figured that out. I'm going to try tray developing next just to isolate the cause.
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 8, 2008 10:19 a.m. Catdaddy1967:

Jehu, it's a real shame about the mottling! And posting them on these pages really doesn't do large format photos any justice! Much as I prefer digital for the convenience, I still like the fact that film is still in use.

Thanks for the comp on my Strat shot too. It was a cinch to do - the screen on my old tv used to go electric blue when there was no signal. So I just draped a black sheet over a cabinet next to it, propped my guitar against the cabinet, took a reading from the highlights and took the shot. I think the exposure was something like 45 seconds after adding a bit for reciprocity failure.
- Rated: 31 ↑
Oct 8, 2008 6:41 p.m. Danman:

Catdaddy, you tried developing slides? That is crazy.
Very hard to do well, too sensitive. I was only referring to BW developing. My slides go to the lab.

You are right about the highlights. But I just take care that my histogram is good, with as much as possible information left in the image. Photoshop does the rest. And it is amazing how much you can retrieve in raw anyway nowadays.

Isn't it fun how you can create a great effect by such simple means. Very nice.

Me too, I like the convenience of digital and it even is necessary for assignments nowadays. Otherwise I would have to scan everything in like I also did in the past. Takes much too much time. But I still love taking out my Leica's and just shooting with one fixed lens and a good roll of film.

Jehu,
Yeah that is too bad of that image. Hope it goes better next time.
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 8, 2008 7:27 p.m. Catdaddy1967:

Me? Crazy? Nah, surely not! The unpredictability wasn't the only thing - I did get some good results... (see below!) But in the long run, the savings over getting shots lab-processed wouldn't have been worth it. But the learning curve I got from shooting slides was invaluable, I'd say - it's like sink or swim because it's so unforgiving. Agreed as well about the whole scanning process - it took a bloody age!

You mention assignments - do you shoot professionally then? WOuld like to see some of yours and Jehu's work

Here are a couple of slides that I shot. I'm quite pleased with them, on the whole, although the first one did take a bit of tweaking to get the levels right...
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 9, 2008 12:23 p.m. Jehu:

Very nice Catdaddy. After I get my BW processing down, I'm going to try E6. Most of the experienced people tell me that, if you keep the temperature controlled, It's no more difficult than BW. I've only been into LF for a couple of months. You've seen the best of my work on the above two pictures.

Here are some full moon shots from the Virginia City Cemetary:

As you can see, the mottling problem persists. I can't wait to get that figured out.
- Rated: 13 ↑
Oct 9, 2008 12:51 p.m. Catdaddy1967:

Jeez, what kind of exposure length was that? The star trails are great in the first one, and the DOF in the second is cool too!

Yeah, temperature for slide processing is key, but as with neg D&P you need to keep the solution moving too, from what I remember. Like I said, the results I got were a little too unpredictable, and with the chemicals being as expensive as they were, I never got to experiment as much as I would have liked...

Picking up all the gear off ebay is easy enough though, which is one consolation!
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 9, 2008 1:08 p.m. Jehu:

The top one was 8 minutes with Tmax 400 and the bottom was 16 minutes with Tmax 100. I took that one first and then realized that I had some holders loaded with 400. Dopey me! The star trails get a little lost at 16 minutes from the city lights of Reno behind the hill.

You're right about Ebay. With digital taking over, I'm buying when everyone else is selling. Film photography is becoming a cheap hobby.
- Rated: 31 ↑
Oct 9, 2008 1:16 p.m. Danman:

Catdaddy,
good image of the building. I like the contrast and the light.
Yes I am a photographer. I am working on my long overdue website, hope to be able to get that done soon. But I'm pretty busy at the moment and hoped I could take some time off but I was in the running for several projects with some other photographers and I won them all. So no holiday for me any time soon.

Jehu, I don't really understand why anyone would want to try to develop E6 themselves (and I don't mean this offensive). The reason to do BW developing is because you can control the process very well and really get the contrasts and tones and character of the grain that what you want by using the right developer, the times and I guess even the method of developing. E6 is just a proces without variables. It just had to be done correctly and there is no 'game' were you can get a different result. Just a bad result. That's why I just bring that stuff to the lab. And you probably have to develop a whole lot of rolls to make it profitable. Also the developer goes old very quickly. But on the other hand: if you are doing it just to try it and see if you can do it, great go for it, I understand that. Good night shot btw.
- Rated: 31 ↑
Oct 9, 2008 1:31 p.m. Danman:

Jehu: Film photography is becoming a cheap hobby.

Well except for the price of film. I haven't bought film in a while but haven't the prices gone up since there is not so much being used?
- Rated: 8 ↑
Oct 9, 2008 4:11 p.m. Jehu:

Danman, You're right about the E6. I never really considered the lack of benefit. I'll probably not do that after all. (unless I get bored) I'm still working on my dark room. I should have it operating within a couple of weeks. I have a Saunders LPL 4500-II. I'm looking forward to doing some 11x17 enlargements. I also want to get a wet-mount kit for my 750 scanner. I've got a lot of irons in the fire.

Film isn't bad on Ebay. I pay less than $1 per sheet for color and $0.50 per sheet for Tmax. We have a local supplier for ID-11.

I bought my daughter a D200 for graduation last year. I could use that if I wanted. (she still lives at home). I got hooked on film when I borrowed her medium format for a trip to New Orleans. It's just more fun to me.