Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't think we're following each other, Paul. I was talking about shadow detail. If you can retain shadow detail, then my impression is that you are overexposing from the start (and have some margins there to play with). My understanding of film speed is based on the speed that gives you your shadow detail, but is right on the border. If you underexpose, you've gone over the threshold, lost the detail (exceeded the film speed) and nothing you can do will bring it back (except for exposing differently). I've shot a few rolls of Tri-X at 800 and out of pure laziness developed them together with rolls exposed at 400. I actually think they turn out better (once printed) than rolls exposed at 800 together with extended processing. I have to use a higher grade of paper, but the end result looks smoother. Thin negatives, but still printable. Best, Daniel On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Paul wrote: > I don't understand why you would say that Daniel. The point of push > processing is that you can move the value range of the film so that > lighter areas of the neg get more detail. I assure you that you can > increase the shadow detail by push processing. > > The contrast generally increases too, of course, but again this depends > on your choice of developer and dilution. > > P. > > ******* > Paul Hardy Carter > www.paulhardycarter.com > ******* > > On 5 Mar 2005, at 11:36, Daniel Ridings wrote: > > > > If you're concerned about shadow detail, then doing it one way or the > > other (no adjustment or increased development) is going to make no > > difference. Lost shadow detail from underexposure is lost. There's > > nothing > > a developer can do about it. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >