[Leica] Don't push that film ...

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 5/7/05 11:53 PM, "Daniel Ridings" <daniel.ridings@edd.uio.no> typed:

> Mark Rabiner wrote:
> 
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/album08/05v18_0015
>>> 
>>> And 35 years from now, she'll probably look like this:
>>> 
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/album08/05v18_0014
> 
> 
>> So you are underexposing these shots a stop?
> 
> Not consciously, Mark. That was the point of using a 1.4 lens ... to get
> an extra shutter speed _without_ under-exposing.

They don't look a stop under but my point being with a subject having
tonality just in this range it could be a stop under and it would not matter
much in the production of a viable image.
We'd never know.
Did you take a general reading and open up a stop?
If you did than you'd be placing the scene in zone VI which it sure looks
like it certainly is.
If you just took a reading and just left it at that then you'd have placed
it at zone V. 
You'd have under exposed it.
Although camera meters seem to place things at zone VI anyway.
But with a hand held for sure you'd have under exposed it a stop.
Placed it at zone V.
But again as I said in a shot like this it's a moot point.

The only dark thing is that picture frame and its small and there's is no
texture in it, at least no texture in it you'd need to see if there was any.
The end result on my monitor looks right on the money.
> 
> Do they look a stop under? I'm not an expert at this, so if they look a
> stop under, I'll start rating the film a little lower. This was 400Tmax
> rated at 400 and developed in Xtol. Xtol usually gives me full speed,
> that's why I went with a reading of 400. Mind you ... this is the
> morning breakfast table and the light changes a bit when it's cloudy
> outside with the wind blowing.
> 
You'd not be able to make any film speed assumptions based on the way this
image looks or prints. Or the other similar one of the older person.
>From all I know about Tmax 400 and Xtol you'd not need to add any exposure
to it (film speed).
When it first came out before the Tmax developer was invented and everyone
was using D76 1:1 with it we all felt it needed to be set at 320.
This was the first tab grain film.
We were taught to be paranoid about exposure and agitation.
Most of that being baloney on the long run.
And they fixed the speed thing in a few years it's up to snuff (400) now.
At least it as 5 years ago the last time I used it.

I've seen stupendous results with Tmax 400 and Xtol.
It was the first time I ever saw an Xtol print. A photographer friend
brought come 8x10's over.
I guessed it was a 100 speed film.
My guesses are usually more on the money than that.

I'd not be surprised if the film speed with the Tmax developer turned out to
be close to 800 as that's how it works with the P3200 film.
Any other developer gives you 1600.
The Tmax developer gives you 3200 with seemingly no push.

At the expose of the results you get with a very unsharp and muddy and
otherwise crummy developer.
Although with enough dilution who knows?!
> 
> Yeah, I looked at the negative and thought "How is _this_ going to
> look?" ... After a long dark winter, people in Sweden are as pale as the
> cabinets in the background (unless they've cooked themselves in UV-boxes
> ... then they look grilled.)
> 
> 
>> Sometimes a dirty blond can look like a brunette in under exposure.
>> especially if its a strawberry dirty blond.
>> But these are zone VII blonds perhaps.
> 
> Can't remember if it was before or after I followed they ammonia smell
> down they steps (happens when they do things to their hair). The
> youngest one does things to her hair about every two weeks.
> 
> 
>> Was the lens the 1.2 Nikkor? Or 1.4?
> 
> It was the 1.4 Nikkor. Makes me want to start looking for a Summilux of
> the same vintage. Not that I'm a collector, but I feel we lose our
> perspective here at times. The New Summilux outshining the old Summilux
> (it probably most certainly does). BUT, in its day the old Summilux was
> a good match, if not better, than the old Nikkor. This old Nikkor is
> great, so the old Summilux must be too. I can afford one of those. I
> can't afford a new one. Even so, I'd be getting a great lens. ...
> Probably won't find one the price of a carton if cigarettes like the
> Nikkor, but still ...
> 
> Daniel
> 
I've been shooting and buying late 70's Vintage Nikors this month.
I just landed a 105 2.5 AI.

By the way here's a Nikor I'd just gotten an AI 50 in the mid 80ss and shot
this wide open with Agfapan 400 in Rodinal.
http://rabinergroup.com/ImagePages/Sydney.html

My suggestion on tweaking film speed which you do when you first get into
using a certain film (hopefully by buying a brick of it) is this.

Shoot a roll or 36 of a variety of subject matter, indoors and out, low
light and not, exposing the way you normal expose, zone system or not.

But bracket a half and or full stop over and under.
Most people shoot the first one which is not the bracket but in the middle
and that makes what you are doing obvious.

Print the middle shot and see if you're able to get the kind of shadow
detail you'd exceed to get and highlight detail.
If if everything looks perfectly fine print the thinner one anyway.
And see if you can actually get the shadow detail in that one as well
anyway.
If that happens in several of your examples on the roll then you are tipped
off to maybe shooting the next roll at a higher ISO or ASA.
And visa versa with if your not getting the shadow detail you'd like but get
it in the brackets with more exposure then you need to teak your film speed
down for the next roll.
Where you can do the same thing just to make sure.
But at the tweaked ASA.

That's how I do it at least.

I think it makes a lot more sense than doing some weird first sign of tone
above zone 0 threshold thing - I think that's baloney.

What's liverwurst imo is the amount of exposure needed to get proper detail
in your shadows in terms of what comes out in the print.
No more and no less.
And the film speed number (ASA) required to support that.



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/