Showing posts with label Monochrome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monochrome. Show all posts

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Getting Things Back Underway

Contaflex Super BC - Pro-Tessar 35mm ƒ/3.2 - Polypan F
So I admit, I've been absent from the Blog Scene for a bit.. But I'm coming back to it. Life is less hectic and much more relaxed now that I've managed to find a groove in things. I was taking a break for the summer from work and focusing on just relaxing and shooting film.  I made a point, also, of, during my days at school, to take a camera every single day, except during exam week. I took a new camera to school every week until the final week of school, because I literally was there for an hour or two at most, then back home to not study and develop a roll or two.. Maybe veg in front of the television and watch Netflix...

Ended up getting into woodworking and thinking of a couple projects... yes, a few are photography related, but I won't get into that.. Wait until they're done, then I'll post about them.

For now, I plan on posting a new blog a minimum of one a week, possibly as many as 4 or 5 per week, depending on how things go.
Kodak Pony 35 Model C -
44mm ƒ/3.5Kodak Anastigmat
Polypan F 50

I'm also starting up a small gallery website.. Nothing fancy, which currently is basically... nothing.. But I'll be posting images up there for viewing and, of course, to order a print or two... maybe even a photobook!

It'll be nice to finally have a public gallery instead of just Flickr or Facebook... Of course this blog, or even my Google+ profile, which has very limited photos

Anyway, stay tuned, we've got more things coming.. Also, don't forget, I'm broadcasting every month from the revolving Classic Camera Revival studio...

Talk to you all soon!

Remember, keep those shutters firing!



Zenza Bronica SQ-Ai - Zenzanon 80mm ƒ/2.8 - Kodak TMAX400



Sunday, May 18, 2014

The Immense Power of Film

Seven stops.  That's a downright killer for Digital and Slide film.  Seven stops of over exposure will completely blow out mid-tones, highlights, and bring shadows to a point where they will become highlights.

Seven stops is unheard of for even getting an image with Slide and Digital, and yet.

Take IR film with an IR filter, and that's what you have to do.  Take the film's speed, and drop about 7 stops off the rated speed to account for the filter, and hope the light comes through enough on the film.  After all, IR light is a funny thing.

Using Rollei IR400, I was exposing for 3 to 6EI, which is between 6 and 7 stops over exposed.
This allows enough light to get through the filter and expose the film, giving an image.


"Humber Light" - Bronica ETRs - Zenzanon 75mm ƒ/2.8 @ ƒ/11 1/8s
As you can see it has an absolutely gorgeous look that standard B&W film just cannot see.  It is a wonderful effect.

Now that said, what happens when you meter for EI3 or EI6 and expose the film without remembering to attach the filter?

Well, what happens to a digital image 7 stops over exposed.
Why, you blow it out.  Basically you have no chance of saving even the tiniest bit of detail.

Well, this is the thing about Negative film.  It has such immense latitude that you can save images that are essentially blown to pieces.

"Broken" - Bronica ETRs - Zenzanon 75mm ƒ/2.8 @ ƒ/16 1/4s
I wondered the same thing.  I had shot this image, and as soon as it was finished exposing I looked down and noticed the filter still in my hand.  Yup, I shot this without attaching the filter to the camera.

I thought, "Nope.. I've lost this image.."
It was also the very last frame on the roll.  I know I had a whole roll of great images, but this one image was, well... lost!

Apparently, this film has such incredible power, incredible latitude, it is, for lack of a better word...  Incredible!

It blew my mind, not the highlights. Yes, I know that the some of the highlights ARE blown out, but considering that the detail in the mid-tones is still there, and there is still shadows, I cannot imagine this image even being remotely salvageable on anything but Film.

+Holger Drallmeyer had an oopsie where he forgot to attach the filter and blew out two sheets of IR film.
I suggested stand-developing in a Rodinal 1+200 mixture for 60 minutes to help even it all out.  But this was developed in Rodinal 1+50 for standard times, and it worked out .. well quite amazingly well!

For those that have accidentally done something similar and were not sure how to develop the film.  Well, why not try developing it normally. You never know, you might be surprised!

Until next time,  Keep those shutters firing!

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Life to Old Lenses

So some may call me evil, and some may even call me nuts..
While others will think it is terrible that I have ripped apart old folders for their lenses, but here's the thing. The cameras are basically just decoration, and for me, that's not much of an option.  I am also considering selling a few of my cameras.  Mainly the ones I do not use, but that's a hurdle I'll climb when I come to it.

Anyway, one of the cameras was a Kodak Autographic Folding Brownie No. 2a, which has a Baush And Lomb Rapid Rectilinear lens.  The stops listed on the lens if 8 16 32 64.  The thing is that is the old style Universal Stop.  ƒ/16 is US 16, so US 8 will be ƒ/11.

So it's a very easy conversion to understand.

I have tested these lenses out prior to actually committing them to film.

A Lot Of Snow
"Snowy Post" - Kodak Rapid Rectilinear Lens
Ilford MGIV Fibre based paper - Dektol 1+3
Paper Test

Getting the Monorail to the site to setup the shot was fairly easy.  Slippery somewhat, but not too bad.
I had a yellow filter and a polarizer on the camera, oh and a fashioned lens hood out of a black plastic thingy.

"Flow" - Kodak Rapid Rectilinear 114mm ƒ/11 @ƒ/16
1/15s Exposure - Ilford FP4+ 125ASA

I really think that this lens is far sharper than I originally though it would be.  I was actually hoping for some anomalies that never manifested themselves, which is actually rather unfortunate.

But perhaps that'll change when I give the Achromatic lens a go!  It's different than a Rapid Rectilinear.  The Achromatic lens is basically a cemented Doublet lens, but instead of the lenses being separated (front and rear elements) by a pocket of air, they are actually cemented together.

Should make things interesting!

Until next time.  Keep those shutters firing!

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Pushing or Pulling - Welcome to Film

So I have noticed a common question, and that is.  Push or Pull.

What is Pushing and pulling?  Can it be done with Digital, or is it a strictly film practice?

Well, the answer to that question is... well, yes and no.  Can you push a digital image, you can.  But that is all done in post processing, and requires a lot of patience.  And, like film, will work a similar way, but instead of accented grain, you get accented noise.  More often than not, it doesn't look very appealing on digital, where as on film it can look pretty good!
With a lot of patience and care you can do it with a digital image.
Lets take this image, for instance..
Under exposed, but not too badly.  Say 2 stops under, which is easily worked with.  So after a bit of level tweaking in Photoshop, and having to up the contrast a bit to keep it from looking washed out, here's the image..


So now you can see more detail inside the bus, and even behind and around it.
This is essentially similar to PUSHING film.  You can see the highlights have also started to get a fair bit stronger and it is a higher contrast.
But, in areas that had no exposure, such as under the bus, behind the driver, and around the houses in the b/g, they are still in shadow. Since there is no exposure, there is no information to bring out.
Now how does this relate to pushing a film?  Well, lets take that the image was about 2 stops under exposed.  That's because I set the cameras ISO setting to 200 so that I would get a smooth motion on the vid screen of my phone to compose it.  I chose a phone image over a dSLR as, for one I had no under exposed image for my dSLR, and 2, this image is probably one of the better images to use for explaining a push.

So what did I do to "push" this image?
well, first off I changed the curve to bring out more of the midtones and started to try to draw out the shadows.  In doing so I caused the image to feel... well washed out and unbalanced.  So I had to increase the highlights, and when I did that the image looked better but it just didn't have the right balance, as it was definitely washed out with light shadows, smooth midtones, and highlights that were strong, but seemed to blend too much with the mid-tones..
SO I had to increase the contrast.  This is where it starts to resemble a pushed film.  The shadows stay dark, as they are supposed to, instead of a 18% gray, or a darker gray shade, and the highlights start to feel a little over powering.  The problem is, if you scale back the highlights, they actually become dull, and blend with the mid-tones, and the image feels flat.

So in theory, yes, you can push a digital image,.
So what about pulling a digital image?

This is where film and digital actually start to slip apart.  Pulling a digital image is far more difficult, as the highlights are going to lose detail far faster than the shadows will.
This is where Latitude starts to come into play, and where film starts to win the fight.  At least, Negative film. Not a FILM vs Digital post, I'm explaining Pulling and Pushing.   I have explained PUSHING with a positive image in a digital sense, and now pulling.
See, when you pull an image, you are actually halting the development of the highlights after over exposing the image.  This is the tricky part with digital.  It is also tricky with E6 films, which are a positive image similar to Digital.  The only thing is, with an E6 film, prior to developing the film, you can decide on how to develop it.
Wth positive film that is over exposed a stop or 2, and you pull it, you keep the highlights from developing to the point of clipping, and create a smoother contrast over the image.
This is the point where digital cannot compare...  to work around this, photographers develop an HDR image, which stands for "HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE".
The problem is when you see most HDR images, it has the Saturation pumped way up, and it looks like a false image.  See the human eye actually lies to you and what you see.  The brain is so powerful that it will actually adjust the image your eye is seeing and keep the highlights that you see from being just that.  In fact, if you look at a darkened place while in a bright area, no with the sun in your eyes, you can see into that darkened place, so long as you don't have any strong reflective surfaced rebounding harsh lighting into it.
And if you are in a dark area and look outside, good chance that you will be able to see some of the colours of the sky
Your iris will adjust itself against the light.  Narrower for bright, and wider for darkened areas, similar to how the camera works.  But unlike the camera your brain has exceptional corrective abilities that film or digital does not.
So the image you see in an HDR image feels, well, like it is wrong, and that it just isn't how it should be.
But the concept is usually there. The sky is a smooth shade of blue, tapering off toward the grown as a lighter cyan until it makes contact with the Earth.  At that point the shadows are now defined, and you get a good fair amount of detail in the darker areas of the image, without it being washed out or clipped.  Underexposed shadows, or over-exposed highlights just don't exist!
This is how digital has begun the process of how to "PULL" an image, and in doing this, the photographer takes a series of bracketed images.  Say a series of 7 shots.  One being the control, or EI0, 3 at +1 +2 and +3, with the other three at -1 -2 -3..
Using a program light Aperture, lightroom, or Adobe Photoshop they combine these shots and create a layered image.  The photographer then can pick and choose how each layer intertwines and defines each zone.
They can bring Shadows up to Zone IV, while pulling the highlights back to zone VII keeping everything within equal viewing range, and having a smooth contrast image that is not over powering, or under whelming.
That is a whole bunch of added steps to pull a digital image and keep it from being over-exposed, or under exposed.
Take that same roll of E6 positive transparency film that you over exposed 2 stops.  Well, when you pull it in processing, you are halting the development of the
This causes the image to lose contrast, but gain shadow detail and retain the critical highlight detail.  This is very useful when shooting without gradual N/D (Neutral Density) filters, which help against over exposed highlights and keeping the ground and shadows in a more visible range, instead of dark and underwhelming.
highlights, and allowing the shadows to actually catch up!
So that's the idea behind pulling a film.

But all that did was cover Positive film, and not negative film.

Yes, but the theory is the same.  Negative film has a higher (much higher) latitude than Positive films, like E6 and Digital, which sometimes you do not actually have to waste your time with a Push Pull method.
Many modern emulsions have enough latitude to capture a under exposed image, sometimes even up to 3 stops under, or an image up to 3 or even 4 stops over exposed!  And to do all that without a single change in how your developed the film.  It handled it through the latitude of the film itself.
So in a basic nutshell, lets look back at this.  What is Pushing and what is Pulling.
Pushing is the method of under exposing an Image and taking more time to develop it.  With digital, it means fine tuning the curves to try to keep it from being overly noisy, yet still well defined.  Trying to control the contrast, highlights, and not letting the shadows become a gray tone and noisy.
With film it means that you spend more time developing the film.  As pointed out with a digital image, you will not gain shadow detail at all.  You increase the contrast, and brighten the mid-tones and increase the density  of the highlights.  Stronger, brighter, and more dense highlights, while keeping deep and solid shadows.  Where there is no exposure, there can never be exposure, so you can push until the film just stops reacting to the developer, and you will never gain any exposure in the shadows.  Where there is no information, you cannot draw out information.

So lets take a film out there like Polypan F.  This is a 50ASA rated film, so we'll take a look at an image I took at 50ASA, developed normally.  The film is smooth, with even and lovely contrast, and some lovely gray tones that make this film super famous, especially after the promotion and work that myself, and fellow Polypan Shooter and abuser Larry Dressler has done.  The thin base, lack of anti-halation, and polyester backing make this film prone to blooming, which is the spreading of the highlights.
Just look at the head on this pint of beer.
So this is quite a basic image, nothing special.  How does it relate to pushing or pulling?
Actually, quite a lot!  This is showing the film as it is supposed to be. Exposed and developed at box speed, without any extra steps.
So lets say I have only that same 50ASA film and I just went from the bright outdoors to a subdued lighting indoors.
I could;
A) Use a tripod
B) Use a flash
C) Push the film

So I don't have or cannot use a flash.  A Tripod is not an option. and will be rather difficult to use, so I will choose option C.  I will push the film.
How much, is the question.  Lets go with 2 stops so ASA200.
So here is an image I exposed at 200ASA with Polypan F.  Shot indoors, slightly different lighting, and a completely different time of year, but the principle is the same.
Longer time in the tank to develop the mid-tones and highlights.  So the highlights start to get stronger (look at the cup behind the hat, shadows are deeper and the image becomes higher contrast.  Under the hat is black, while the hat itself remains quick evenly toned.  Contrast is also significantly stronger.
This is pushed film.

So lets now recap this entire post on Pushing and Pulling.

Pushing and Pulling is a method that is done at the development stage of processing your film.  It cannot be done before or after the film is processed.

It is through over exposing and under developing, known as pulling, or under exposing, and over developing, which is known as pushing.

So how can you call what I did to the digital image Pushing?  Because it is during the Processing stage of the image, before the final image.  That said, the negative is not the final image, but the Print is.
Working with an under exposed and normally developed negative is very difficult.

When do you use PULLING as a technique?

Well, lets say you load some 400ASA film, but either forget to set the ASA dial, or in the case of AUTO-DX coded cameras, maybe the canister isn't DX coded, or it is a bulk loaded can.  The ASA setting on the camera is slower than the loaded film, and when the images are all shot on the roll, they are over exposed.
Then you'd consider pulling.  Some films that is unnecessary for 1 or 2 stops, while others it is very necessary to prevent over exposed and overly dense negatives.

The other reason is to control contrast in high contrast scenes, like say a beach or a snowy landscape.  Or perhaps to reduce the contrast of a high contrast film, like Microfilms.

There are many reasons to pull a film, and some are employed by large format photographers who use the "ZONE" system.

What about pushing a film?

Pushing a film, well, similar idea.  You load a slower film and require a faster one, or forget to reset the speed dial and leave it faster than the film loaded, or the DX coding isn't set.  This is when you'd consider pushing a film, or to gain contrast in lower contrast films.
Even photographers who use the Zone system will also push a film

So in a basic nutshell, that is pushing, and pulling, film.
It is not quite as complicated as all the above, but it sometimes requires more explanation than just;

PUSH = UNDER EXPOSE OVER DEVELOP
PULL = OVER EXPOSE UNDER DEVELOP

Sometimes you'd like to know when to apply such techniques, or why people employ such techniques.

Until next time, Keep those shutters firing!

Friday, January 3, 2014

The Sharpest Film - PART II

So for an ongoing saga in this "SHARPEST FILM" I will continue to test films that claim to be "THE SHARPEST" films.
Kodak claims that TMAX400 is the sharpest 400 speed film, so I will put it up against TRI-X, HP5+, Delta400, Kentmere 400 and Rollei 400.  I will skip Foma 400, because I already know it'll lose badly. Beautiful tones, absolutely, but not exactly a sharp sharp film.

Anyway, this is about ADOX CMSII at ASA 3 instead of ASA6.  I have tested it at 6, and loved the results, so here's the film at ASA3.






But that's not the most interesting thing about this film.  The detail and entire lack of grain, even under such a huge crop, just shows how amazing this film is.
If it didn't cost so much in 4x5 I'd order a box.


Even under such magnification I can see no grain, and there is still very recognizable detail.
Absolutely a film that I will definitely be getting more of, and since I'm essentially all done testing it, shooting it without considering it to be "test" shots only.

Until next time fellow bloggers, keep those shutters firing!

All images were exposed at EI3 which is a 2 2/3 stop pull.  Film was developed in Rodinal 1+200 at 20°C  (68°F) for 10:30 using standard agitation.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

The Sharpest Film

So 2013 isn't over yet, and I'm posting another blog post, this one about one of the best films I have ever shot, when it comes to Sharpness.
Being a Microfilm that is designed for extreme amounts of reduction it needs to be a very powerfully resolving film.  I mean, it's stupid sharp!  SHARP SHARP SHARP!
So I have shot this before with disappointing results.  It's a 20ASA film in Adotech developer, and is usable in that developer at 20, but developing it in, say, TMAX developer, or HC-110.. Forget it!
For that you need to pull it.  So lets say 6ASA, which is what I shot it at, and it's beautiful!

So I got a roll from John Meadows.  He and I have been trying to crack this film for a while now, and I am happy to say, I think I have managed to do so.
Without using something like the specialized ADOTECH developer, which is rather pricey, and getting usable results, I tried Rodinal.

Rodinal is a great developer.  Very high acutance, sharpness, and beautiful tonal range.  It is like the magic of film in a liquid package.  It's easily one of the very best developers... ever!  It's liquid magic...!

Anyway, enough praise of Rodinal....  It deserves it, but here's the ADOX CMSII 20ASA film rated for 6ASA in Rodinal 1+200 developed for 12:00..





Images were taken down in the Beach area of Toronto, at the Victoria Park and Queen Street Water Processing Plant.

All images taken on a Bolsey B2 35mm Rangefinder, with a Wollensak 44mm ƒ/3.2 lens and developed in Rodinal 1+200 for 12:00 using standard agitation.

Until next time fellow bloggers, keep those shutters firing!

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Super Novar Sharpness

Every time I use my Nettar, I get a little smile on my face.  It is so sharp!  Scale focusing, also known as zone focusing, is a tricky endeavor, but so worth it.
The Nettar 517/16 is a brilliant camera.  Sure it just has a viewfinder, and no rangefinder, but I bought mine from the original owner.  He got it new back in 1949, and it served him well over the years.
He was 76 years old, back in 2010, making him only 15 when he got it for his birthday.
He had a lot of fond memories of that camera, but didn't use it anymore, so he put it up for sale.
Originally asking $60, he sold it to me for $40, provided I actually used it.
I promised it would be used, and it has been!  Sure, not to the same degree that it should be used, but it is used....



All images take on the Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/16 with Ilford Delta 100 film and developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 60:00 semi-stand, with a slight shake at 30:00