[jt_cph_dk]

Given the choice of those two the wet print is clearly better, is it possible to turn the scanner brightness down so she isn't quite so overexposed and end up with something closer to the wet print? It looks like the scanner works to recover the shadows at the cost of highlights if that is all on auto or something.

Well, the scanned one is only ‘overexposed‘ in a very small area in the upper right corner and on her shirt, that goes to 99%, actually a larger area in the shelf area in the background room is completely black at 0%. And what you see here comes very close to the scan, that I did on a hired Imacon 848 downtown. It was a 3150 p/inch scan in a B&W auto setting. Maybe I was doing some individual curves on the scans (it looks probable), I don´t recall know
The digital print from the file does not look this overexposed...hmm..it is difficult.

---

Last edited by jt_cph_dk; 09-19-2012 at 10:48 AM.

[jt_cph_dk]

Here is a third version from a lab scan in low res (I don´t have any larger example and don´t know what scanner they had? But I recall that I wanted to get more details out from the shades in my Imacon version)

[tuco]

...
Both were developed at pro labs (I don´t have the kind of skill or knowledge that you do with film development. Your point makes me want to have it. I should like to get into that). I did not have a yellow/orange filter with me on that trip (6X7 was my main gear and bulky), which probably explains the very brigth looking sky.
...

I wouldn't say it's skill on my part. It's more like putting in the time, practice and some experience. Yes, colored filters do help with the sky and clouds. A must-have in your camera bag for BW film work.

I'm an advocate of doing your own BW film developing. I equate it to in-camera JPG vs RAW files in the digital world whether that is accurate or not. But the bottom line is you have extra control if you do it yourself.

For landscapes, I feel there is no reason to have that heavy prism on the Pentax 6x7 (that was the camera?) at all. A WLF (aka the folding hood) will lighten the load and get you 100% view in the viewfinder.

[jt_cph_dk]

For landscapes, I feel there is no reason to have that heavy prism on the Pentax 6x7 (that was the camera?) at all. A WLF (aka the folding hood) will lighten the load and get you 100% view in the viewfinder.

On my trip to Ladakh my main camera was the 6X7. But I also took my LX, with wich I shot the photo with the rock in the foreground. And for the Tokina 28mm lens, with it´s 52mm filter thread, I didn´t have a yellow filter. But you are right: It´s a must-have.
I don´t have a Pentax spotmeter and use the meter in for instance my LX in this way (the ‘Rokia‘ photo): I make two measurements in the scene, a dark one and a bright one of interest, while I also think about composition. Then I manually set the speed to an average between the two (tending towards the dark measurement at night). Then focus on the main subject and finish with some last composition and shoot. That´s how I did with a lot of my photos from Morocco.
I have only had my 67 system (6X7, 67 II + 5 lenses and a TC=equals a steep learning curve) for a year now and haven´t had the oportunity to try out WLF yet (..or a spotmeter with it), but I would love to sometime.

[Silent Street]

On my trip to Ladakh my main camera was the 6X7. But I also took my LX, with wich I shot the photo with the rock in the foreground. And for the Tokina 28mm lens, with it´s 52mm filter thread, I didn´t have a yellow filter. But you are right: It´s a must-have.
I don´t have a Pentax spotmeter and use the meter in for instance my LX in this way (the ‘Rokia‘ photo): I make two measurements in the scene, a dark one and a bright one of interest, while I also think about composition. Then I manually set the speed to an average between the two (tending towards the dark measurement at night). Then focus on the main subject and finish with some last composition and shoot. That´s how I did with a lot of my photos from Morocco.
I have only had my 67 system (6X7, 67 II + 5 lenses and a TC=equals a steep learning curve) for a year now and haven´t had the oportunity to try out WLF yet (..or a spotmeter with it), but I would love to sometime.

Your metering is reasonable, as I read it, a reading from the brightest part of the scene you want correctly exposed (but not bright white) and a reading of the darkest part of the scene, (but not deep black), then averaged. But there should be a mid-tone reference point between the two. There are many tricks, enough to make you cross-eyed, with a spot meter taking into account basal mid-tones, high- or low-bias keys, calibration shifts, filter compensation and baseline compensation combinations. I use nearly all of these for correctly exposing transparency film destined for printing, framing and exhibition. And the 67/6x7 is the ideal camera for it: stuff the TTL meter when 1sec is as far as it can meter: bring out the Sekonics!

[PPPPPP42]

Well, the scanned one is only ‘overexposed‘ in a very small area in the upper right corner and on her shirt, that goes to 99%, actually a larger area in the shelf area in the background room is completely black at 0%.

Some of the B&W greats of the past would have this looking like a super bowl play if they marked it for all the burning and dodging it could use. She has such attractive skin tones and though I guess it wasn't exactly overexposed she kinda got bleached out in the second version, though its nice to have the shelves show up in the background.
I would love to see that with something hung up out of the shot to diffuse the light incoming from the right and allow for a more even exposure.

EDIT: actually looking again I think you really got it right with the wet print, the darks and lights just work out in an artistic way, its just enough detail where its needed.

[jt_cph_dk]

Some of the B&W greats of the past would have this looking like a super bowl play if they marked it for all the burning and dodging it could use. She has such attractive skin tones and though I guess it wasn't exactly overexposed she kinda got bleached out in the second version, though its nice to have the shelves show up in the background.
I would love to see that with something hung up out of the shot to diffuse the light incoming from the right and allow for a more even exposure.

EDIT: actually looking again I think you really got it right with the wet print, the darks and lights just work out in an artistic way, its just enough detail where its needed.

This is a travel/street shot. She is looking at the only action going on in sleepy Sidi Ifni that day: A car sale. So, no chance of succes with me blocking her sight with a screen — had I had one. And I should take your complement to the lab and the guy who did the the job, were it not for the fact, that I had to take this photo (and the four other ones) down from the long time exhibition in a nice café, because the lab were using old chemicals! Resulting in this (rbg instead of grey):



..which is the main reason for me to get into scanning and digital printing. Now, I love wet print so much, that I´m looking into joining a club in Copenhagen, where I can share equipment/chemicals/workspace etc. because I don´t use it enough or have the means for this on my own. That´s the situation

Regards

Note: I had my first major solo photo exhibition in a gallery last year. It was when preparing the material for this, that I decided going on the digital path. There is only one or two professional labs left in my area (CPH is +1mill. pop), that do large, handcopied wet prints and they sure are dear. So, until I have the skills and tools myself, there really is no alternative to digital production, because the pricetag for my work would go through the roof. Regretable as it is.

---

Last edited by jt_cph_dk; 09-20-2012 at 02:47 AM. Reason: added text

[jt_cph_dk]

Your metering is reasonable, as I read it, a reading from the brightest part of the scene you want correctly exposed (but not bright white) and a reading of the darkest part of the scene, (but not deep black), then averaged. But there should be a mid-tone reference point between the two. There are many tricks, enough to make you cross-eyed, with a spot meter taking into account basal mid-tones, high- or low-bias keys, calibration shifts, filter compensation and baseline compensation combinations. I use nearly all of these for correctly exposing transparency film destined for printing, framing and exhibition. And the 67/6x7 is the ideal camera for it: stuff the TTL meter when 1sec is as far as it can meter: bring out the Sekonics!

Thank´s a lot, I´m happy to know, that I´m on the right path to good photography. And my ‘method‘ being based on visual skills from my (pro level) work with graphic design and drawings, and thus instinct more than formal training or reading Ansel Adams books on photography and ‘zones‘ etc. makes me even happier. I will most probably never become familiar with all the ‘tricks‘ that you mention, but thank´s for handing me some clues in the search for better photography skills.

[tuco]

...

Focus on the seagull was not my prime subject (impossible anyway to get exact focus on a bird coming at you).
...

Difficult to focus for sure. Especially in that case. But never say never. I built a wireless remote with IR beam switch option for mechanical film cameras. It works with my 500C/M, P6x7 and M7II cameras. So it should work with about any mechanical camera.

Maybe you've seen this already but here is a test shot with the Pentax 67 M* 300mm ED IF lens. I really haven't done anything else with this device so far. A lot of work on my part for yet another hair-brained idea.

Delta 3200 @ EI 3200, f5.6, 1/1000

[jt_cph_dk]

Difficult to focus for sure. Especially in that case. But never say never. I built a wireless remote with IR beam switch option for mechanical film cameras. It works with my 500C/M, P6x7 and M7II cameras. So it should work with about any mechanical camera.

Maybe you've seen this already but here is a test shot with the Pentax 67 M* 300mm ED IF lens. I really haven't done anything else with this device so far. A lot of work on my part for yet another hair-brained idea.

Delta 3200 @ EI 3200, f5.6, 1/1000

It is so nice, fantastic, that you make a contraption like that! It must be such fun to think out and build. What´s the chain of action? IR-beam - motion sensor - electronic link - small electro motor - mechanic lever - etc? Do you have a photo of it, could be cool to see it. These things exist for capturing wild animals and there should be a kind of ‘market‘, I guess.

Great shot and really sharp!

[tuco]

It is so nice, fantastic, that you make a contraption like that! It must be such fun to think out and build. What´s the chain of action? IR-beam - motion sensor - electronic link - small electro motor - mechanic lever - etc? Do you have a photo of it, could be cool to see it. These things exist for capturing wild animals and there should be a kind of ‘market‘, I guess.

Great shot and really sharp!

Thanks.

Here is an early picture before I built the cases. That black thingamajig is for a CO2 canister to dispense a shot of air to push a air cable release. I also have a small electric solenoid to push the shutter that is much more compact. But the 500C/M requires too much force for the solenoid to push the shutter. And each camera needs a custom bracket made to hold the solenoid over the shutter button. The CO2 is a generic solution and has plenty of push.

Those home made, single layer circuit boards I had to make to control the behavior of the IR beam switch. But you don't use that if you want to just use that key ring transmitter to just push by hand to fire the remote solenoid or CO2 canister.

[PPPPPP42]

Tuco you are using the wrong avatar.

[Ed Hurst]

Whatever you do, don't try and get that through an airport

[jt_cph_dk]

Tuco you are using the wrong avatar.

This guy looks like he is contemplating adding some C4 to the thing

[jt_cph_dk]

....the best laugh I´ve had in a long time