[aurele]

Tuco, your shot is really incredible, looks like a film version of HDR. In fact i guess that your process of zone system is made to get that HDR.

I learned the "zone system" on DSLR, not SLR, and because DSLR get more information on dark area, than in bright area, i guess it's why i was taught to meter the bright and develop for dark area, to get a better HDR on digital.

So far, i don't process my film myself, but when i will do, i'll try both zone system method

[titrisol]

Maybe your teacher was using slide film

funny ! i was teach the exact opposite ! it was called the Zone System

[aurele]

nop, digital.

But i guess the principe of zone system is not the same on digital and film.

Or maybe i'm wrong, but exposing shadow, and developping for highlights on film will "burn" all times my picture on the shot, and no software can recover area without data

[Argenticien]

... my skys are totally blown out and there is not much contrast in many of the shots... what variables do I need to consider and improve upon next roll? ... please help a newbie!!!! THANKS!

You don't mention if you're new to film, new to black and white, or to photography overall, etc., but I'm inferring new to B&W film, since you're calling yourself a newbie in a post in the Film SLR section! The contrast in your pix doesn't look that bad, and as to the "blown-out" sky, consider this: seeing life in color, you're accustomed to the sky contrasting greatly with adjacent subjects: blue sky vs. green trees or grass, blue sky vs. white sand, etc. But as to overall luminance, the (daytime) sky is very bright, which in B&W will naturally get you to the tones you're calling "blown out." Assuming you came from digital, you might want to do a roll of B&W film in the new MX and duplicate each pic with your DSLR in B&W mode (to save time; need not worry about shoot color RAW and desaturate later). Ideally, do the DSLR shots in centre-weighted metering, then in whatever fancy matrix mode you're most accustomed to. Compare the DSLR B&W shots to the film ones, and you may find that they're actually pretty similar, i.e., the problem is not with the MX but with blue skies in B&W generally. Often, to make the daytime sky in B&W as dark (or as much in contrast to foreground subjects) as a blue sky "feels" in color, you'll need to load on a yellow or orange filter (as mentioned above) and a polariser, and/or burn in the sky when printing.

Hope this helps.
--Dave

[wehavenowaves!]

hey thanks for all the tips or help. i am very new to film. this was only the second roll i shot and the first once hasnt been developed yet. i took it to a local lab, so i dont know how it was processed or scanned. basically what i gather is this: #1 cloudless skys often look white on B/W film #2 i should consider underexposing by a 1/2 or 1 stops on sunny days. i have another quick question because i am planning to develop my own B/W film in the future, but for the time being, what should i expect to pay for a roll of B/W film to be developed? I feel like i was overcharged for my first roll. But, maybe its just really expensive!

[titrisol]

Same rules as slide film?
BUT they always tell you to expose to the right side of the historgram!!!
Expose Right

nop, digital.

But i guess the principe of zone system is not the same on digital and film.

Or maybe i'm wrong, but exposing shadow, and developping for highlights on film will "burn" all times my picture on the shot, and no software can recover area without data

[aurele]

BUT they always tell you to expose to the right side of the historgram!!!

the main problem is that when i expose to the right with my K-x, i always get burned pictures.

[John Poirier]

nop, digital.

But i guess the principe of zone system is not the same on digital and film.

Or maybe i'm wrong, but exposing shadow, and developping for highlights on film will "burn" all times my picture on the shot, and no software can recover area without data

Black and white film is vastly different from digital. The Zone System was originally developed by Ansel Adams in the 1940s to assist photographers with being more consistent with black and white exposure, film processing, and printing. Some aspects of the Zone System, primarlly those dealing with exposure and what is now called "dynamic range", can be loosely adapted to digital.

Yes, you are wrong in believing that exposing for shadows and developing for highlights will blow out highlights. One of the outcomes of properly developing film for highlights is avoidance of that particular problem, which in film photography is also termed "blocking up".

Developing film has no relationship to "developing" files in a computer program.

Rather than attempting to apply your digital learning to film, I suggest that you find one or two good generalist black and white photography books. Anything published in the last 40 years or so should be adequate. One advantage of books is that they give you an overview of the topic and answer questions that you would not even think of on your own.

[Argenticien]

what should i expect to pay for a roll of B/W film to be developed? I feel like i was overcharged for my first roll. But, maybe its just really expensive!

I have no idea of the prices in Seoul, but where I live (in US, in North Carolina), my local pro shop quotes this for 35 mm (prices in USD):

Process negatives only: $8.99
Prints (4 inch x 6 inch):

Single prints:

24 exposures $19.99
36 exposures $24.99

Double prints:

24 exposures $23.99
36 exposures $28.99

Comparable color processing cost at same shop is $4.99 process only, $9.99 for 24 single prints or $12.99 for 36 single prints. (& so on for the doubles)

So yes, B&W is quite costly, mostly in the printing. Last I knew, this was due to black & white being done by hand, whereas color negative process C-41 or color transparency process E-6 are run by machine typically. Actually the USD 8.99 price for processing only is not terrible, and you quite possibly don't want the prints anyway.

Apparently 1 USD = 1178 KRW today.

--Dave

[jeverettfine]

Overall, these shots remind me of my own B&W snaps (as returned from the photofinishers) from the '50's: it is because of shots such as these that I enthusiastically took to chromes and colour instead.

Since then, I have discovered that the kind of prints (see Ansel Adams and /Weston etc) I had hoped to get required both the creative utilisation of various filters (to beef up contrast and to bring out the clouds), the use of different "grades" of printing paper, and some post processing steps (such as dodging and burning in).

All this was a bit too much for me, so I have stuck with colour.

Funny, I have always been on the opposite side and prefer B&W over color. Maybe it has to do with being a large format lover (4x5, 8x10) and a follower of the zone system etc. To excell at B&W "fine prints" you need to cover and test every aspect from exposure, to filtration, to developing to printing, etc. Find copies of Ansel Adams photo series, especially "The Negative" and "The Print". The materials published by Fred Picker and his Zone Workshop are also very useful. I will also say that 35mm is a bit more difficult than cut film and even 120. It has to do with the thickness and density of the film stock as well as the sensitivity threshold and dynamic range of the film. As for film, Tri-x is one of my favorites, but I shoot it at an ISO of 200, otherwise shadows can be black and featureless. Then I develop it accordingly with HC110 to ensure that the highlights are not blocked out. Some relatively simple testing will get you the proper development times.
If you take it to a lab, tell them what ISO it was shot at and they should know how to handle it.

[jeverettfine]

Financial issues are the entire reason I began developing my own film and printing at home. I soon discovered that I could get far better prints in my home darkroom than I could get from a commercial lab. One huge problem these days is that most of the quality b&w papers are gone. About all you can find now are poly multigrade. Single grade, high silver papers are very scarce and mostly made in eastern europe. Fred Picker back in 1980 was already advising photographers to buy a lifetime supply of paper, film (store it in a freezer) and even chemicals like original formula HC-110 because the "good stuff" was fast disappearing. It all came true. I wish I had done it.
You can always get into historical processes and make your own paper as many photo artists do now. Next you'll get an old view camera and learn to make your own negative materials.

[TomB_tx]

basically what i gather is this: #1 cloudless skys often look white on B/W film #2 i should consider underexposing by a 1/2 or 1 stops on sunny days.

For natural looking skies with B&W film you really need to use a yellow or orange filter on the lens when taking the picture. That will darken the blue and bring out the white clouds.

[gofour3]

For natural looking skies with B&W film you really need to use a yellow or orange filter on the lens when taking the picture. That will darken the blue and bring out the white clouds.

Yep and a polarizer also works well on B&W.

Phil.

[ully]

Aurele,

Expose for highlights is good for transparencies.

[aurele]

Aurele,

Expose for highlights is good for transparencies.

i'm not sure to understand what you mean