Sharpness Redux

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:34:30 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin <pirwin.TakeThisOut@ktb.net>
wrote:

....
 >Kodak claims exceptional underexposure latitude for all of
 >the T-max films. This appears to hold up really well in the
 >case of Tmax 3200 TMZ, but UC is hardly the only person
 >to observe that the slower T-max films seem to be particularly
 >unkind to underexposures.
 >
 >Peter.


apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick,

I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format.

I think it should be labeled EI 200. To me, it seems like a
superlative 200 film that performs very well pushed to 400.

I like Kodak P3200 (TMZ) as well, but again, I regard it as an
exceptionally good film at a lower EI than the maker suggests (I set
my meter to 800), and a good performer when pushed.

I have always hated the results if I underexpose any of the Kodak
tabular grain films. I happen to like shadow detail, and underexposure
does not permit shadow detail.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait.TakeThisOut@heylloyd.com
net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</a>
________________________________
--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

J.Scheimpflug wrote:
 > "Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote
 >
  > > I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format.
  > >
  > > I think it should be labeled EI 200. To me, it seems like a
  > > superlative 200 film that performs very well pushed to 400.
  > > [...]
 >
 > It could also be that you are a photographer who knows how to meter
 > properly.

The ISO standard for B&W films is defective and should be revised. ALL
films need more exposure than ISO calls for.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote

 > I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format.
 >
 > I think it should be labeled EI 200. To me, it seems like a
 > superlative 200 film that performs very well pushed to 400.
 > [...]

It could also be that you are a photographer who knows how to meter
properly. <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:49:34 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug"
<jscheimpflug RemoveThis @nix.net> wrote:

 >"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote
 >
  >> I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format.
  >>
  >> I think it should be labeled EI 200. To me, it seems like a
  >> superlative 200 film that performs very well pushed to 400.
  >> [...]
 >
 >It could also be that you are a photographer who knows how to meter
 >properly.
 >


apr1505 from Lloyd Erlick,

Well, perhaps so, but metering the same way in each case, meter set at
200 and at 400, I find the results at 200 much more to my liking.

Is there such a thing as proper metering? My way works for me, which
only means that my negatives yield prints that I like. Since I make
portraits, I like shadow detail and nice tonality in skin tones.

I think a big part of the issue for me -- in terms of Kodak T-Max 400
(TMY) -- is that this film is very tolerant of over-exposure. (I do
not find it tolerant of under-exposure.) This means that I can get
plenty of detail in the shadows, without blocking the highlights.
Blocked highlights were reputedly a problem with this film,
particularly when it was introduced. But more careful development
helped a lot there, and I routinely get very easily printed negatives.
Of course, saying the film tolerates over-exposure could also be
interpreted to mean the film is slower than advertised, so which
stance do we take?

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait RemoveThis @heylloyd.com
net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</a>
________________________________
--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote

 > Is there such a thing as proper metering?

Only if you like to take pictures of step tablets.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:29:44 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see RemoveThis @sig.com>
wrote:

 >"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote
 >
  >> Is there such a thing as proper metering?
 >
 >Only if you like to take pictures of step tablets.


wasn't there a historical figure who came down from the mountain
carrying step tablets ??

--le<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote
 > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see RemoveThis @sig.com>
  > >"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote
   > > > Is there such a thing as proper metering?
  > >Only if you like to take pictures of step tablets.
 > wasn't there a historical figure who came down from the mountain
 > carrying step tablets ??

The Zone Commandments?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote in message
news:bdav51lkm7usbaenas082t4ppuokts77b9@4ax.com...
 > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:49:34 -0500, "J.Scheimpflug"
 > <jscheimpflug.TakeThisOut@nix.net> wrote:
 >
  >>"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote
  >>
   >>> I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format.
   >>>
   >>> I think it should be labeled EI 200. To me, it seems like a
   >>> superlative 200 film that performs very well pushed to 400.
   >>> [...]
  >>
  >>It could also be that you are a photographer who knows how to meter
  >>properly.
  >>
 >
 >
 > apr1505 from Lloyd Erlick,
 >
 > Well, perhaps so, but metering the same way in each case, meter set at
 > 200 and at 400, I find the results at 200 much more to my liking.
 >
 > Is there such a thing as proper metering? My way works for me, which
 > only means that my negatives yield prints that I like. Since I make
 > portraits, I like shadow detail and nice tonality in skin tones.
 >
 > I think a big part of the issue for me -- in terms of Kodak T-Max 400
 > (TMY) -- is that this film is very tolerant of over-exposure. (I do
 > not find it tolerant of under-exposure.) This means that I can get
 > plenty of detail in the shadows, without blocking the highlights.
 > Blocked highlights were reputedly a problem with this film,
 > particularly when it was introduced. But more careful development
 > helped a lot there, and I routinely get very easily printed negatives.
 > Of course, saying the film tolerates over-exposure could also be
 > interpreted to mean the film is slower than advertised, so which
 > stance do we take?
 >
 > regards,
 > --le
 > ________________________________
 > Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
 > voice: 416-686-0326
 > email: portrait.TakeThisOut@heylloyd.com
<font color=purple> > net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com</font" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</font</a>>
 > ________________________________
 > --
 >
I discovered a long time ago with negative films, colour or B&W, to err on
the generous side when using an incident light meter in a photographic
portraiture studio. I habitually increase the exposure indicated by the
light meter by half an f/stop for most subjects and even one f/stop when
photographing unusually dark toned subjects. For me, there is nothing worse
than trying to get a good print from a negative which has received
insufficient exposure at the picture taking stage.
Perhaps I am giving exposure compensation rather than deliberately down
rating the emulsion speed to allow for the camera to subject distance,
which a through the lens meter would automatically adjust for, bearing in
mind that hand meters are independent from the camera.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:58:10 +0100, "Keith Tapscott" <not DeleteThis @home.com>
wrote:
....
 >I discovered a long time ago with negative films, colour or B&W, to err on
 >the generous side when using an incident light meter in a photographic
 >portraiture studio. I habitually increase the exposure indicated by the
 >light meter by half an f/stop for most subjects and even one f/stop when
 >photographing unusually dark toned subjects. For me, there is nothing worse
 >than trying to get a good print from a negative which has received
 >insufficient exposure at the picture taking stage.
 >Perhaps I am giving exposure compensation rather than deliberately down
 >rating the emulsion speed to allow for the camera to subject distance,
 >which a through the lens meter would automatically adjust for, bearing in
 >mind that hand meters are independent from the camera.
 >


apr1705 from Lloyd Erlick,

I'm sure you could achieve the same end by reducing the EI entered
into the meter, and getting used to it. All the same in the end,
really. Indeed, there is nothing worse than struggling with an
underexposed negative.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait DeleteThis @heylloyd.com
net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</a>
________________________________
--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

"Lloyd Erlick" <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote in message
news:8dp461lhqidriuobnodtn4klcql72iig8o@4ax.com...
 > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:58:10 +0100, "Keith Tapscott" <not.TakeThisOut@home.com>
 > wrote:
 > ...
  >>I discovered a long time ago with negative films, colour or B&W, to err on
  >>the generous side when using an incident light meter in a photographic
  >>portraiture studio. I habitually increase the exposure indicated by the
  >>light meter by half an f/stop for most subjects and even one f/stop when
  >>photographing unusually dark toned subjects. For me, there is nothing
  >>worse
  >>than trying to get a good print from a negative which has received
  >>insufficient exposure at the picture taking stage.
  >>Perhaps I am giving exposure compensation rather than deliberately down
  >>rating the emulsion speed to allow for the camera to subject distance,
  >>which a through the lens meter would automatically adjust for, bearing in
  >>mind that hand meters are independent from the camera.
  >>
 >
 >
 > apr1705 from Lloyd Erlick,
 >
 > I'm sure you could achieve the same end by reducing the EI entered
 > into the meter, and getting used to it. All the same in the end,
 > really. Indeed, there is nothing worse than struggling with an
 > underexposed negative.
 >
 > regards,
 > --le
 > ________________________________
 > Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
 > voice: 416-686-0326
 > email: portrait.TakeThisOut@heylloyd.com
<font color=purple> > net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com</font" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</font</a>>
 > ________________________________
 > --
 >
I probably could get the same or similar by using a lower I.S.O. number
Lloyd, but my current method suits me fine.

Thank you.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux