Case and a film

jcdeboever · Mar 13, 2016

Film, K1000.

Dave442 · Mar 13, 2016

I like the sky and clouds in the second shot, just wondering if you used a yellow or orange filter or did some processing in post. Especially as the first shot seems like it could have had a better sky, or is it just the lower contrast in the first shot.

In the first shot the lamp on the building is distracting. In the second shot I also like how the kid is leaning back with an arc like the tractor wheel. And then kid in the third shot that is fascinated by the tractor while everyone else is looking elsewhere.

jcdeboever · Mar 13, 2016

Dave442 said:
I like the sky and clouds in the second shot, just wondering if you used a yellow or orange filter or did some processing in post. Especially as the first shot seems like it could have had a better sky, or is it just the lower contrast in the first shot.

In the first shot the lamp on the building is distracting. In the second shot I also like how the kid is leaning back with an arc like the tractor wheel. And then kid in the third shot that is fascinated by the tractor while everyone else is looking elsewhere.

Thanks. No filter, did not know about them at the time, I now have a yellow filter for the film. Just a little black slide on the film shot, didn't notice the lamp until you mentioned it.

I bumped the highlights a little in post on the 2nd one, definitely the third. Time of day, angle, location of sun, I have learned more about since being on here, so hopefully my next tractor show will be even better. I will probably just use film the next show. Nikon F, Nikkor 50mm Auto S f/1.4, Nikon yellow filter, HP5 400+ ISO film, and a SB-15 flash.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

LarryLomona · Mar 13, 2016

Nice set

Gary A. · Mar 13, 2016

Nice exposure on that last shot, backlighting and everything. Thoughts on film?

timor · Mar 13, 2016

How did you develop the film ? To me this pictures are a bit flat. Despite you bumping up the contrast.
Did you use exclusively the light meter in camera ?

jcdeboever · Mar 13, 2016

@timor , @Gary A. Film sent to Dwaynes. Meter in camera. Developing my own here on out, unless I can't find the time. Oh, the only film pic here is the one marked film, K1000 (1st one). Other two are D3300 and converted in Gimp to B & W.

As far as flatness...I am working on the zone system now. I am also reading up on depth of field. I am not real into editing photo's either, just basics. I am really working hard at getting it close in camera. Keep in mind, these were shot the first month I got into photography, I have learned a lot more since. However, it does seem like film has a more 3D look then digital, I could be wrong but that is what my eyes are telling me.

I definitely prefer film over digital at this point. I like simple.

I have become very frustrated with digital menu's which is weird because I am a tech guy. It really is my fault though, I read a settings guide by Ken Rockwell before I knew what I was doing and that set me back a couple months. Now I have a better understanding and leave it pretty much at default, other than bumping the sharpness at bit.

timor · Mar 13, 2016

I see. The flatness must come from conversion then...
Zone system... You gonna have to find time, a lot of it for that. But just to clarify, zone system is not only exposure and film development, it is also integrated with wet printing method. There are other things to consider to. For small format I would rather suggest directing the effort on good compensating development system.

Tim Tucker · Mar 14, 2016

I agree with timor. Though it is possible to use the zone system with roll film it is very specific. The system itself is not just about exposure, but linking subject luminance to specific and repeatable densities in the negative and from there to in the finished print. The zones, or steps of grey, in the system are the actual tones in the finished print. You're producing densities in the negative that are linked directly to the performance of wet printing paper. The Zone System adapted for roll film would generally give you a thinner negative that may not scan as well. Also when you scan you will re-map the values so it becomes a fairly pointless exersize.

Film doesn't have inherently more 3D, it is the subtle differences in the light reflected off objects that produces this effect. It's just in digital it's easier to flatten these differences with global editing such as sharpening/clarity and tone mapping than it is with film.

timor · Mar 14, 2016

Nevertheless it is very beneficial to understand, even if only in teory, zone system. It gives better understanding of relation between exposure and development if one is willing to experiment a bit. After all film development is the most important process in b&w photography, negative is all the photographer has. Plus there is a gozillion ways to do that so it also fun. Especially after discovering, that whatever is "officially" known about it it is not the whole truth and only truth. :1219:

jcdeboever · Mar 14, 2016

timor said:
Nevertheless it is very beneficial to understand, even if only in teory, zone system. It gives better understanding of relation between exposure and development if one is willing to experiment a bit. After all film development is the most important process in b&w photography, negative is all the photographer has. Plus there is a gozillion ways to do that so it also fun. Especially after discovering, that whatever is "officially" known about it it is not the whole truth and only truth.

I will start a new thread on an example of exposure challenge I noticed when using K1000, Dwayne's developing.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk