Difference between learning color and b&w photography

[Compaq]

same cameras. same lenses. same film. same shutter speed. same fstop. same day, right next to each other.

So if the EXIFs were identical, how come the exposures are different? :scratch:

 

[Fred Berg]

A couple of you, tirediron and naptime, have mentioned how cheap and easy it is to pick up the equipment and chemicals and get developing at home (in the kitchen!). I'd love to get started on this myself and have a question: Once you've developed the film and have the negatives is it possible to cut out the need for an enlarger and light-sensitive photographic paper,and to scan the negatives and do the rest of the process digitally?

 

[tirediron]

A couple of you, tirediron and naptime, have mentioned how cheap and easy it is to pick up the equipment and chemicals and get developing at home (in the kitchen!). I'd love to get started on this myself and have a question: Once you've developed the film and have the negatives is it possible to cut out the need for an enlarger and light-sensitive photographic paper,and to scan the negatives and do the rest of the process digitally?

Absolutely, all you need is either a film scanner, or a regular home-scanner which has a 35mm negative scanning adaptor. Those can be had for anywhere from $100 -$15,000

 

[naptime]

same cameras. same lenses. same film. same shutter speed. same fstop. same day, right next to each other.

So if the EXIFs were identical, how come the exposures are different? :scratch:

i'm new. you tell me ??

 

[naptime]

A couple of you, tirediron and naptime, have mentioned how cheap and easy it is to pick up the equipment and chemicals and get developing at home (in the kitchen!). I'd love to get started on this myself and have a question: Once you've developed the film and have the negatives is it possible to cut out the need for an enlarger and light-sensitive photographic paper,and to scan the negatives and do the rest of the process digitally?

absolutely. just as tirediron said. you just need a film scanner. or a home scanner with a film attachment.

it can be done with a normal scanner, which is what we have done. but i had to do some rigging to get it to work, and i am certainly not capturing all of the date that i could be capturing. i am also getting some banding from the scanner.

but again, that's the difference between a $150 film scanner, and a 50 all in one printer/scanner/copier.

you get what you pay for. though, we did not buy this scanner for film. we already had it.

in a month or so we are planning to buy an actual film scanner.

 

[Fred Berg]

@ tirediron & naptime

Thanks for the info. I shall start looking locally and on ebay to see if I can get a scanner for this at a price I can afford. Having film done at the lab, especially B&W, is getting a wee bit pricey.

 

[ann]

same cameras. same lenses. same film. same shutter speed. same fstop. same day, right next to each other.

So if the EXIFs were identical, how come the exposures are different? :scratch:

i'm new. you tell me ??[/QU


Your not at the same angle or the same view point, and that will effect how the light is hitting the meter which in turn effects the exposure.

They look similar but there not.

 

[naptime]

So if the EXIFs were identical, how come the exposures are different? :scratch:

i'm new. you tell me ??[/QU


Your not at the same angle or the same view point, and that will effect how the light is hitting the meter which in turn effects the exposure.

They look similar but there not.

well, that's what i thought. that's what i said at the beginning. but when the question was posted i thought there must be some other answer. ?

i was kneeling, she was standing. and our aim is at slightly different areas, which i assumed then affected our meters, which at the time, we knew nothing about.

 

[Rephargotohp]

i'm new. you tell me ??[/QU


Your not at the same angle or the same view point, and that will effect how the light is hitting the meter which in turn effects the exposure.

They look similar but there not.

well, that's what i thought. that's what i said at the beginning. but when the question was posted i thought there must be some other answer. ?
i was kneeling, she was standing. and our aim is at slightly different areas, which i assumed then affected our meters, which at the time, we knew nothing about.

I thought you didn't meter and used sunny 16 chart or was this a different time?

If everything was the same ( no metering) other differences can be slight difference in developer time / temp/ agitation. Difference in scan

 

[naptime]

well, that's what i thought. that's what i said at the beginning. but when the question was posted i thought there must be some other answer. ?
i was kneeling, she was standing. and our aim is at slightly different areas, which i assumed then affected our meters, which at the time, we knew nothing about.

I thought you didn't meter and used sunny 16 chart or was this a different time?

If everything was the same ( no metering) other differences can be slight difference in developer time / temp/ agitation. Difference in scan

correct. we did not know about metering. we had the sunny 16 chart, and with my limited understanding, this is what we came up with.

iso 100 film, shutter 90, and f11.

it'll be interesting to see any changes after they get scanned properly.

 

[skieur]

I started in colour. As a matter of fact, even my mother started in colour more than half a century ago. I know how black and white should be done but usually it is done to hide mistakes that would show up in colour. I have even seen advice here to the effect that a poor colour shot might be better in black in white. Ah, NO, a poor shot is a poor shot in any colour or lack thereof.

Black and white takes a lot more effort to get it right and most experts such as Karsh, Ansel Adams, and others, spent one heck of a long time on set-up and postprocessing to get the shot to their level of perfection.

I have not seen anything close to that level of quality in black and white in a very long time and certainly not in any of the galleries here, but then maybe I missed someone's work..

skieur

 

[enzodm]

i'm new. you tell me ??[/QU


Your not at the same angle or the same view point, and that will effect how the light is hitting the meter which in turn effects the exposure.

They look similar but there not.

well, that's what i thought. that's what i said at the beginning. but when the question was posted i thought there must be some other answer. ?

i was kneeling, she was standing. and our aim is at slightly different areas, which i assumed then affected our meters, which at the time, we knew nothing about.

if the triad is the same (ISO f/ shutter), then the exposure has been the same, and metering too. Most likely there has been a difference in the rest of the path - development, scanning, etc.

 

[Derrel]

Color and black and white use different design elements and principles in entirely different ways. Some elements, like line, shape,size,texture,and value are important in B&W. Hue, or color, is absent.
Without color, many natural and man-made objects appear less-interesting and more "similar"...subtle patterns that are done in color on say, clothing, tend to "disappear" when captured in B&W. Recently, a beginner shot a photo of a bed of seashells; in color, she felt that it looked like "chaos"...that was one of her title words, chaos. Had the photo been made in B&W, in the fairly flat,open shade in which it had been shot, the shadows would have been dull and lifeless, and the entire feeling and effect of "difference" and "chaos" would have subsided--dramatically!!!

The BEST lighting for color photography is often not the BEST lighting for B&W photography. A really good example is in portraiture: for color work, pure white umbrellas look pretty good. For optimal rendering in B&W, slightly smaller umbrellas look better, as do umbrellas with silvered interior fabrics....they produce a "crisper" light that tends to look better in B&W images.

In B&W, oftentimes the shapes and lines of the subject take on a critical importance, and if the shapes and lines are not very strong, a B&W photo of a certain scene or subject might not appear of much interest; if however, color is added, then the subject or scene might appear quite interesting. In B&W, contrast between elements is not easily shown when the color differences are slight; in color photography, slight color differences can often be quite visible. Sometimes REMOVING all of the color can improve a photo, by eliminating distracting colors or discordant colors. SOmetimes ditching B&W and going to a full-color rendition is the only ay to make a scene or subject come alive.

 

[ann]

i'm new. you tell me ??[/QU


Your not at the same angle or the same view point, and that will effect how the light is hitting the meter which in turn effects the exposure.

They look similar but there not.

well, that's what i thought. that's what i said at the beginning. but when the question was posted i thought there must be some other answer. ?

i was kneeling, she was standing. and our aim is at slightly different areas, which i assumed then affected our meters, which at the time, we knew nothing about.

the last sentence is your answer, your assumption would be correct based on the images posted. You know more than you think you know, it just isn't organized at this time

 

[enzodm]

well, that's what i thought. that's what i said at the beginning. but when the question was posted i thought there must be some other answer. ?

i was kneeling, she was standing. and our aim is at slightly different areas, which i assumed then affected our meters, which at the time, we knew nothing about.

the last sentence is your answer, your assumption would be correct based on the images posted. You know more than you think you know, it just isn't organized at this time

Since Naptime also wrote "same cameras. same lenses. same film. same shutter speed. same fstop. same day, right next to each other.", metering does not matter, since it is aimed at choosing shutter and/or f/stop. Most likely it has been a difference in development or scanning, although the different high-low position could have produced some difference (not so much).