Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

Notices


  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

  Home · Search · Register  
Please note: The posting of negative scans is prohibited in FADU, except within the Help or Discussion Galleries when requesting help with negative faults or the like.   Click for details.

Home » FADU Galleries » Help Gallery Photo Options
more
Charles_Bridge_West_Gate.jpg
HP5_-_1013_copy.jpg
tree_study.jpg
printing_1.jpg
3997644976_37212c7eb8.jpg
more

Previous image   Slide Show   Next image

tree_study
Tree Study

Previous image   Slide Show   Next image


Photo Details
TheoP


Friend

Registered: December 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 129
users gallery
This year is the first year I've ever had a chance to shoot in snow and my first 35mm roll was awful, everything horribly under exposed, no contrast etc etc.


I went out again with a roll of 400 ASA HP5+ (my last roll, need to go find some money), and made exposures much more carefully, over exposing by roughly 1 stop each time.


This tree was difficult though, I metered from the trunk, and that was 1 stop over the snow, so just went with that. Do you think this was the best way to do it?


I'm pleased with the outcome for sure, maybe not the overall composition (a bit messy), but the amount of detail in the trunk/branches works for me.


Just a side note, my zeiss ikon nettar is SUPER sharp, this is a scan of the negative (still can't get into the darkroom, argh), and I'm lucky enough to have access to very nice epson expression 10000xl, which scans up to 9600 dpi. I did this on 3200, and zoomed in 100% is sharper than my d******. This cost 15.


I always put really long descriptions.
Date: Thu, 14, January, 2010 Views: 3450
Filesize: 142.7kb Dimensions: 534 x 533
Additional Info
Keywords: Tree Study
Film make, size & rating:: HP5+ 120 400
Film developer & temp:: ID-11 24 degrees
Lens focal length, aperture & speed:: 75mm, f/11, 1/100th
Tripod used Y/N:: Y
Paper:: Scan

Author
Thread  
StanW

Friend

Registered: June 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 581
Thu, 14, January, 2010 11:03pm

As far as I can judge, I think you need more exposure still. This is where an incident light meter scores. The snow is lacking in texture, and the deeper shadows are very dark.

------------------------------
Alive and clicking Down Under. A sad case of GAS - 8x10 pinhole down to 35mm slr and rf
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit StanW's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
TheoP
Friend

Registered: December 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 129
Thu, 14, January, 2010 11:29pm

Thanks Stan. I'm wondering, if I over expose would that not blow out the snow even more, getting rid of even more texture?
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
RH Designs

Friend

Registered: September 2008
Location: Yorkshire Dales
Posts: 1,087
Fri, 15, January, 2010 1:27pm

There appears to be detail in the shadows on my screen so I think your exposure was OK - if you metered off the trunk and opened up a stop it should certainly have been adequate. The flat lighting means flat snow I'm afraid, not much you can do about that. As it's a negative scan, have you tried altering the scanner settings to reduce the high contrast and bring out more detail? Scanners tend to use too high a contrast setting by default. If there's plenty of detail in the darkest parts of the tree you'll be able to print it on a suitable paper grade.

------------------------------
Regards, Richard RH Designs darkroom equipment : dalesphoto.co.uk
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit RH Designs's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
TheoP
Friend

Registered: December 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 129
Fri, 15, January, 2010 8:31pm

Richard, it definitely varies on each monitor. I had a look today to show my teacher and it was a lot darker than it is on my laptop.
No I didn't try scanning with less contrast. I didn't adjust any settings. I'll give it a go if I have the time.
I can't wait to try and print this in the darkroom and actually spend time on it, its so much more satisfying than a scan..
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
CarlRadford

Friend

Registered: October 2008
Location: Just outside of Glasgow
Posts: 227
Sat, 23, January, 2010 12:31pm

Theo are you saying that you spot metered from the trunk and snow and that there was only one stop difference? If so there is an error somewhere - one might expect that the snow and tree trunk be somewhere roughly between 3-7 stops apart?
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit CarlRadford's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
TheoP
Friend

Registered: December 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 129
Sun, 24, January, 2010 10:18am

Ah I miss-typed that, I metered from the trunk and over exposed that by one stop.
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
MickS

Friend

Registered: February 2010
Location: March
Posts: 29
Wed, 24, February, 2010 1:45pm

Watcha Theo,
on my screen there is little detail in the trunk; however, that doesn't matter, if the picture is what you were aiming for and got, thay is all that matters. I remeber reading something our good friend on here (Roger Hicks) said in one of his books, or it may have been AP, 'there is no such thing as perfect exposure, only the exposure that is perfect for the picture that YOU want.'
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Visit MickS's homepage! Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
Mike O'Pray
Friend

Registered: October 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 7,445
Fri, 30, April, 2010 8:50pm

Only you know how dark the trunk was on the day but if it had some textured detail and you got close enough to it to exclude any other surface then the meter says that at its metered exposure it is zone V so you need to under expose by at least one or more likely two stops to make the trunk zone III.It looks like zone II on the scan


Unless your meter can cut out the large area of snow then what the meter will show is something closer than it should be to middle grey zone V but unduly influenced by the reflection of the snow so it attempts to show snow as closer to zone V than it should and you'd need to over expose by at least one or maybe two stops. However the snow is fairly white looking and not at all grey which suggests that you have got the snow about right. If there was texture in the snow then maybe you have over exposed by one too many stops but if this was the case then the trunk shouldn't be so dark and almost textureless.


I think that maybe the scanner isn't replicating the negative as it should and an accurate scan of a print might give a different and more accurate picture. The proper print might be much closer to the real scene than the scan of the neg makes it seem.


Mike
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  


Photo Sharing Gallery by PhotoPost
Copyright © 2007 All Enthusiast, Inc.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.