POTW2012 - Week 4 - Shadow

My intent for this week's theme dovetailed nicely with my intent to try stand developing for the first time.

Stand (or, in this case, semi-stand) development uses a very dilute developing solution, and very little agitation. It's used as a compensating development method to bring out shadow detail and increase apparent dynamic range. By letting the film sit undisturbed, the highlight areas develop quickly, but exhaust the developer touching them just as quickly. The shadow areas develop much more slowly, and can sit undisturbed for long periods of time without depleting the active developer. In this way, your highlights don't blow out, but you can still see details in the shadows. It's one part exposure, by exposing correctly for the shadows, one part developing, and three parts patience. Letting a roll of film sit in the tank for forty minutes, only agitating once at the beginning and once halfway through was a new one for me.

I will point out that I don't think I was completely successful - the highlight areas in image below are, obviously, not blown out, as there's quite a bit of detail in the light fixture. The shadowed areas, frankly, could be a bit darker. I did 'shop some color back into the image. It needed something, and the clearest picture I had in my head of this composition was the red "< EXIT" on the sign.



So, no setup here, film and all, but, this is my "recipe" if you will:

Exposed to put the shadows in Zone III (I metered on the ducts, to the bottom-left of the sign)
Developed in 600ml 68-degree water plus 6ml of HC-110.
One minute agitation, sit for 20 minutes, 15 seconds of agitation, sit for another 20 minutes.
2 minutes in the stop, constant agitation.
5 minutes in Kodak fixer, agitate for first 90 seconds, then 5 inversions every minute thereafter.
5 minutes in Hypo.
5 minute rinse, Photo-flo, 5 more minutes of rinsing


I wish I would have had my 60D with me, to get a comparison shot on digital. I'm fairly confident saying that if I had made the same shot, at the same settings, you would have seen the shadows, but the light fixture and surrounding ductwork would have been clipped.

POTD 130 of 365

I think I missed a good opportunity with this shot:



This is, to my eye, a very compelling subject, and I'm having a hard time conveying that on film.

I do intend another crack at this, with the digital, so I can chimp the shots and see where I've gone wrong. I have some ideas, and I'd like to see how they play out on an LCD rather than waiting a week between the shot and the results.

POTD 126 of 365

So, I've got this shiny new lens, one of the finest lenses Canon produces, and what do I do?

I put it on a camera that's fifteen years old, loaded with cheap medium-speed film, and take it on a walk along a garbage-strewn path behind the office.

Heh.

Pictures soon - have to finish, develop, and scan the roll.



This lens is going to be way too much fun. I've finally broken the shackles of EF-S mount lenses. I'll never, ever, ever purchase another lens built for a crop sensor again. This baby works on all of my digital bodies, my current film body, and any other body I can see purchasing in the future.

I believe I've also broken out of my Tri-X prison, as well. This was shot on Ilford HP5+ 400, so, basically a direct competitor to Tri-X. It dries flat, like all the other Ilford films I've shot. Only downside, if you'll call it that, is that it's an extra minute in the tank developing it, but, I'm assuming that means it's even more forgiving of developing variations than Tri-X.

Anybody wanna buy some Kodak Tri-X 400? I've got a few rolls!

POTD 124 of 365

So, I'll cop to having taken this shot a few days ago.



I pulled into work just as the skies opened up. I reckoned the deluge would pass relatively quickly (and it did), but, I didn't want to get drenched, and I had nothing better to do for a few minutes, so, I took the shot.

Eh. Better than nothing, I suppose.

POTD 120 of 365

The Missus!

I saw the late afternoon light coming in through the bedroom window, so I asked The Missus to pose in the sunbeam.



Of course, immediately after I dropped the shutter on the last frame on the roll, I realized I should have turned her more towards the window, and, with the way the weather has been lately, I have no idea when we'll see the sun again.

Hopefully, I remember this for the next time it doesn't rain.

POTD 118 of 365

Took a few shots of a bright blue sky with fluffy white clouds this evening with the 620. They were shot on Tri-X 400, through a red filter, spot-metered on a cloud and bumped to +2 EV (to move the clouds into Zone 3), and, just for fun, I held a circular polarizer in front of the lens (because it's too big to thread on) to have a darkening effect on the sky.

I have four more shots left on the roll - I can't wait to see what these new ones look like.



Very little done in post to this shot - a quick, very minimal curves adjustment (after converting to RGB) and a light output sharpening was all it took.

I may have to get a CPL that fits my nifty fifty.

POTD 115 of 365

Shot an abandoned gas station today - finishing up my roll of Ilford Delta 400.

If the 400 base is anything like the 3200 base, I don't think I'm going back to Tri-X. Compared to Tri-X, the Iford film dries flat, rather than curling along the short axis, and, consequently, is a joy to scan and store.

Also, call me crazy, but the base isn't purple, like Tri-X, it's grey. Even though I'm scanning in B+W, I'm a little more confident that the tones are going to be more accurate coming from a grey negative.

So, yeah, gas station. I'll be developing the roll tomorrow, which means a scan in the near future.



And, I believe I'm a convert to Ilford. The base is purple, but, it dried flat. Now, before I do anything rash, like tossing out the last few rolls of Tri-X I have, I also realized that I've been running my Hypoclear at 400% strength, which may account for the flatness. I've got a roll of Tri-X in the camera now - once it's done, I'll process it using the too-strong Hypoclear and see if it dries flat, too.

POTD 112 of 365

I think the noise of the nifty-fifty racking back and forth hunting for focus woke him up:



Immediately after taking the shot, he got up, hit me in the head, and ate my camera.

Developing this roll was a bit of a challenge after that.

Kidding.

Seriously.

Kidding. No cats, cameras, or photographers were harmed in the making of this shot.

POTD 110 of 365

Nasty wreck on I-81 this morning - had traffic tied up for about an hour.

Apparently, a UPS tandem overturned in the median, and crane(s) had to be brought in to get it back up.

I've been unable to dig up any news stories as to whether or not everyone was OK, although, for what it's worth, I didn't see any ambulances.

This shot is pretty terrible, kind of a "run and gun" - I had the camera pointed over my left shoulder, out the window, set to f/11 to try to maximize my DoF, and when I got close the scene, I listened for the lens to stop hunting and took the shot. Say what you will, but, I was more concerned with keeping my own vehicle between the buoys.

POTD 107 of 365

The lilies are getting taller - taken with a green filter, and a fairish bit of post done in Photoshop:

POTD 102 of 365

Shooting a new (to me) film this evening. PPS (remember them?) had some Ilford Delta 3200 in stock, and I wanted to see what a real high-speed film can do.

So far I've popped a few shots with the new film, and, even overexposing by a stop and a half with the 50 at f/1.8 reads as hand-holdable even under weak lighting. Removing the exposure compensation and I'm shooting at 1/250 under my relatively low-powered kitchen lights. Spicy!

The urge to tear through this roll is very high, but, I'm going to try to pace myself a bit. This film, unlike Tri-X, ain't cheap, at around $10 for 36 exposures.

For this evening's shot, expect either a cat, a water bowl, or The Missus.

It's a cat!

POTD 101 of 365

I've been shooting a homemade test grid tonight on the Yashica. The more I shoot and measure, the more I believe that the focus may be off on this particular camera.

I've burnt the first half of the roll by focusing the camera through the viewfinder. I'm going to shoot the second half by measuring the distance from the film to the focus target and setting the focus distance on the lens accordingly.

We'll see where it goes, and you'll be right along with me as we get there.

Edit - no results tonight, because I forget to mix some developer yesterday, so, the new batch is mixed, but it's currently cooling down. Perhaps tomorrow.

So, the results are in, and they're not good.

I shot these two on a steady tripod, using the self-timer, under about as ideal conditions as my setup allows, and those conditions are relatively ideal.

This is one of the shots focused through the viewfinder:



Terrible, no? Blurry, out of focus, it's all bad.

This is a shot focused using the distance scale and a tape measure. Understand that this is somewhat non-scientific, as I was guesstimating the distance to the film in the camera. At the wider apertures I was shooting, an eight of an inch in either direction would certainly impact my focus. That said, it's not a perfect shot, and I don't mind admitting to being a little out of my league here when it comes to determining if the rangefinder is off, or, if the whole lens is pooched, too.



I've got a second one coming in the mail soon. I'll test that one, and see what happens.

POTD 95 of 365

This is one of my new toys.



I've been looking at rangefinders because they're a little lighter, a little simpler, and they're something I have absolutely no experience with.

I researched them a bit. The crème de la crème of rangefinder cameras, Leica, is just a teensy bit out of my price range. The Yashica Electro35 GSN shown here is generally well-regarded, has good optics, and, most important, is cheap. I snagged two of them on eBay for well under $100, including shipping from two sellers.

Oddly enough, the GTN model, while functionally identical, goes for a ton more, because it's all-black and more "collectible". As Nero Wolfe would say, "Pfui". I use my damn gear, and regard anyone who collects the stuff just to have it as a step off.

I've already put a roll of Tri-X through the camera, and exposure and metering are great, but my focus is sorely lacking. I'm not going to blame the equipment yet, because I haven't shot it in a controlled environment, nor have I shot it with my contacts in (the RF diamond is a bit hard to see with glasses).

If I can resolve my focusing issues, this thing is going to be a joy to shoot. It's light, and quiet.

POTD 94 of 365

This has been in my studio since before the studio was a studio. I'm surprised I haven't posted any pictures of it. Until now:



It's really folded (30 times, according to the maker), really clay-tempered, and really sharp.

It's also really hard to photograph without getting nasty reflections. I wimped out on this shot and shadowed the blade, rather than going for the specular highlights.

I will, undoubtedly, get this back up on the table for another shot or two.

POTD 93 of 365

Film this evening - shooting an anachronistic subject on an anachronistic medium.

This is my "daily driver", so to speak, although, I don't generally make daily use of it.



Lined it up on the 60D, shot on the 620.

I'm a weird one, no doubt.

Metering, ISO, and you. Take 2

This is photo-a-day project is less than 1/4 done, but it's already been a tremendous learning experience for me. While I'm not yet convinced that I'm learning the right things (like composition) I'm getting something out of it.

I figured I'd wait until the film and digital shots were posted to do a recap of what I learned shooting film with off-camera flash.

The first thing I learned is that my flash trigger doesn't work with the EOS 620. That's not as a big a deal as you might think, because the receivers can work in either wireless mode, or, in photo slave mode. To work around the issue, I mounted one of the 430EZ flashes to the hotshoe on the 620, applied a modifier (where needed) or pointed it off to the side (when I didn't want on-axis light) and put the receivers into "light" mode.

When the on-camera flash popped, it popped the off-camera lights. Because my lighting setups normally include light all around the subject, this worked fine.

I learned I need to remember some fundamentals when I'm working solely with strobes. Not least of which is the fact that, by and large, shutter controls ambient, and aperture controls intensity of the flash. For that reason, my bracketed shots didn't show much variation in exposure. It's entirely possible that the variations I did see were due more to the cheap flashes than any real change in exposure.

Does it bother me that I wasted two out of every three shots on the film? A little, but, not near as much as it bugs me to think I might make the same mistake when it counts. Hopefully this is a lesson I'm going to remember. To do this right, I should start at f/8, and then bracket at f/5.6 and f/11. Dropping the shutter speed to the fastest possible sync (1/250 on the 620 and 60D, 1/200 on the Rebel) should completely black out my backdrop.

One positive thing I learned is that I'm getting better with the flashes. Perhaps it's just that I have a good "recipe" in my head for these types of shots (which are, essentially, all the same) but my first shot on the digital with Pig Noir was pretty much dead on. I had to adjust the barndoor a bit, but the camera settings and flash power were right out of the gate, so, there's that.

My film developing process is still undergoing a lot of refinement, but I'm finding that the standard developing method (as posted in the Massive Dev Chart) for my film and developer combination works well enough for now. I'll probably try more adventurous techniques when and if I know I've got a good digital copy of the same shot.

I also learned that a stuffed pig with a pony clamp on its back (to hold on the bandanna) will tip over at the slightest touch.

POTD 86 of 365

So I shot my darkroom setup, on film, right before I developed the roll.

How meta is that?



From left to right, you can see:

The can opener, scissors, spool, stem, tank, funnel, lid and agitator, chemicals, and a roll of bath tissue. In the back is a digital thermometer keeping an eye on the temperature of the water in the basin.

POTD 83 of 365

More film - playing with shadows on this shot.

Same as before, dialed it in on the 60D, and popped three bracketed frames on the 620.

The digital version looks like this:



(No stuffed pigs were harmed in the making of this shot!)



(Or this one!)

POTD 81 of 365

More Film!

Less Pigs!

I'm going to shoot film all week, develop it on Saturday, and scan / post on Sunday. I'm taking a bit of a risk here, as these are all studio shots, using manual, off-camera flash, and I only have my non-scientific test results to tell me that my 60D meters the same as the 620.

It's exciting!

And I lied about less pigs. This shot was (believe it or not) better than what I had in mind originally, which is saying something, because I really dislike this one.

The digital:



The film:



Seeing this on film doesn't make me like it any more.

POTD 80 of 365

More pigs on film this evening.

Same sequence as yesterday - nail it down with the 60D, and then three bracketed shots with the 620.

I may have the roll finished by the weekend.

Here's the digital shot:



I'm calling this "Son of Ham", a ridiculous, and potentially insulting homage to René Magritte.

As you can see, I did a terrible job of removing the fishing line holding the apple on the digital shot. The film version promises to be much better.

The film:



My focus and/or aperture must have been off on this. It looks wretched.