And if you don't process film yourself? I will be taking film to the local pro lab for processing. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:27 PM Subject: Re: Remedial film photography. :)
> And, of course, with B&W film, there's a lot more control on the > processing > end, so one can "over expose" the film, or expose for the shadows, and > develop for the highlights, so that there are no blown highlights. So, > for > a Q&D example, you can rate TX @ 200, cut back the standard processing > time > by 25% or so, and get a negative that will print quite well. > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: John Francis > > >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> > Your example is extreme, but most films seem to be slightly overrated >> > in regard to ISO. >> >> Hardly. The ISO testing procedure is well-defined, and rigorously >> followed. If a film says ISO 400 on the box, you can be darn sure >> that it will score 400 on the ISO measurement scale. >> >> But that doesn't mean blindly loading a DX-coded cassette into >> your camera, pointing the camera at a random scene, and letting >> that determine the exposure will produce the results you want >> (even assuming the average brightness of your subject is anywhere >> close to 12% grey). Furthermore, shifting the exposure up the >> scale (which is what you do if you rate the film at slower than >> the box speed) will decrease noise in the shadows at the cost of >> possibly blowing out the highlights, while shifting downwards >> towards under-exposure will generally increase colour saturation. >> It's all a matter of choosing what effect you want, and then >> deciding which film to use, and how to rate it, in order to >> get close to that result. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
