Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Seathwaite Force, Duddon Valley, Cumbria, UK
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:12 am    Post subject: Seathwaite Force, Duddon Valley, Cumbria, UK Reply with quote
A series of small waterfalls/rapids on theriver Duddon about 12 miles from my home.

Century Graphic 23, Xenar 3.5/105, ND4 filter. Kodak Industrex MX125 rated at 10 ISO. 4 mins at f22.



PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Beautiful pic!


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good take of a difficult subject.
I think that 1 minute or even 30 seconds could be enough to obtain the effect without stressing the performance of film or the lens.
I'd try it again with ND2 at f/11 30sec. You should obtain better detail and better microcontrast, while the water should still look flowy.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers orio, I shall have to try that. It was very dark under the trees, without a filter, my meter said 12 secs at f22. I did three exposures with the ND4 filter or 1, 2 and 4 mins. The 4 mins was the best as the other two were lacking in density in the dark areas, the problem being how bright the water is and how dark the rocks are.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Cheers orio, I shall have to try that. It was very dark under the trees, without a filter, my meter said 12 secs at f22. I did three exposures with the ND4 filter or 1, 2 and 4 mins. The 4 mins was the best as the other two were lacking in density in the dark areas, the problem being how bright the water is and how dark the rocks are.


Yes, I understand that. However it's better to calibrate the balance between the elements whose interaction determines the exposure, in order to obtain the maximum performance.
Diffraction at f/22 affects not only resolvance but also acutance, which helps perception of detail. When Ansel Adams used f/64, he did so on large format and in landscapes flooded with directional light.
In the shade of the underwood, while you have extreme macro-contrast between lightened areas and shadow areas, you also have minimum micro-contrast in the shadow areas,
that only use bounced diffused light. In such areas detail tends to vanish because there is no directional light to shape them.
Extreme shutter times such as a 4 minutes exposure make it worse, because it records micro movements in foliage that blur the surviving detail. Air also moves, and in proximity
of a waterfall, particles of water move in the atmosphere shimmering the light and this can create a subtle veil over a dark background.
And finally, macro-contrast too is worsened by too long exposure, because generally the time curve of reaction of the film to light is much steeper for the highlights than it is for the shadows.
As you certainly know, this exponentially diminishing response to light is called reciprocity failure, and it affects all films at extremely long shutter times, but especially low speed films.
For all these reasons, it is always better to use the shortest shutter time that is required to obtain the effect that you are looking for (in this case the flowing water),
and to optimize the aperture to intermediate values (from f/5.6 to f/11 on small format film) that ensure not only the best resolvance but also (and I would say especially) the best micro-contrast.
Keep in mind that while micro-contrast springs in sooner than resolvance in most lenses of today (many have excellent micro-contrast already at full aperture), it fades away together with resolvance
when diffraction becomes invasive. So, while optimum values are intermediate, because they offer the best couple of resolvance + microcontrast, in situation of flat lighting (like underground of forest)
it's better to compromise at wide aperture (because you lose resolvance but preserve micro-contrast) than to compromise at narrowest apertures.
Conversely, in the opposite situation of a very strong directional sunlight with hard shadows (such as in a perfect summer day), the opposite choice (stopping down the lens completely)
can help in reducing the excessive microcontrast. Of course this makes sense on film only (with digital you can use wider apertures then simply push the fill shadow slider...)


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
.....also if you reduce the contrast in Photoshop and increase the sharpness it does improve the shot a bit, but as already mentioned it's a difficult shot.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for that info Orio, I had no idea about how long exposures could affect contrast and tonality.

I just discovered I mixed the negatives up, and the one I showed is actually the one where I used no filter, so it is simply 12 secs at f22.

The other three were 1, 2 and 4 mins with an ND4 filter. The 1 min one was underexposed, the 2 min one was arguably slightly under, the 4 min one looked about right.

The other part of this test was to see if water looked different with a minutes long exposures to how it looked with a seconds long exposure. Answer is I can't see any difference between 12 secs and 4 mins, surprisingly.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1, Orio, those are words of wisdom indeed.

Medium format and medium format lenses may be middle children in this -- some designers may have gone towards the small format performance, especially in modern times, while others go for the traditional large format optimization -- that is, at what apertures does the lens do best, and where diffraction starts to eat away resolution. I think small format has this start earlier and large format not so much. Or So I Have Been Led To Believe Laughing

In the meanwhile, on my monitor, Ian your photo has wonderful shadow detail in that deep dark black, e.g. with the sheen on the stones and the ferns.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
+1, Orio, those are words of wisdom indeed.
Medium format and medium format lenses may be middle children in this -- some designers may have gone towards the small format performance, especially in modern times, while others go for the traditional large format optimization -- that is, at what apertures does the lens do best, and where diffraction starts to eat away resolution. I think small format has this start earlier and large format not so much. Or So I Have Been Led To Believe Laughing
In the meanwhile, on my monitor, Ian your photo has wonderful shadow detail in that deep dark black, e.g. with the sheen on the stones and the ferns.


Thanks Iussi. Full stop down can be exciting indeed but one must be able to afford it, i.e. it is demanding in terms of optical performance, support performance, and lighting.
Full stop down using large sheets and good lighting, is easy as eating a pie. Full stop down on small format, in flat lighting, that requires lots of good from the lens, lots of good
from the film and developer, and also lots of printing work (I mean chemical printing work - or computer PP) to overcome the limitations.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've been examining the four negatives on a lightbox and they are petty different upon closer inspection:

12 secs, no filter - looks a little less dense in the shadow areas that I would like, the density of the water is much higher than the three with the filter.

1 min, ND4 filter - density of the hadows is too low, overall underexposed

2 mins, ND4 filter - density of the shadows is the same as the 12 secs without filter, but the water is less dense, so this scans better and requires less messing around with curves in PP.

4 mins, ND4 filter - best of the lot, the shadows are much denser, looks closest to correct exposure in these areas, water is about the same density as the 1 and 2 mins exposures.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's the 4 mins one, I think this is much better, particularly in shadow detail.



PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
yes I agree. The water is a sheet with an identity all its own, and the wet rocks are more convincing. Nice work.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
Page 1 of 1