More B&W blunderings

[Patrick Dixon]

Further to my recent 'learning' experiences with shooting and developing LF B&W, I've been trying to put some of the lessons into practice.

By now you'll all be fed up with hay bales, and they're pretty much all in the barns now, so here's my go at a field of Barley.






These were both made within a few seconds of each other, at f22, using Acros, but 1 stop apart in exposure. One was developed in DD-X 1:6 for 8.5 mins, and the other in Rodinal 1:50 for 13.5mins.

One negative looks slightly denser than the other and the thinner one looks slightly 'flatter', but they both seem to scan OK, and both exposures were well within the range of the film.

As a result, scanning and PS-ing were slightly different on each, and I'm not sure if the results exhibit (predominantly) a difference in exposure, PS-ing or developer.

I did have a third exposure, but I used that one to learn that putting fix in before developer results in a completely transparent negative.

[Alan Clark]

Patrick,
You must be pleased with your progress. These are very nice.
I much prefer the bottom one as it has a fresher, brighter look, and much more of a sense of depth in the area beyond the field. The hills on the horizon are paler and look further away, with nice seperation in the distance.
I guess that this negative received the most exposure, since you don't say. (Sticking my neck out here!)
Which one was developed in Rodinal?

As you have probably figured out foryourself now, if you want to compare different developers it is a good idea to stick to the same exposure, or too many variables creep in.

Alan Clark

[Joanna Carter]

Yes, well done Patrick. Things are certainly getting better As Alan says, it really is a good idea to only change one thing at a time though; stick with one developer, at one temperature, for one development time; then experiment with various exposures until you get the hang of that side of things.

I prefer the top image as I feel that the bottom one is a tad over-exposed in the clouds. With a little tweaking of a curve layer, you should get the same bright feel to the top image without blowing the clouds.

Congratulations!

[Patrick Dixon]

Thank you Alan.

Actually the second one was f22@ 1/100s and the first f22@ 1/50s.

I shot 3 bracketed images, because although Ansel once said to me "Patrick, why waste two bits of film on the wrong exposure?", I didn't want to put all my eggs in one basket

But then Ansel never tried developing his films with fixer either

When the first developed OK, I thought it was an opportunity to try the second with a different developer - although, as you say, there are too many variables for it to be scientific.

[Patrick Dixon]

Thanks JC, and thanks for the help and encouragement. I've been reading Merklinger's stuff on focusing and depth of field, so the next ones should be even better I really don't really understand why anyone needs all that fancy Ebony asymmetric focusing now, when all you really need is a protractor and a tape measure ...

Interesting that you prefer the first as that's the DD-X one - although from both yours and Alan's comments, I guess the differences are more in the scanning/PS tweaking than the developer or exposure.

I actually prefer the second because I like the 'fluffiness' of the light on the barley ears and it seems a little 'softer'. I'm pretty sure they could both be better with a bit more time and care in scanning and post processing.