...I usually just meter for the subject and point at my camera. Is this wrong?....
in a incident reading you want to be measuring the light hitting the subject, so you are pointing the meter towards the light source. if it's the same on you as the subject (for instance, the sun!), you can do it from your position. if its from a different light source, then you point your meter at the source from the subject position.
(p.s. the only combination is tri-x and rodinal, overexposed 1 stop! heh-heh!)
in a incident reading you want to be measuring the light hitting the subject, so you are pointing the meter towards the light source. if it's the same on you as the subject (for instance, the sun!), you can do it from your position. if its from a different light source, then you point your meter at the source from the subject position.
Actually ......Welp, for some reason I was completely under the impression it should be pointed at the camera. I will try out the correct technique and see how it changes things!
Sirius, I tray process LF and process 35 & 120 in small tanks. My standard time is 14 minutes. 20 min in a Jobo will cook it for sure. Actually the printed info from Photo Formulary is quite good and summarizes much that has been written about Pyrocat and goes into detail re output.... i.e. VC or graded paper etc. Most of my negatives print well on grade 2 or equivalent filtration.
It's an interesting question. I don't think it is the lenses... The results I tend to like in 35mm are with my Nikon 50mm 1.4AI and Nikon FA so the metering should be solid. The results I don't like have been with Hasselblad and Autocord lenses, both which I think are plenty contrasty. I have a Sekonic incident meter, though maybe I'm not using it right. I usually just meter for the subject and point at my camera. Is this wrong?
Sirius, Here's a link to the tech sheets for Pyrocat HD. Note the information on regarding start times on the bottom of p1 & top of p2. Hope this helps http://stores.photoformulary.com/content/01-5091.pdf
Actually ......
You probably are doing it right.
Most of the incident meters we use have a dome which has the effect of integrating light from various sources. Unless you are working with strong back or side lighting, standing where your subject is and pointing the meter at your camera does a nice job of integrating the direct and indirect light sources that illuminate the part of your subject that the camera sees.
If you use an incident meter with strong back or side lighting, it is a bit different. In those cases, you need to measure individually the different sources of light illuminating your subject - things like direct sun, open sky and reflected light from the ground - and you do that by pointing the meter at the light source (usually with an accessory for that purpose, such as a flat disc, rather than a dome), and then manually integrating the various readings, depending on what balance of lighting and effects you are trying to achieve.
You might be onto something: your MF camera is maybe over-exposing consistently by one stop versus your 35mm camera. This would explain a lot, and it is not an unheard of problem.
As a side note, usually my reflected and incident readings have a 1-stop difference in most cases, where reflected are underexposing. Ever since I switched to incident metering (despite my camera’s internal meters), my negatives look much better.
What is your development time for Tri-X 400 120 in Pyrocat HD in Glycol? I am still looking for the right time.
I found the same thing. so when I use my reflected meters, I add anywhere from 1/2 to 1 extra stop and the results are much better. when I can, I use incident metering even when I have in camera metering available.
How about getting the camera meters and the hand held meters calibrated?
I was recently fortunate enough to win an auction for 50 rolls of 120 Tri-X, a film I honestly have struggled to get good results in with my standard dev, hc110. I've loved hc110 for 35mm Tri-X but for some reason I never like what I get from it in medium format. It seems soft, mushy and the contrast is not the same as I expect even when using the same times. Perhaps it's a result of matrix metering in 35mm vs incident in 120. Either way, I have a ton of this film now and am looking for recommendations for developers. Any suggestions?
I agree. This how I was taught and what I have always done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?