Dynamic range of negative film

I've said it before once or twice and always been poo-pooed for it. :)
 
...Because I'm trencheel303 who thinks he knows everything but is always wrong in fact?
True story.

Lol, I don't know why, as I say though I've always asserted film has a higher DN and in the once or twice that I've said it on here I've basically been told that I've been talkin' out my hat.
 
I find it hard to believe. I have taken very few pictures on film where a 'blown sky' is a problem. I don't ever remember seeing white skies on my film shots and believe me I've got a lot of photos with sky in them. Blown skies on my digital are a constant hurdle, on the other hand.
 
trencheel303 said:
...Because I'm trencheel303 who thinks he knows everything but is always wrong in fact?
True story.

Lol, I don't know why, as I say though I've always asserted film has a higher DN and in the once or twice that I've said it on here I've basically been told that I've been talkin' out my hat.
Click to expand...
Was it from the same people that don't know what slide is? :D
 
Digital generally has a litle more dynamic range than slide film, but colour neg has tons of it, potentially, because it will handle massive over exposure.

Colour neg has DIR colour-couplers (Dye Inhibiter Release or summat like that) which stops development taking place and the highlights going darker. So when you increase the exposure the shadows get more and more detail in them, but the highlights stay more or less where they are. That's the gist of it I think.

It was this film technology that made disposal cameras possible, with their fixed exposure setting. They're adjusted for correct exposure in fairly dull light, in the knowledge that they'll still be okay in bright sun.

It's not an ideal way of doing things, but it works surprisingly well in holding back skies and areas where tonal subtlety and fine detail are less important.

It was common to use an aspect of this development inhibitor technique when processing black & white negs and prints - Andsel Adams used it as part of the Zone System. Basically, don't agitate the developer, as you would normally. Then the chemicals get exhausted around the dark highlight areas, but they keep going in the lighter shadow areas. It's a kind of HDR technique.
 
I remember a rule of thumb often recommended for neg film was: "expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves."
 
Yep, I love my Reala 100 and Pro 100C / S. -1 to +3 exposure range and masses of DR. Love iiiiiit.
 
Tracer said:
I remember a rule of thumb often recommended for neg film was: "expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves."
Click to expand...

Yes, that works. Crude but effective.

It's the reverse with digital and slide film - make sure you've got the highlights nailed and let the shadows look after themselves.
 
Arkady said:
Hmmm...you do have a point...lol
:thinking:

Maybe Digital has better DR after all...?
Click to expand...

Ah damn it...I might as well chuck that roll of Ektar 100 instead of taking it to be developed today.

Actually, in all seriousness, since I have no reliable method of metering at the moment, I've been taking shots with both film and digital so I can get my exposures right (and so i've got a digital proof straight away - still easier than a polaroid back) so when I get the film back and scanned, I may even do some side by sides...
 
HoppyUK said:
...snip...It was common to use an aspect of this development inhibitor technique when processing black & white negs and prints - Andsel Adams used it as part of the Zone System. Basically, don't agitate the developer, as you would normally. Then the chemicals get exhausted around the dark highlight areas, but they keep going in the lighter shadow areas. It's a kind of HDR technique.
Click to expand...

Now THAT sounds like an experiment for the bathroom! :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top