I am not really an expert, but what I'd suggest in the case of b&w film is
to overexpose and underdevelop the film. And use the developer as diluted
as possible.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, John Hudson wrote:
> Ray Moth wrote:
> >
> > John Lind wrote:
> >
> > I believe it's much easier to reduce the contrast of a lens than
> > increase it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't a ND filter
> > also reduce contrast in addition to the light reduction (one could use
> > a polarizer for this too)? Soft focus, fog, or diffusion filters
> > typically reduce contrast, but they also reduce resolution.
> > =======================================================================
> > I agree, there are many ways to reduce contrast. To me, the ND filter
> > approach makes sense, because the less light there is the lower the
> > contrast. In a totally dark room, everything looks black, whatever its
> > colour or shade. There is no contrast. If the light level is increased,
> > light coloured objects brighten while dark objects are still dark, i.e.
> > contrast is also increased. Use of an ND filter (or polarizer) will
> > simulate the effect of a dark room, reducing contrast.
>
> To me this is not logical. Contrast is a consequence of the light,
> whether natural or otherwise or a combination of both, prevailing in and
> about the scene that is to be photographed. An ND filter serves to
> lengthen the time it takes for that light to register on the film but
> does not in and of itself affect the quality of the light in question.
> Use of the filter necessitates a slower shutter speed and / or a larger
> aperture but other than that the quality of the light is not affected by
> the ND filter. All the filter does is to extend the time it takes for a
> given volume of light to register on the film as compared to the time it
> would otherwise have taken without the filter in place. If these
> assumptions of mine are correct, how might an ND filter affect contrast?
> As the name implies does not an ND filter just serve to slow the rate at
> which the prevailing light passes through the camera's lens system?
>
> > Another way to achieve low contrast could be to under-expose negative
> > film, thereby depleting the emulsion. The overall brightness can be
> > corrected in the printing stage but contrast will be lower.
>
> Doesn't under exposure in the camera coupled with normal film
> development result in near normal negative contrast but lower negative
> density? Extended film development would result in higher negative
> contrast and near normal negative density. Lower negative contrast and
> very low negative density would result from underexposure in the camera
> coupled with shortened film development.
>
> jh
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|