# Hedgcoe Architecture Project - Film



## jcdeboever (Jan 17, 2017)

Goals; capture atmosphere and essence. Overall impression. Pull one single or simple detail and try to make it interesting. Walk around building and carefully observe the building. Research building prior to capturing and photos to gain a greater understanding to aid in your compositions.

Nikon FM, 35 -70 f/3.5 ais w/ yellow filter. Ilford HP5+, Isofol3 and rapid fixer. Canon 8800F scanner.

What I learned; These are not great... All the research and pre-walk really helped me slow down and hit all my goals. My meter needs to be checked to rule that out because everything was pretty dark and the shadows lacked detail. I don't think the yellow Nikon filter helped me on this overcast cold, wet day. Just getting to really start using film and journal my projects so I can get better images in future. Unfortunately, I left my pocket notepad on kitchen counter and dog chewed it up. I remember most things but aperture and shutter speeds are not. I do know that I was close to middle on with every shot, if not just slightly above so I really need to verify this before next project (street).

Pic 1 thru 4 are of the Fort Street Presbyterian Church, Detroit MI. Built in 1855, and completely rebuilt in 1876. Gothic Revival architecture. The Fort Street Presbyterian Church exemplifies an important step in the rise of "revivalist" architecture in 19th-century America. they had something going on inside so I have to go back, and it looked cool inside.

Pic 5 is a detail of the Greater Penobscot Building, commonly known as the Penobscot Building, is a Class-A office tower in Downtown Detroit, Michigan. The 1928 Art Deco building is located in the heart of the Detroit Financial District.

Pic 6 is the iconic, Uniroyal Giant Tire. It was created by the Uniroyal Tire Company for the 1964 New York World's Fair, where it functioned as a Ferris wheel. 86ft. tall, 12 short tons, It is not made of rubber, but of a Uniroyal-developed polyester resin reinforced with glass fiber, which makes it flame resistant.

1. Steeple, looking up.





2. Looking up at entrance




3. Looking up tower two.




4. Detail of brick




5. Detail - west end of building, looking up at overhang with fog.




6. Giant Uniroyal Tire. I drove back there, got stopped and questioned (private property, clear signage) after I took this but he didn't see me take it. I said my GPS led me here and said I was trying to find....


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 17, 2017)

1-3 look underdeveloped or slightly underexposed.  4, 5 and 6 look good.  #5 is a very good exposure. #1 and #5 are my favorites. I really like the quasi-Dutch angle of #1. The placement of the old and the new is nice in #5.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 17, 2017)

Thanks Gary, I appreciate it. I have a checklist now to monitor the next shoot. First time using the ilford developer but I followed the instructions. I think I will pull off the filter next time, if it's overcast. I need to check the meter as well.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 17, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> ........ My meter needs to be checked to rule that out because everything was pretty dark and the shadows lacked detail...............



It might be your exposure as it relates to your film choice, developer, mix ratio, agitation (inversion, roll, shake), time and temperature.  You may also have 'expired' developer... it's set on the shelf so long it's not longer up to par with new stuff.

It also could be your shutter.  Classic film cameras have notoriously incorrect speeds when it comes to shutter timing.  Although most tend to overexpose (camera set to 1/500, but the shutter is actually open 1/200), shutters being too fast is not an impossibility.  Only a shutter time can tell.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 17, 2017)

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > ........ My meter needs to be checked to rule that out because everything was pretty dark and the shadows lacked detail...............
> ...


Thanks Sparky. The timings were checked but I have that on my list to verify when I get a chance. I know they are not perfect. I am pretty confident in the developing.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 17, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> .............Thanks Sparky. The timings were checked but I have that on my list to verify when I get a chance. I know they are not perfect. I am pretty confident in the developing.



Who checked them.......... and how?  And how will you check them?


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 17, 2017)

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > .............Thanks Sparky. The timings were checked but I have that on my list to verify when I get a chance. I know they are not perfect. I am pretty confident in the developing.
> ...


The guy I bought from has a oscilloscope. I know where I can borrow a tester as well. I could use a CRT monitor too, I suppose....


----------



## Derrel (Jan 17, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> 1-3 look underdeveloped or slightly underexposed.  4, 5 and 6 look good.  #5 is a very good exposure. #1 and #5 are my favorites. I really like the quasi-Dutch angle of #1. The placement of the old and the new is nice in #5.



This ole ^^^ dog doesn't miss a thing. The first few do look a bit low in contrast, for the most part, and #5 is a VERY good exposure, not too much favoritism for shadows nor for highlights...perhaps the best *match of development/exposure/scene.*

I'd call this a success on multiple levels. it takes a bit of experimentation to get a camera/film/development/darkroom system into perfect form. There are a lot of variables: the Exposure Index the film is rated at; did you allow the +1.0 stop for the yellow filter? And as 480sparky mentioned, the development...several issues there; Temperature, agitation method, time for agitations? 5 sec on 30? 10 sec on 60? 15 on 90? Is it normal, plus, or minus development? How long is the development time? HC-110 mixed "hot" for  a 3:45 development is excruciatingly irregular unless you have the most-stringent methods. Rodinal at 1:100 at 14 minutes is slow, but pretty repeatable, and so on.

Your darkroom now is...a scanner, right? Again, *another variable*. But honestly, these look MUCH better than the last tractors outdoors set I saw 10-12 days back...the developing for the scanner...take shot #5 and look at that negative, for a while: that looks like a GOOD negative for the scanner and the film profile you scanned it with. The film profile will include some type of profile that will match well with the *characteristic curve *of the negative for shot #5.

My old Minolta film scanner likes a "thin-ish negative".

Anyway...drinking some old champagne here tonight...I think this is a successful result, but not knowing the exposure data, not knowing and comparing the ISO or E.I. used for the meter, the camera exposure, and the Devlopment time there is some information you **maybe could have*** looked at to determine/evaluate. Still...again...evaluating a B&W developing time takes 10,12 rolls to get to a solid baseline. There are a lot of variables: I used to work as a lab tech in college, dloping film for a number of different people. ONE roll in a 2-toll tank is different than 5 rolls in a 5-roll tank...two 36-shot rolls in a 2-roll tank will need a bit MORE time/agitation than 1-=12 exposure or 20-shot roll in the same 2-roll tank with the same ounces of chemicals.

Still: yet another successful John Hedcoe exercise completed by you!


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 17, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > 1-3 look underdeveloped or slightly underexposed.  4, 5 and 6 look good.  #5 is a very good exposure. #1 and #5 are my favorites. I really like the quasi-Dutch angle of #1. The placement of the old and the new is nice in #5.
> ...


Thanks Derrel. Im pretty sure it's me. I didn't compensate for the yellow filter but I thought the meter adjusted for it, sense it's through the lens? My next shots will be with it off and I will compare with a hand held meter because I don't know when I can get to the shutter tester. It does seem like it's off 1 to 2 stops in edited. The black shadows are real muddy/blotchy when you bump up the exposure or shadows in post software. You can only go so far. If the stupid dog wouldn't have chewed up my homework (really happened, lol), I would have more to work with. Still a good lesson for me and I feel like I can move forward. At least I am getting better at focusing. I had some good composition shots from the rolls but unusable because of the severe under exposure. Live and learn I guess.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 17, 2017)

It's been years, but I thinkt the FM's gallium LED metering system is almost totally color-blind...as I recall, I would cut my ISO setting in half with a yellow filter on. FM was mu firsrt-ever Nikon! What a great camera!

My FM shutter got sloooooow. My FM's shutter at 1/1000 was about 1/640 on warm days, 1/600 in the winter....1/500 was 1/320 to 1/250. According to famed camera repairman Marty Forsher, 1/60 second is ****the**** typically most-accurate speed on most focal plane shiutyetyrs of that era.

I would shoot Kodachrome 64 at E. I. of 80, 100, or 125 on he ASA dial....so....mechanically-timed shutters that are 40+ years old: might indeed be slooooow.

RE "The black shadows are real muddy/blotchy when you bump up the exposure or shadows in post software"---likely a scanner issue.

Severe Underexposure? Start bracketing at + 3/4 EV and + 1.5 EV or so. Or....down-rate the Exposure Index. HP5-400 or Tri-X 400???? Set the FM's meter to 250 or 200, or even 160 with the filter. See what happens with dead-on metering of mid-grays.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 17, 2017)

Derrel said:


> It's been years, but I thinkt the FM's gallium LED metering system is almost totally color-blind...as I recall, I would cut my ISO setting in half with a yellow filter on. FM was mu firsrt-ever Nikon! What a great camera!
> 
> My FM shutter got sloooooow. My FM's shutter at 1/1000 was about 1/640 on warm days, 1/600 in the winter....1/500 was 1/320 to 1/250. According to famed camera repairman Marty Forsher, 1/60 second is ****the**** typically most-accurate speed on most focal plane shiutyetyrs of that era.
> 
> ...


OK, I'll try a roll like that. I am scanning at 1200 DPI, 4 x 6 landscape, unsharp mask on, backlight correction on high. 
Here is the oscilloscope readings...


----------



## compur (Jan 18, 2017)

Shutter speeds test out pretty darn good for 40 year old mechanical camera.

Since you are shooting outdoors in daylight I would suggest pulling your HP5+ down to 200-320.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 18, 2017)

compur said:


> Shutter speeds test out pretty darn good for 40 year old mechanical camera.
> 
> Since you are shooting outdoors in daylight I would suggest pulling your HP5+ down to 200-320.



Thank you for responding. So, set the camera ISO at 200-320 and then pull the development process 1-stop?


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 18, 2017)

Wow, your shutter speeds are a fifth or less than a stop off (except for 1/1000).  In most cases, a fifth of a stop won't make a difference.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 18, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Wow, your shutter speeds are a fifth or less than a stop off (except for 1/1000).  In most cases, a fifth of a stop won't make a difference.



Hence, why I want to check the metering, without the yellow filter. I really suspect the yellow filter. I think I will shoot a roll of HP5+ at 200 without the filter and see what happens. Even if it is overexposed a little, it would be easier to adjust in the scanner software.


----------



## compur (Jan 18, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Thank you for responding. So, set the camera ISO at 200-320 and then pull the development process 1-stop?



Yes, pull development 1 stop if shot at 200.  A little less if shot at 250-320.

I've just found that most B&W ISO 400 films give better results that way as long as you have enough light.  Save the ISO 400 (or more) rating for times you really need it such as indoor shooting, etc.


----------

