Tree in Snow

[gmfotografie]

Hello altogether,

I´m trying to shoot a tree in snow on a light cloudy day.
The contrast of the scene is only 3.

I want to have the tree on Zone II; therefore the snow will fall on Zone V.
What can I do that the snow is placed on zone VIII?

My suggestions are:

.) Placing the tree on II; Develop with N + 1 (gives snow VI) and dodging the snow during the paper development
.) Placing the tree on II; Develop with N + 2 (gives snow VII) and dodging the snow during the paper development
.) Placing the tree on III; Develop with N+ 2 (gives snow VIII)

Which step will be the best given a good print;
Do you have other suggestions?

Thx Michael

[C. D. Keth]

I would do your last option. That should give detail all around.

[Doremus Scudder]

...I´m trying to shoot a tree in snow on a light cloudy day.
The contrast of the scene is only 3.

Are you sure of this? A lot of times snowy situations will give you a lot of metering flare, which means your metered shadow values will read unnaturally high. This coupled with the fact that much of the dark areas in your scene are likely to small to really meter accurately means that your darkest values may be significantly darker than the average and flarey reading your meter gives you. Take this into consideration when exposing (I'd give an extra stop in this situation myself, thereby moving your snow values one stop up the scale).



I want to have the tree on Zone II;

I might also question your shadow placement. Zone II is featureless black. Is this what you really want? Keep in mind that your meter, even if it is a one-degree spot meter, is averaging the values in its field of view. That means that you are placing an average low value in featureless black when you place this in Zone II. Do you really not want any texture in the shadows?(If so, fine; just though I'd ask...)


My suggestions are:

.) Placing the tree on II; Develop with N + 1 (gives snow VI) and dodging the snow during the paper development
.) Placing the tree on II; Develop with N + 2 (gives snow VII) and dodging the snow during the paper development
.) Placing the tree on III; Develop with N+ 2 (gives snow VIII)
...
Do you have other suggestions? Thx Michael

I use N+ developments, but don't like them nearly as much as some. For me the increase in grain, base fog and extended highlight separation in contrast to mid-tone separation leads me to underdevelop flat scenes and use printing controls, etc. to compensate.

In your case, I think I'd assume that my shadow reading was being affected by flare and place the tree in Zone IV, expecting it to come out Zone III. That would place your snow in Zone VII. I'd develop N+1 and then use a higher contrast paper to take up any of the slack in contrast. Keep in mind that you will usually get better micro-contrast in your print by printing on a higher paper grade instead of using extended development to increase contrast. I often indicate in my exposure record that I want to print a certain scene on grade 3 (or higher) paper. I do this very often with flatly-lit scenes.

A couple of other ways to increase contrast without extra development:

If you're shooting Tri-X, just slap on a red filter. Due to the spectral response of the film to red light, you will get a contrastier result. For me, it's about N+2/3. Just remember to compensate for exposure. If you have neutral density filters, you can try shooting at a much longer exposure time and get the reciprocity failure to help give you more contrast. I really like the look of contrast increased in this way. Figure a 10% development-time-increase equivalent for each doubling of the indicated exposure time. So, if the indicated time is, say 1 minute and you expose for 3 minutes (the right adjustment for Tri-X on my table), you will get the equivalent of a 20% increase in development.

Just some thoughts.

Have fun,

Doremus

[Chuck P.]

I would have to disagree that Zone II is featureless black, it is to have the "slightest suggestion of texture" or "some slight detail"--------that is, if your effective film speed is set so as to optimize the density value at Zone I. Zone III of course is the first zone that yields full detail. Zone 0 is best described as featureless or full black ; Zone I is slight tonality but no texture, etc, etc......

If you actually desire a Zone II placement for the tree, then that's what I would do, but then I would also probably expose another sheet at a Zone III placement.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

If you have a view camera thats only three negatives. Do each one that you have suggested yourself and see which one you think is best. You will learn something.

In the meantime I would suggest that snow isn't always "zone 8" if you want some texture and substance to it.

[David Schaller]

+1 to what Doremus said. I always mistrust meter readings in snowy scenes, even when it is overcast. I would suggest that either you walk right up to meter the shadow, or assume the flare and place the shadow on Zone III, which I always do, or IV. There always seem to be darker areas that fall below the shadow I've metered, especially at distance. I also would develop the snow highlights for Zone VII, and then you can go to a higher contrast filter or paper grade in printing.
Dave

[john borrelli]

You have received advice from experienced photographers.

The only question I would have you consider, assuming this is not a hypothetical exercise, is to be sure as Doremus noted, that there are just three stops difference between the tree trunk and the snow.

[gmfotografie]

Thank you very much for your clear answers!

I will take your advice and will give it a try tomorrow because we have great snowfall today :-)

ps
i don´t have yet a large format camera; just a hassi 501CM
i develop with ID76 / Tri400 enlarging with a Durst 1200 501CLS

[henk@lf]

Doremus, as always excellent thoughts !

I must say I learn a lot by reading your comments in different threads !

Off topic, I know, but thanks anyway !

[Lenny Eiger]

First of all, there is not an agreed-upon number of zones. AA had his, but there are many others. I use a 10 zone system, which I find much simpler. I consider I to be black and II to be what I call "bits and pieces" and III to be full detail. I also consider there to be 4 stops from 3 to 7. I took that from Minor White's version of reality.... it's all arbitrary until it gets to the development chart on has in one's darkroom - that matches to these N numbers...

We also don't know what kind of contrast range you are looking for. We don't know what you mean by a "good print". What would be an example you are trying to shoot for?

I'd place the tree on Zone III and develop at N+1...

However, this is all so arbitrary.... and you are using Tri-X and D-76, which I wouldn't use, either - in a snow situation.

I'm going to have to go with Kevin's opinion. Borrow a view camera, and try each combination...

Lenny

[jp]

My solution is to use an incident meter. If you can't get near the subject tree as it would cause footprints, find something similar nearby to measure the received light. Bracket if it makes you feel better. Measuring light to make a outdoor B&W photo doesn't have to complicated. Cloudy snowy weather makes it idiot proof.

[Heroique]

I´m trying to shoot a tree in snow on a light cloudy day. The contrast of the scene is only 3...


Are you sure of this? A lot of times snowy situations will give you a lot of metering flare, which means your metered shadow values will read unnaturally high...

I’ve never corrected for metering flare, because until I read this thread, I didn’t know it could be a significant issue. From now on, it’s on my “checklist” of considerations when I’m in the snow. ;^)

While I’m here, below is what Seattle trees in snow look like on a cloudy day. Also, how they typically meter in the early afternoon (w/ Pentax digital measurements taken at the tripod).


Sky high 12++
Sky low 12
Darker boughs 7++
Middle tree trunk 8++
Right tree trunk 8
Foreground grass 8++ to 9
Foreground snow 12 to 12++

This may not be a situation w/ risk of metering flare, but note the range of values – much wider than three zones. But neither is this range problematically wide. I was able to keep shadows in zone 3 and the highest values in zone 7, or just above. (All I needed was “regular” development.) The light reflecting up from the fallen snow brought-up the shadow values for bark, branches, and needles. The print shows a neat irregular texture in the overcast sky, just like Seattle’s sky today as I look out my window.

(These are Austrian Black Pines. A Giant Sequoia at far right.)

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6
T-Max 100 (in T-Max rs)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

with all due respect, that snow looks washed out to me.

[Heroique]

Apologies Kevin, looks that way to me too, my 4990 isn’t as good as my Omega D2v. ;^(

That’s why I noted the sky’s neat texture on the print. Same w/ the snow on the print. I bet you noticed the similarity in their values.

BTW, if the snow values had been any higher, I was ready to pull out an appropriate GND filter and reverse it.

[Chuck P.]

First of all, there is not an agreed-upon number of zones. AA had his, but there are many others. I use a 10 zone system, which I find much simpler. I consider I to be black and II to be what I call "bits and pieces" and III to be full detail. I also consider there to be 4 stops from 3 to 7. I took that from Minor White's version of reality.... it's all arbitrary until it gets to the development chart on has in one's darkroom - that matches to these N numbers...

We also don't know what kind of contrast range you are looking for. We don't know what you mean by a "good print". What would be an example you are trying to shoot for?

I'd place the tree on Zone III and develop at N+1...

However, this is all so arbitrary.... and you are using Tri-X and D-76, which I wouldn't use, either - in a snow situation.

I'm going to have to go with Kevin's opinion. Borrow a view camera, and try each combination...

Lenny

Guess I'm guilty of being a purist :). Just my thought here, but...........there may be Minor White's version, there may be Lenny's version, there may be Doremus's version, etc...etc.....there may even be MHoth's version and that indeed is what makes most any discussion about it so arbitrary and most definitely a root cause of so much confusion that surrounds such a simple thing. The ZS is a wheel that has suffered many, many re-inventions----------I declare here, that any future post of mine on the subject will only reference the one I learned in The Negative. It's so simple in all respects. Not trying to be critical, just honest.

[Lenny Eiger]

I declare here, that any future post of mine on the subject will only reference the one I learned in The Negative. It's so simple in all respects. Not trying to be critical, just honest.

Chuck, I'm not trying to be critical either. However, you aren't doing what AA was doing in his darkroom. You don't know how accurate his thermometer was, or yours, you don't know how well he mixed his chemicals, and you can't mimic his agitation exactly. You can't even get him to develop something for you because he's not here anymore.

We could all plot CI curves and that might help, but they are tedious at best. The truth is, we all have our own version because we all use the development times that we have worked out over time. We all have our own idea of what a perfect negative is. FWIW, I don't want to print like AA, so mine is quite different from what he was after. Everybody gets to choose.

I think the problem is that OP's ask a question without filling in all the specs. Do you want a dark black, what contrast level would you like overall? Can you reference an existing photo you would like it to look like? Do you want to let the snow be totally white?

The answer is fairly easy. What others have said, give it a whirl. I hit a perfect negative (by my criteria) every once in a while. It seems to print itself and I get everything I want. I look at what I did, possible adjust all my times 5 or 10 seconds this way or that and keep going. The answer is a view camera... hey do you know where I can find a Large Format Forum? ;-)


Lenny

[sun of sand]

To me
putting overcast snow as a zone 8 isn't right
Overcast snow is like 7 or less with shaded snow about 6
If you want to mimic sunlight in the winter I'd suggest tree on z4 maybe slightly less/snow z7
develop normal
then print heavy/darker & maybe G3
bleach back the density in a dilute bleach of your choice. Looks nice when otherwise it's completely blah out
I call it making sunshine

it's known ..look up "bleaching"

[Chuck P.]

Chuck, I'm not trying to be critical either. However, you aren't doing what AA was doing in his darkroom. You don't know how accurate his thermometer was, or yours, you don't know how well he mixed his chemicals, and you can't mimic his agitation exactly. You can't even get him to develop something for you because he's not here anymore.

Not sure what your're talking about here, my sentiments go nowhere near these things.


We could all plot CI curves and that might help, but they are tedious at best. The truth is, we all have our own version because we all use the development times that we have worked out over time. We all have our own idea of what a perfect negative is. FWIW, I don't want to print like AA, so mine is quite different from what he was after. Everybody gets to choose.

I have my own developing times, but did not invent a version of my own to get them. I don't fool with CI measurements. I print like me, not like AA. I'm talking about implementation, not parot-style regurgitation.

I think the problem is that OP's ask a question without filling in all the specs. Do you want a dark black, what contrast level would you like overall? Can you reference an existing photo you would like it to look like? Do you want to let the snow be totally white?

The answer is fairly easy. What others have said, give it a whirl. I hit a perfect negative (by my criteria) every once in a while. It seems to print itself and I get everything I want. I look at what I did, possible adjust all my times 5 or 10 seconds this way or that and keep going. The answer is a view camera... hey do you know where I can find a Large Format Forum? ;-)


Lenny

I'm talking about pure implementation, not parrot-style imitation of everything AA did; probably shouldn't have challenged someone else's definition of particular zone.

[Lenny Eiger]

I'm talking about pure implementation, not parrot-style imitation of everything AA did; probably shouldn't have challenged someone else's definition of particular zone.

Chuck, my point was in response to your post, but it was not leveled at you. I think we are talking about different things. My main point was that AA's idea of a zone system is not universal. You didn't say it was. Because of the lack of this universality (and other details), it was difficult, if not impossible to answer the OP's question.

And I certainly would not accuse you of parroting. I don't know you so there is no reason to imagine you do anything but the most wonderful work. I think it would be interesting to hear more about "pure implementation" as you see it.

Sorry for the miscommunication...

Lenny

[Doremus Scudder]

... probably shouldn't have challenged someone else's definition of particular zone.

Chuck,

No offense taken! And why not challenge? What you've done is pointed out that I was oversimplifying a bit. I use a classic nine-zone Zone System where Zone I is the very first discernible difference from max black and Zone IX is paper-base white. If you include Zone 0, that's 10 Zones, but I have placed Zone I so close to that max black that it is, for all intents and purposes, the blackest print value. Zone II, in this case, is still really black and has very, very little detail. Zone III is for fully-detailed blacks, Zone IV for luminous shadows, Zone V for shadowed snow.

My concern about the way the OP wanted to place his shadows was simply this: Zone II is pretty damn black and, on a cloudy day with flat lighting and lots of reflection from the snow, those shadows are usually pretty luminous. I though maybe he should reconsider his placement/interpretation, or at least be sure he wanted that interpretation. It was just an "are you sure?" question.

I think one of the advantages of the Zone System is that it is so flexible and so personally adaptable. That said, a common frame of reference is really important when we talk of Zones. I should be more specific.

Heroique,

I use Pentax one-degree spot meters (I've got three, one in Europe, one in the US and one that "commutes" and is my back-up). If you have the same meter (or even if you don't maybe you can with the meter you have), try this. Take a meter reading of a small, dark shadow area from quite a distance in a flare-prone situation (like snow or bright sand). It should just barely cover the one-degree spot mark and the rest of the field of view should have a lot of much lighter stuff in it. Now, walk up to the shadow area so that you can take a reading without anything but the shadow area in the entire field of view of the meter. Note the difference in readings due to flare. For my Pentaxes, it is one stop or a bit more. I also get flare when sunlight strikes the front element of the meter but is not in the field of view. This I can attenuate somewhat by using my hand to shade the front element. I also get flare when the sun is behind me and can get into the eyepiece. I'm always careful in these situation to make sure the eyepiece is completely covered.

I compensate for meter flare or approach closely for a more accurate reading regularly. (You should see me sweat when I have my camera set up in an empty parking place across the street from a building I am photographing and I run across three or four lanes of traffic to get a reading of a shadow value under an awning or in a doorway and some driver who doesn't see my camera set up decides he wants to park his car in that "empty" parking spot! Happens to me regularly in downtown Vienna. Haven't had my camera run over yet...)

Best,

Doremus

[Chuck P.]

Chuck, my point was in response to your post, but it was not leveled at you.

I realize that, no problem there-----I have a fundamental disagreement about folk's so called "versions" of the ZS that has become sort of a thorn digging at me when I hear it, but I've no time to go into it, have to head out, will try to put something down tonight but it'll be a hard thing to describe.

[Brian Ellis]

If you want the tree to pretty much be a silhouette use your second choice though I'm not sure about dodging the snow when it will be Zone VII without any dodging. If you want more detail in the tree use your third choice though as with your second, I'm not sure you really want the snow to be brighter than it would be on Zone VIII.

Keep in mind that it's the "zone" system, not the "pin-point" system. Just as I can be in Miami or Tallahassee and still be in the same State, different parts of the different zones will be different. The only reason Adams and Archer chose the number of zones they did was because the system was created as a teaching method for their students. They thought it would be easier for students to understand if each zone represented a full stop. But in reality the system as they created it isn't nearly as mathematically precise as it can be made to sound (i.e. there can be a considerable difference between two parts of the same zone).

[Brian Ellis]

Keeping it simple, if you want the tree to pretty much be a silhouette use your second choice though I'm not sure about dodging the snow when it will be on Zone VII without any dodging. If you want more detail in the tree use your third choice though thugh I'm not sure you really want the snow to be on Zone VIII.

Keep in mind that it's the "zone" system, not the "pin-point" system. Just as I can be in Miami or Tallahassee hundreds of miles to the north and still be in the same State, different parts of the different zones will be different. The only reason Adams and Archer chose the number of zones they did was because the system was created as a teaching method for their students. They thought it would be easier for students to understand if each zone represented a full stop. But in reality the system as they created it isn't nearly as mathematically precise as it can be made to sound (i.e. there can be a considerable difference in density between two parts of the same zone). So it would be a good idea to make three exposures at your three choices and learn something.

[ROL]

Hello altogether,

I´m trying to shoot a tree in snow on a light cloudy day.
The contrast of the scene is only 3...


Exposing snow scenes is a true test of your ability to express your visualizations in a clear and cogent manner. It is also a true test of your understanding and use of the(a) ZS. If you can shoot good snow with the(a) ZS, the rest is a piece of cake. What is it they say, that the Eskimo have a thousand different words for snow? (...and none for refrigerator :D)

I've shot and printed a lot of snow scenes and rarely have I had to either expand or contract development to achieve my visualization. Initial and proper placement is paramount. You get to decide that, based upon your visualization of the scene and your particular printing technique. A good spot meter will reveal exactly what light values are present throughout your composition. A filter no stronger than deep yellow (blue minus) may be helpful in defining micro-contrast within the snow, if that is also your desire. Scenes of broad compositional elements, photographed at a distance simply may not require ZII or ZIX resolution.


http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/albums/Yosemite-Winter/Clearing%20Storm%2C%20Merced%20River.jpg


Frequently, even in overcast conditions, it is much greater than one would expect. The light you have is the light you will be working with under the enlarger, and almost no amount of expansion of the negative will turn a poorly lit and conceived (perceived?) scene into a print that "sings". But does it need to? Maybe the mood is quiet, reflective, and represents nothing more than the beauty of a freshly fallen blanket of snow, and significant compositional elements (e.g., trees).


http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/albums/Yosemite-Winter/Double%20Tree%2C%20Leidig%20Meadow.jpg


Or perhaps the idea is to convey the feeling of an early morning ski through a cold–hardened night's recrystallizing of the the snow. Resolution of the snow itself then may become uppermost to your visualization.


http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/albums/Yosemite-Winter/Summit%20Meadow%2C%20Winter.jpg


Photographing "snow" lies squarely at the nexus of your passion for your art and the rigors of photographic technique.

[tgtaylor]

Depending on the complexity of the trees, a fine brush, steady hand and Kodak Crocein Scarlet would do the trick.

Thomas

[Chuck P.]

I use a classic nine-zone Zone System where Zone I is the very first discernible difference from max black and Zone IX is paper-base white. If you include Zone 0, that's 10 Zones, but I have placed Zone I so close to that max black that it is, for all intents and purposes, the blackest print value. Zone II, in this case, is still really black and has very, very little detail. Zone III is for fully-detailed blacks, Zone IV for luminous shadows, Zone V for shadowed snow.

My concern about the way the OP wanted to place his shadows was simply this: Zone II is pretty damn black and, on a cloudy day with flat lighting and lots of reflection from the snow, those shadows are usually pretty luminous. I though maybe he should reconsider his placement/interpretation, or at least be sure he wanted that interpretation. It was just an "are you sure?" question.

I think one of the advantages of the Zone System is that it is so flexible and so personally adaptable. That said, a common frame of reference is really important when we talk of Zones. I should be more specific.

Been thinking about it all, I guess I am constantly astonished at how often it is that folks feel they have to re-define, re-invent, or tinker with (whatever it may be) the ZS in order for it to be a workable thing for them in their minds--------------and that, some how, the blatant simplicity of it as is found in The Negative is just not quite right for them. I just chuckle to myself and ask, "why?" I fail to see the need. But I freely admit that that is just me and I don't at all mean to demean anyone who "tinkers". Hell, there's been plenty who have made awesome photographs who don't even use the ZS, but if it is going to used and discussed, I'm with you------------a common frame of reference would be great.

That said, and this is for any "newbs" that are reading this stuff, who are interested----------the gray scale that includes Zone 0 (full black) and Zone X (paper white) is the 2nd "version" of the ZS gray scale compared to the early Basic Photo Series books. He redined the gray scale---it is an 11 zone scale that made Zone V the geometric mid-point of the scale AND which also matched the tone of the 18% gray card (or 17.5% actually, it's been universally rounded up by convention). Before the latest version of The Negative, I guess there was justified confusion in wording between print zones and exposure zones, things just didn't jive when compared to a Koday gray scale that was published in the early series.

The early series said Zone V was the middle of the scale (it was, and is), but at the same time, the Kodak gray scale at the time only had a black step at one end, a white step at the other end, and only 8 tones of gray in between. You could lay the Kodak gray scale on top of an 18% gray card, then count up from the black end and the gray step that would be Zone V was in no way a match to the gray card, this caused problems in understanding. The 2nd series of books with The Negative fixed that by having a black step (0) and a white step (X) and 9 steps of tone in between, with a one stop exposure separation between adjacent tones. It's just a bit of info to know.

Sorry for that rant------I still say to the OP, if you have found your effective film speed that optimizes a Zone I density, then a Zone I is a Zone I and a II is a II, it can't and really shoudn't be denied IMO. We all have our peeves, but I'll not express it ever again. I'm sure there's plenty with peeves about folks like me that get a bit anal about the ZS, oh well.;)