Developing, exposure, and zones.

[alavergh]

I have a situation that I'd like to ask about. I photographed the interior of a nice church today as a warm up for later. I'm going to try to include a snapshot. I used a 65mm lens so it's wide.

There's a pulpit of dark wood. I metered it at something like 3.3 EV. I want detail in some of the walls that have a lamp right by them. The light walls measured around 10.5 EV. There are some good middle values but I'm really wanting to have details on those light, well lit walls on the sides so they aren't blown out. I'm using Ilford FP4+ and I shoot it at ISO125. I didn't record the middle values, but I'm thinking I may want to give n-2 development even though I haven't calculated exactly how much time that will be. I also shot at f45 and my metered exposure was 30 seconds assuming I want to shoot 2 stops brighter than the dark pulpit in order to get detail. I used that nice reciprocity app and it told me I was going to need an exposure of something like 2 and a half minutes, but I'm not sure if that's correct after looking at ilfords own chart.

Any suggestions on development or things to look at in the future? I welcome thread responses as well as inbox messages.

116272

[alavergh]

Well crap...sorry, it's upside down for some reason?

[alavergh]

Also, since I haven't done tests for n+-development, I'm kind of guessing at either 15-20% less development. I develop around 70 degrees for 14mins with rodinal 1:50, so I'm thinking about 10.12 minutes if I want to decrease 14 minutes by 15% twice. Thoughts? Chances are neither of these are going to be printed because the church wasn't ready yet and big prayer ribbons are still hanging. Maybe I'll develop one at 10.12 and another at 9 minutes since I took the usual two shots?

[Jim Noel]

Place the reading for the pulpit on about Zone II 1/2, and see where that puts the highlight with texture. Do you really want much texture in the white walls?. I would tend to only give and N-1 development in order to have the walls almost paper white.

[alavergh]

What I was thinking with the white walls is that the lighting, I can't remember what it's called, (a sconce?) makes a pattern on the wall with its shadows that's pretty apparent when using your eyes and not a camera...but maybe at that point, the walls might start to look dingy and nothing else would looks bright as the eye sees it.

Not having tested, if my development is 14, what would you recommend for n-1? I printed a negative recently that I developed for 12mins instead and it turned out pretty good, it was a backlit tree, basically.

[ROL]

Well crap...sorry, it's upside down for some reason?

Whew! I'm glad you said that! I don't feel that posting a densely composed color snap helps us much in helping you, upside down or otherwise. Excuse the cynicism, but the nature of the inquiry seems to indicate that this is a "professional" job, and if so, you should have your craft worked out by now, or use tools that you are familiar with to get the job done. Be that as it may, you have identified about seven zones. You will likely want to place important shadows and compress development as suggested by Jim. This seems a perfect opportunity, failing your own personal film testing, to explore various placements, exposures, and developments. Spent film is your least expensive resource, and best form of education, in this regard.


What I was thinking with the white walls is that the lighting, I can't remember what it's called, (a sconce?) makes a pattern on the wall with its shadows that's pretty apparent when using your eyes and not a camera...but maybe at that point, the walls might start to look dingy and nothing else would looks bright as the eye sees it.

Yes, sconces. I love them and the accent lighting they provide. Perhaps that should be the focus of your composition, or one of many. As Jim alluded, then resolution of wall texture might be an important part of your composition. Exposing for that may be a bit simpler. What story are you trying to tell?

[TXFZ1]

We are used to it, can you flip it left to right?

[alavergh]

Nice, TXFZ1. I chuckled.

It's not a pro gig at all. This is me learning. I volunteered to photograph the church with what is basically my hobby camera for now. I don't know of anybody in my personal life that does this kind of stuff, much less worry about zones and different developing. The snap was more for my own remembrance until I decided to ask for some advice from people who would have more experience.

The last time I volunteered in much the same way at a similar looking church, my 8x10 silver gel print was sold at an auction for just shy of $200. It was to help May for tuition for k-5 at the school. Makes me feel good for helping.

[Doremus Scudder]

Back to the Zone placement question...

Often, if you just "squeeze" all the Zones in a scene into the range between III and VIII you end up with a flat print; local contrast goes away. In your case I would likely do one of two things.

1. Go ahead and develop N-2, but then plan on printing on a higher paper grade and doing a bit of dodging to bring up the darker areas (pulpit, etc.) and (possibly extensive) burning of highlight areas. This is my "standard" approach, since it seems that developing less and printing on a contrastier paper grade brings up the local contrast best and gives a snappier print.

2. Similar to the above is to develop N-1 and then print on a "normal" contrast grade paper with some dodging and burning. This gives a bit smoother look than the above.

3. If the scene is really contrasty (i.e., has a lot of harsh local contrast already that might need tamed) then N-2 and print on a "normal" contrast paper.

4. N-2 and print on a normal contrast grade. This seems to happen rather rarely, in my experience, but is the "strict" Zone System answer...

Deciding which scheme to use depends on an assessment of local contrast and mid-tone separation in the scene. ...And, of course, since many negs aren't perfectly developed to a particular scheme, I'll use whatever printing tricks I need to get the print I want. The point here is that usually, for me, a print on a contrastier paper with appropriate dodging and burning is more satisfying than a straight print from a contraction negative.

Best,

Doremus

[alavergh]

Thanks Doremus.

I'm pretty sure that since I exposed two sheets of film, I'm going to develop one for n-1 and the other for n-2. The print I want to make doesn't have the ribbons hanging so I'll use this as a test.

My other question was...what do you think I should think on for the develop changes? I've read that it's ideal to make negatives just to test for development times similar to finding true ISO with my own processing habits. I obtained an ebook that goes about the zone system in a non-technical fashion and gives the examples of two films using -15% for n-1 and another -15% for n-2, but I saw one that has -20% n-1 and a further -25% for n-2. I don't see myself doing these tests right now with film being something that I have little of. What development times have you come up with for your altered development? Again, the film I'm using is Ilford FP4+.

[Lenny Eiger]

I say no. Many people do this when they are first learning the zone system. Usually its inside light with a window, and they want everything. Generally speaking, it doesn't work.

If you develop for the inside light, you are usually doing a N+1 or +2 development, in which case you blow out the window. If you develop to contain the window, then you do something like N-3. The window is there, but the light inside is so mushy and flat, it makes a very dead-looking print. Excessive burning also shows up - and it can be ugly. If you do some sort of scanning then you can shoot two negs, develop them differently, etc. However, after trying this a few times, most people just learn to point the camera somewhere else. (With all due respect.)

When it comes to interiors, others use lights to bring the lower values closer, or turn off the sconces to do the same....

Lenny

[Bill Burk]

Fortunately you compensated for reciprocity failure, so I would expect your shadow detail to be good.

I agree with Doremus' assessment, and it sounds like you do too.

Suppose you already developed since the weekend's almost past... But if you haven't - here is a logic game:

You did the right thing taking two shots!

I'd say since you plan anywhere between N-1 and N-2, the precision isn't important for the development time. Pick a number you are comfortable with, -15% is good as any.

Develop just one sheet.

Then try to print it. It might be just right.

This is where you may have heard the old adage "adjust as needed..." I find it is always hard to apply that advice in real life. But you have an opportunity here because you took two shots:

If you find while printing that you wished the negative was better for one reason or another, develop the second sheet accordingly. (If you wish you had more shadow detail - develop more :: if you wish you had less highlight density - develop less).

Now you know whether to develop the second shot "more" or "less" depending how hard the first shot is to print.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Fill flash from high behind the camera using an open tube or bulb.

[Leigh]

If you wish you had more shadow detail - develop more
Development time affects only highlights, not shadows.

This is a chemical reaction. It proceeds at the same rate throughout the emulsion.
It completes in areas of low density much sooner than in areas of high density.

The only way to increase shadow detail is to increase the exposure.

That's the whole reason for the old adage: "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

Development time affects only highlights, not shadows.

This is a chemical reaction. It proceeds at the same rate throughout the emulsion.
It completes in areas of low density much sooner than in areas of high density.

The only way to increase shadow detail is to increase the exposure.

That's the whole reason for the old adage: "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

- Leigh

True in general that you can't develop shadow density when exposure isn't sufficient.

But this advice is for this specific pair of negatives, identically exposed which I believe have satisactory shadow exposure.

The first neg is planned to be underdeveloped 15%. There is some risk that good, existing shadow exposure might not get developed, say some details reach 0.05 density and you wish for more. In that case you could develop the normal time and that same shadow might reach 0.10 density. (I'm looking over the toes of my 100 speed film family of curves, and see that potential change in the shadows).

[Leigh]

All "compensating" developers are designed to retain highlight detail. That's why they exist.

I use Rodinal, which is very good in this regard.

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

Leigh,

I agree with you there. I don't have experience with compensating developers so I rely on you for carrying out this part of the discussion...

It could have been the right thing - or could be - for the first negative, to try a compensating development.

And to finish my logic game, if you get shadows that are satisfactory but highlights that are too "hot" - listen to Leigh for the next negative.

[Leigh]

I don't have experience with compensating developers so I rely on you for carrying out this part of the discussion...
It could have been the right thing - or could be - for the first negative, to try a compensating development.
Hi Bill,

Rodinal is a compensating developer when used with prescribed (gentle) agitation and normal development times.
I guess the effect would be even more pronounced with stand development. I've never tried that.

- Leigh

[cyrus]

I'm really wanting to have details on those light, well lit walls on the sides so they aren't blown out.

Can using mask in the darkroom printing stage help?

[alavergh]

I'm not yet familiar with masking though I may be over complicating it. Chances are I'll be able to burn in the lights (not stained glass windows) but I just went ahead tonight at developed both sheets instead of doing one and see in how it prints.

I usually develop for 15 mins but instead I developed one for 9 and another for 12. After inspecting the negatives, I like the look of the 9min sheet, but haven't tried printing it of course. There are the standard bright patches, well, dark on the neg, and just slightly thinner on the 9 min than the 12 min.

I'll have to see if I can give pyrocat hd a try, though I don't have much in the line of beakers, etc for mixing too much. I did once mix a replica for rodinal after Agfa folded and that was enough for a while. I wouldn't be confident buying raw chemicals yet though.

When I get a print, I'll share it here to show how it went. I probably won't put a ton of work into it because my hobby budget limits the paper and film I can purchase.

[alavergh]

Well, I got the shot today. It was actually a bit brighter in terms of ambient light before the light from the wall sconces so I don't know if I'll have to do anything besides normal development for this final, non-ribbon shot.