Interior church shot-need help

[Terry Hull]

Our Presbyterian church is undergoing an inside renovation. I am to take before and after photos of the chancel. The church is quite large, high ceilinged, stained glass windows(with light coming from the rear of the church) hanging lights over the seating area, and additional lights in the chancel. Flash isn't in the cards. This is not my bread and butter-I have never done this stuff, and don't like doing it...

Questions...I have a 4X5 ebony and 150MM and 90 MM lenses, but am uncertain as to film type(B&W only), filters, exposure etc. Typically I spot read the deepest shadow with detail, and then develop according to the hightlight. Is the highlight the lit bulb? Should I use filter? Would an incident light meter work better than a spot indoors? Is FP4 or TMax better for this- what I imagine will be an expansion development, but not certain.

I know-lots of variables but any help is appreciated.

[Michael Rosenberg]

Terry,

I can give you a few tips, but it would help to know if you are going to output digital or silver gelatin prints.

You are correct that flash would not be good; it would wash out a lot of details. A spot meter would be better, and either film would be appropriate; that being said I think T-400 film would be best. For exposure in church interiors I put shadows on Z IV or V, and either do N- or compensation development depending on the range of light. I can't see expansion development being necessary for the majority of your exposures. You will be faced with a wide range of light.

Filters would be unnecessary - there is more than enough contrast, and with the extended exposure times you will be facing you will gain contrast with no problem. The 90mm lens will be the most useful lens, but in some cases you will need the 150mm lens.

You may gain some ideas for camera position and composing by looking at photographs by others, here are a couple of suggestions: www.mprosenberg.com; www.virtuallygrey.co.uk ; www.dokasphotos.com

Regards,

Mike

[Joanna Carter]

Saltaire United Reformed Church

http://grandes-images.com/fr/Architecture_files/Media/SaltaireUnitedReformedChurch/SaltaireUnitedReformedChurch.jpg

Ebony SV45Te, Rodenstock 90mm f/5.6, Fuji Acros 100.

No filters, metered for the darkest part of the pews at the back and the brightest window. 12 stops range. Over-exposed by 1.3 stops, developed N-3. Measurements were for scanning not darkroom printing, thus the wider than usual range.

In the negative, you can see detail of the "frosted" glass in the windows and the woodwork on the back of the pews.

[bigdog]

Meter the shadows and shoot as you normally would.

Ditto.

Seriously, you're overthinking this. If you can get good negatives shooting your "bread and butter", then you can with this. There is nothing magic about the interior of a church.

[Henry Ambrose]

Walk around the church with your meter and check the lighting at various locations that you determine to be important from the camera position. Write them down as you go and see what that looks like. It'll start making sense at this point.

[Louie Powell]

Terry -

Look at Joanne's example, and be envious! That is a gorgeous photograph.

One of the problems with interiors, and especially interiors of churches, is that the lighting is extremely contrasty. My suggestion is that you spend some time with your light meter making spot measurements, and recording them on a quick hand-sketch of the chancel. You have to understand the illumination range of the scene before you even think about making an exposure.

In particular, meter the brightest highlight area, and the deepest shadow area in the scene. Using Joanne's image as an illustration, I would pick the back of the nearby pews as the deepest shadow, but I would also want to meter the dark area directly above the chancel. Highlights are an exercise in judgement - you can ignore the specular highlights in the lights themselves, and also in the windows along the side walls. The brightest highlight that you need to worry about in this image is probably the reflections on the organ pipes, but I would also measure the bright areas on the walls next to the light fixtures and the lights in the chandelier.

Having made the measurements, then compare the exposures required for the brightest highlights rendered as Zone VI, and the deepest shadows rendered as Zone III. If you are lucky, you can capture that range in one exposure, perhaps with N- development to compress the range.

But what if the range exceeds the capability of your film with the maximum compression development you are willing to try (I never go less than N-2)? A trick that Fred Picker talks about in his book 'The Fine Print' is to superimpose two exposures on the same sheet of film. The first exposure is with the interior lights turned off and using only window light. Then, without moving the camera, recock the shutter and do a second, shorter exposure with the lights on. Interiors like this are almost always fairly long exposures (typically, minutes) so reciprocity failure must be factored into the equation. But that also means that overexposure of 25-50% won't make much difference in the shadows. Adding a second exposure, with the lights on, that is 25-50% of the exposure with the lights off, can result in a more pleasing balance and dramatic compression of the contrast range.

Finally, take your time and bracket. A church interior is a static subject, and unless there is an earthquake, it's not going anywhere. Making multiple negatives at different exposures gives you more material to work with when you get into the darkroom.

Film - whatever you normally use. Don't increase variables by experimenting with an unfamiliar film.

Lens - I tend to use a 90mm lens for interiors, but my 'other' lens is 210mm and that's a bit long to capture the spaciousness of an interior. In your case, however, you may prefer an image made by placing the camera at the back of the church and using your 150mm.

Oh - and if you really want a challenge, try that double exposure trick using color film. Often the lighting in churches is from a mixture of sources - daylight, incandescent and even fluorescent. In that case, you can also play around with compensating filters to try to achieve a color balance. That said, using 'incandescent' film can be interesting because highlights caused by daylight through the windows will be very blue - adding some interest to the final image.

[Ed Richards]

1) count on bracketing

2) if possible, shoot on an overcast day to even out the window light. If the stained glass is only on the back, just shoot after the sun is off the glass. If you shoot really early or late in the day you can find a time when outside light is balanced with the inside light.

[Steve Sherman]

[QUOTE=Terry Hull;736714]Our Presbyterian church is undergoing an inside renovation. I am to take before and after photos of the chancel. The church is quite large, high ceilinged, stained glass windows(with light coming from the rear of the church) hanging lights over the seating area, and additional lights in the chancel. Flash isn't in the cards. This is not my bread and butter-I have never done this stuff, and don't like doing it...

As has been suggested, shoot on an overcast day, likely to save you almost two stops of additional unwanted contrast.

Use a film with a lower contrast profile, i.e. HP5, not FP 4 or Tri-X or Tmax

Give generous shadow exposure and or a reduced agitation regime of film development. N-6 is quite possible with most modern panchromatic films.

Joanna's image is quite nice but as indicated designed for a scan and that contrast does not translate to wet processed prints.

Lastly, stay way clear of any teachings from Fred Picker.

[Kirk Gittings]

Lastly, stay way clear of any teachings from Fred Picker.;)

[Lachlan 717]

Pre-flash the film.

[Kirk Gittings]

IME that helps boost shadow detail in contrasty scenes. IME this shot needs to control highlights=ample exposure and minus dev. as Steve suggested.

[Greg Blank]

I made 9 - 7 minute exposures on provia 4x5, 3 brackets per movement across about a 180 field of view using a 65mm Lens- several years back. The interior was the Hippodrome in Baltimore, the results were published in Baltimore Magazine- under the heading of "Return Engagement". I counted the time out verbally as 1 mississippi - I forgot my watch. I think I used a 87B to subdue the yellow incandescent cast.

Black and white should be a piece of cake.

[Steve Gledhill]

Terry,

Over the last several years I've taken many church and cathedral interiors as well as other historic buildings with the same inherent subject brightness range challenges. And I have learned some very valuable lessons about the capability of film when coupled with a subsequent digital workflow of scanning and photoshop. The most valuable lesson is that film has a huge capacity to capture a very wide subject brightness range; more than you are likely to encounter inside any church, even from brightly lit windows to under the pews - and retaining detail in both. My methodology is simple. Deep shadows on III. Let the highlights fall where they will. Normal development in XTOL 1+2; in my case 400Tmax, 9 minutes, 24C, continuous agitation. No development adjustments, + or -. This gives negatives which with a reasonable scanner (V700 in my case) pick up all shadow detail and all highlight detail. To make the best use of the file you produce you do need to have invested some time in how best to utilise photoshop - but that's the case with every tool on the planet. But you will have captured all of the detail you could ever need.

Mike Rosenberg was good enough to refer you to my website earlier in this thread. I suggest you take a look at this link (http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/portfolio65696.html) and this this link (http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/portfolio111884.html) which take you to Cathedrals and Churches and to a historic house I recently photographed for the National Trust. In every case the photographs are taken with the available light - almost always natural light from windows. I never use light introduced by myself - no flash, no floods.

And I have never used a filter in any of these photographs.

All the best for your project. You never know, you might start to enjoy that type of photography. I never though I would, until I tried it!

[PS - Lovely Saltaire photo Joanna.]

[Joanna Carter]

Hi Louie and thanks for the kind comments.


The brightest highlight that you need to worry about in this image is probably the reflections on the organ pipes, but I would also measure the bright areas on the walls next to the light fixtures and the lights in the chandelier.
In this case, I was definitely wanting to capture the texture in the window glass and, ignoring the point sources of the interior lighting, the windows were the brightest part of the image. However, I did measure all the points that you mention, as part of the assessment of the whole scene.


Having made the measurements, then compare the exposures required for the brightest highlights rendered as Zone VI, and the deepest shadows rendered as Zone III. If you are lucky, you can capture that range in one exposure, perhaps with N- development to compress the range.
For darkroom printing, I would happily meter the highlights for Zone VIII; two stops output range would be very difficult to achieve with such a wide range of input levels. For scanning, we have the luxury of being able to accept highlights up to Zone X and, depending on how careful you are with the over-exposure part of the calculation, you can pull detail from Zone II shadows.


A trick that Fred Picker talks about in his book 'The Fine Print' is to superimpose two exposures on the same sheet of film. The first exposure is with the interior lights turned off and using only window light. Then, without moving the camera, recock the shutter and do a second, shorter exposure with the lights on.
Certainly an option but, with this shot, the exposure was around the 1/2 second mark anyway.

With buildings where the interior is darker, in comparison with the window light, I would tend to try and shoot at either the beginning or end of the day, when the contrast between interior and exterior light levels is less.

Either that, or buy some really big sheets of ND film to cover the windows :p :eek: :rolleyes:


Give generous shadow exposure and or a reduced agitation regime of film development. N-6 is quite possible with most modern panchromatic films.

Joanna's image is quite nice but as indicated designed for a scan and that contrast does not translate to wet processed prints.
If you are saying that you can get away with N-6 development, then you this particular shot should work with metering for a darkroom print; but with darker churches, I would definitely agree with shooting when the exterior light is not so bright.


[PS - Lovely Saltaire photo Joanna.]
Thanks Steve, even I was gobsmacked with the result :o

[Steve Sherman]

Terry,

I can give you a few tips, but it would help to know if you are going to output digital or silver gelatin prints.

Regards,

Mike

As Michael said, we all need to know what your final output will be.

If you are scanning and adjusting in PS then I check to the others. If your final output is wet processed silver gelatin than I can share with you how to extract the most information in both the shadows and highlights as I have done this type work extensively.

Cheers

[Ken Lee]

Another option is to place the shadows well into Zone III or IV, and let the high values fall on Zone XIV or higher. Develop in Divided Pyrocat HD and add contrast to taste when scanning or printing. You'll be surprised that there is complete detail all along the scale. The photo will look as though you brought in several trucks of cinema lights.

[Tony Evans]

Steve G.
Sheer inspiration! Thank you.

[Terry Hull]

Many thanks to all of you! My takeways from this:

1. I need to "Gobsmack," which with a fair share of divine intervention, may help me get to a beautiful photo like Joanna Carter's post!
2. Stick with what a know from outdoor photography.
3. It also occurs to me that scanning does permit some great results that may not be available traditionally. As yet I don't have a large format scanner, and am waiting to see if the 5X7 Chamonix I just bought works out for me, and if so find a reasonably priced scanner.

[mandoman7]

I understand the new led flashlights can be a big help when shooting large spaces, used in the "light painting" mode. There's one with 8 AA batteries that can really flood a scene with light. If you can get your exposures to be long enough, it might be an easy way to reduce contrast.

Otherwise, I've come to accept and at times prefer the look of slightly overblown highlights in a room, as the effort to compress and control the tones can sometimes lead to a fairly dull overall look. Retaining detail in the shadow and highlights may or may not, in other words, be what you want in the overall look of the image.

[jp]

I shoot it with tmax film, exposing for the shadows and developing in a compensating developer (pmk is what I'm familiar with) or weak xtol developer as has been suggested by others.

I'd only add that you make sure your lens is super clean. Not using filters helps with this. You might get bloom or flare from from the lights if your lens is dirty or less contrasty than the scene itself.

I wouldn't be afraid to have some people in a photo too, even if they are blurred or hard to identify. A church is a place for people to congregate and worship. To not have any people makes it seem to me like it's missing something, regardless of how beautiful the photo or historical architecture is.

[Kirk Gittings]

I wouldn't be afraid to have some people in a photo too, even if they are blurred or hard to identify. A church is a place for people to congregate and worship. To not have any people makes it seem to me like it's missing something, regardless of how beautiful the photo or historical architecture is.

I would say that is a matter of taste and intent. I have spent a large part of my career photographing churches-some 400 historic churches in northern NM alone for an NEA grant. I had people in one of them (blurred) which I could only get access to during a mass. IMO people are implied by the nature of the structure and don't need to be shown IF the image is about the structure rather than about peoples worship.

[Heroique]

A church is a place for people to congregate and worship. To not have any people makes it seem to me like it's missing something, regardless of how beautiful the photo or historical architecture is.


I would say that is a matter of taste and intent.

A compromise of sorts is a church w/ sculpture or effigies decorating the interior.

Adds a super-sharp “human” element, if not necessarily a scaled one. Catholic churches are my favorite for this; your Presbyterian church will likely have fewer opportunities.

A b/w example is “Effigy in Durham Cathedral” from Simmons’ book Using the View Camera.