Tree in Snow

[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