Dodging in picture taking stage ...

[domenico Foschi]

Sometime ago i was taking a walk around my neighborood around sunset, the houses had already the garden lights on , and some of them where lit by their reflected light , some unevenly , creating what we call some hot spots . It was then that i thought i was to take a picture of some of this houses, i would try to dodge the parts poorly lit , to balance the all thing at the picture taking stage . I started to think about the need of an assistant , and the need to fix points so that i could keep the dodging effective . Is there any literature out of people who has tried this ?

[Louie Powell]

Domenico -

Fred Picker talked about a process of selective exposure that accomplishes what you are discussion.

In his book The Fine Print, there are several examples in which he describes how he used multiple exposures, spaced over time, to capture the feel of a scene that featured notable hot spots. In one, he was photographing a rather dramatic architectural structure, and wanted to show both the exterior and the impact of some of the interior lighting. He did one exposure during daylight hours, and then left the camera in position until after dusk to make a second exposure with the interior lights on.

I've done a similar thing in photographing interiors. Spaces such as churches often feature very dramatic lighting that is extremely contrasty. In several instances, I've done a basic exposure with all of the lights on, followed by a sequence of additional exposures on the same sheet of film but with the brighter lights turned off. Often these supplemental exposures are quite a bit longer since, with the brighter lights off, the illumination remaining in the space is fairly dim.

[David A. Goldfarb]

This can be done with a matte box--a kind of compendium lens shade with a slot on the front standard for masks. These were designed do things like heart shaped vignettes and such as well as double exposure tricks (head of one person on the body of another pre-Photoshop), but you could also put an acetate in the slot with cutouts or ink over areas to be dodged or you could cut specially shaped masks and then double expose, part with the mask in place for the dodging exposure and part without the mask for the general exposure.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Domenico, I tried this and I found it to be more trouble than what is what worth for the results. I used the method explained by David. So here is my experience.

You have to have very long exposures and unless the photo you want to take has inherently high contrast this will mean using a very small aperture. When you use a small aperture you will see an outline in the negative if you do not make the mask fit exactly the area you wish to dodge, I guess you can see the mechanics nightmare this means. You have place the acetate, focus, go to the front, paint the acetate a little, go back see if it is right, go back and paint some more (hopefully your first try was perfect and you do not have to start all over again) etc, etc.

You then calculate your exposures, let say with reciprocity etc, you have an overall 30 sec exposure and you need to leave the mask for 10 seconds. Try and remove the mask without jiggling the camera....not an easy thing to do.

I would recommend two different approaches. One, take about 2 or 3 negatives of the same image and bleach them in the darkroom. Or, if you are one of those photographers who feels suffering for your art is good for the soul, and you have a very sturdy camera. Take 2 negatives, one exposed for the shadows and one exposed for the highlights and then sandwich them together when you print them.

I found either of these two methods far easier than the mask methods when exposing.

[Brian Ellis]

If I understand the situation and what you are trying to do, it can't be done by dodging in the camera. You can dodge in the camera when the bright and dark areas are separated by a more or less stright line, most commonly with a bright sky, more or less straight horizon line, and land in the forground that is dimly lit. In that type situation you can expose for the land but hold the darkslide in front of the lens at the horizon line point for a portion of the exposure. That's a technique that John Sexton teaches in one of his workshops and it works very well in the right situation. The exposure doesn't need to be real long, I've done it with exposures as short as four or five seconds. But as I understand your situation, the bright spots were lights at a bunch of different points in the scene. I don't see how it would be possible to dodge each light in camera if they were located more or less randomly throughout the scene.

[Larry Gebhardt]

A graduated neutral density filter would help you with this, or do you want something finer than this?

[Roger Scott]

Although this won't help at the picture taking stage, if you think you'll be able to capture all the information you require in the original negative/transparency and it's just that the shadow/highlight balance isn't quite what you'd like, you might consider trying a contrast reducing mask during the printing process. You can fiddle around with it (bleaching certain areas or doing another one with increased density) without worrying about modifying the original and once it's right it can be left taped in place for any future prints. Not exactly the answer to what you were asking but I thought I'd mention it in case you find it useful.

[Michael E. Gordon]

The Steve Simmons LF book has a few fine and well captioned examples of the method described by Louie Powell.

[Greg Miller]

I have seen Larry Ullrich use a method similar to what Brian describes. Larry hand holds a black card in front of the lens and "jiggles" it a bit during the expsore to achieve a graduated transition between the fully exposed and partially exposed areas.

[Marc Genevrier]

Domenico, if you can read french,you may find interest in the following page: http://www.galerie-photo.com/noblex-sculpteur.html