Zone system for low contrast scenes?

[David Karp]

Not to question Brian's comments. Knowledge of your materials eliminates many problems.

However, even if you know your materials, it might be a good idea to keep making two exposures of each photograph you make. I got this idea from John Sexton at a workshop, and it makes sense to me. That second exposure makes it less likely that some mishap will destroy a photo that you really want to print. Mistakes in processing, a dumb mistake while exposing the film, dust spots in the sky, and many other problems can be remedied if you have that second sheet held "in your back pocket." I have experienced this firsthand. I dropped a wet sheet of film on the floor, then stepped on it (duh!), scratching it in the process. I was happy to have the second sheet.

Just a thought.

[Donald Miller]

"I used Tmax 100 and “overexposed” by one stop"

Overexposing is conducive to reducing contrast rather then increasing contrast.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

Donald raises a very important point. Typically you over expose and under develop to reduce contrast and do the opposite to enhance contrast. I just recently returned from a trip to the Greek Isles where I spent two weeks photographing architectural subjects. Everything is whitewashed in that part of the world and with the high reflectivity of these surfaces, shadow areas were never more than 1-1/2 to 2 stops darker than sun lit surfaces. The answer (and this, I tested before leaving for that trip) was to place highlight areas in zone V or VI and giving +2 or +3 development to expand the dynamic range. Only minor adjustments were needed in the darkroom. In an overly gray situation such as the one you described, I would probably have given +1 or +1-1/2 development, but would not have overexposed.

[Neal Shields]

I thought you underexpose when you know you are going to overdevelop to avoid pushing the highlights on to the shoulder. If I have plenty of room, I overexpose anyway, even if I am going to overdevelop to increase contrast.

Is this wrong?

I just have a hard time for some reason not giving it that extra stop on 8x10 where grain isn't an issue.

[Aaron_3437]

" fine tune local contrast with paper grade (which is often the only easy and sizeable control we have during printing) and dodge/burn to control overall contrast".

Thanks DJ. Always something useful to learn from you.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"I thought you underexpose when you know you are going to overdevelop to avoid pushing the highlights on to the shoulder. If I have plenty of room, I overexpose anyway, even if I am going to overdevelop to increase contrast.

Is this wrong?"

You may be dragging lower zones upward to a degree that defeats your objective. Let's say as an example, your muddy creek bed scene has a dynamic range of 2 stops from the lightest highlight with textural detail to the darkest shadow, also with that degree of detail. When you over develop film the values at or above zone V will respond more dramatically to that overdevelopment than values below zone V. The higher the value, the more response, the lower the value, the subtler the response to overdevelopment. So to expand the dynamic range in the finished negative, you might want to place the highlight area in zone V and give +2 development, moving that tone up to zone VII. The part of the subject that is in metered zone IV will also get denser, but not to the degree that zone V tones did. The part of the subject that was in metered zone III will respond even less, hence allowing the dynamic range on the negative to expand. If you were to arbitrarily over expose by another stop, what was in metered zone III will now lie in zone IV and is going to get denser, faster when given +2 development and what was in metered zone V will now lie in zone VI, pushing itself into zone VIII on the finished negative. Depending on what film you are using and how much local contrast exists in the highest measured zone, you might, repeat might, find that certain highlight detail is too dense for comfortable printing. Without being able to actually see your scene and measure it carefully, I'd be sticking my nexk out in saying what you did was wrong. But, judging from the results you said you got, I would guess that if you had not over exposed and gave a little more development, you would have an easier time printing the negative. All I can say is to try it! And if you do, please let us know how your resuts changed.