Questions on technique and the Zone System

[mfoot]

Hello all,

This is my first on this forum!

I recently bought a second hand Sinar Norma and a 90mm Schneider-Kreuznach 90mm f/8 Super Angulon from Mr Cad in
London. I've never done large format photography before so everything here is new to me. The camera is a little old and
heavy but it seems like a great camera to learn and practice on. I've been reading a lot and have been learning the Zone
System. I tried to use it recently on some night shots around Tower Bridge and the Mayor's Office in London. Below is a
scan of my first 4x5 negative with no adjustments. The film is Fomapan 200:



Note: I say no adjustments but I had to scan the negative in two halves and stitch it together as my scanner is a
Canoscan 9000F Mk II. That's all I did.

The shot was taken of the East side of the bridge from the South Bank at around 10pm a couple of weeks ago (late July or
early August 2015). I used a Sekonic L308-S lightmeter which doesn't have a spot meter that works on a very specific
location. I metered the shadow area under the bridge at 15s @ f/4 and the highlights at the top of the tower at 15s @
f/22. It seems to me like there's more than 5 stops difference between the shadows and bright lamps here but I am not
experienced enough to know how many by eye. To place the shadow area under the bridge in Zone III, I dropped two stops
to 15s @ f/5.8 and converted this to 120s @ f/22 because I wanted more depth of field. I remember reading somewhere that
reciprocity failure for Fomapan was terrible. I'd written down some user-given compensation times in my notebook of x3 @
1s, x9 @ 10s, x18 @ 100s. Not wanting to stand around for too long I eventually went back to 15s @ f/8 and added a x9
multiplier for reciprocity compensation giving me 135s @ f/8. When it came to development (also my first 4x5 developing
ever) I mixed 109g of powdered D-76 with 1L of water (stock dilution) and developed for 5.5 minutes based on similar
results on Massive Dev Chart. I consulted the Zone Scale compactions page from Steve Simmons' Using the View Camera and
chose a standard development because the meter said that there was a 5 stop difference between shadows (now zone 3) and
my highlights (now Zone 8) and I figured that I didn't need any contrast adjustments.

The end result was the picture above. It's obviously overexposed in the highlights but I'm happy with the shadow detail
on the bricks and the water and the underside of the bridge and the nice moody clouds. It seems my exposure calculations
were in the right ball park but I'm not sure about the cause of my error for the highlights. It's very probably that
they were actually brighter than my meter reading due to not having a 1 degree spot meter or not aiming it accurately -
you just point in the general direction with the L308. Other than that, have any of the assumptions or calculations I've
described above been incorrect, or were there any technical mistakes that you can spot? Is it the case that with long
exposures it's very difficult to not get blown highlights and I should have made a decision to lose some shadow detail?

[David Schaller]

Very good first effort! I would say that your spot meter was not precise enough for the highlight measurement, and probably picked up a lot of dark sky, which is why you thought there were only 5 stops difference, and your highlights are over exposed.

You might want to practice the zone system in daylight a bit to hone your skills.

I always apply the reciprocity correction to the metered shadow reading, before stopping down. So if it was 15 sec @ f4, then applied it would be 135 sec @ f4, then divide by 4 to stop down two stops for zone three. Then see where your highlights fall. Typically when you have long exposures, the highlights have to be calculated after you've made the reciprocity correction, and you often find that you need to do minus development.

[DennisD]

Welcome to the forum, MFOOT - that's a good beginning.

Glad to see you took careful notes. They provide important reference when using the zone system.

As mentioned by David Schaller above, it's really best to experiment with daytime exposures, especially for starting out using the zone system and testing. Dealing with reciprocity effects and adjusting development only adds variables that could create problems and confusion... especially if you don't have great familiarity with the film involved.

Have you done preliminary film testing for exposure index and film developing times ?
That's most important when getting started.

If you're serious about the zone system, a spot meter is necessary for the most part. It will enable you to be far more successful with subjects such as the bridge above. You will be able to get accurate spot readings of subject matter at a distance, landscapes, etc.

Until you get a meter you can experiment with the ZS by taking photographs of not so distant subjects. You will be able to physically get light readings of different values close up.

David's comment about determining reciprocity is wise. Also, your image might well have benefited from minus development.

Lastly, for nighttime shots like yours, consider using one of the compensating developers that would curb overdevelopment of highlights. Pyrocat HD is an example, but there are many others. That may also require some testing, but the results worthwhile. However, exposure control should be a priority.

Good wishes in your work.

[Michael W]

The end result was the picture above. It's obviously overexposed in the highlights but I'm happy with the shadow detail
on the bricks and the water and the underside of the bridge and the nice moody clouds. It seems my exposure calculations
were in the right ball park but I'm not sure about the cause of my error for the highlights. It's very probably that
they were actually brighter than my meter reading due to not having a 1 degree spot meter or not aiming it accurately -
you just point in the general direction with the L308. Other than that, have any of the assumptions or calculations I've
described above been incorrect, or were there any technical mistakes that you can spot? Is it the case that with long
exposures it's very difficult to not get blown highlights and I should have made a decision to lose some shadow detail?

Do you know that generally when you increase exposure for reciprocity that you should decrease developing time? Because the extra exposure is having a big effect on highlights. You might have to knock 20% or more off the dev time. Also it's worth noting that urban night photography typically has much higher contrast range scenes than most daytime scenes. So you need to think about how to reduce contrast. Compensating dev as suggested is one to consider. Ansel Adams recommended two bath devs for these scenarios. You will probably find the zone system chapter of his book The Negative quite useful. If that bridge is easily accessible I would suggest going back a couple more times, probably doing pretty much the same exposure but trying whatever dev ideas seem best to you, and I'd suspect that very soon you'd be getting much better results.

[Peter Mounier]

It's always hard to tell from an image posted on the web, but if you printed it about a stop darker it might be a much better print. The bridge lights don't look that overexposed or over developed to me. I see recoverable highlight detail in the tower. And the underside of the bridge can go to almost black and still show some depth and detail. You do want to see some detail in the shadows under the bridge, but the highlight detail is so much more important, and should really sing when it contrasts against the blackness under the bridge. If this is a scan from a neg I'd say that you can most likely improve the image in the scanning process. If it's a scan of a wet print then I'd recommend printing with a lower grade paper and printing it darker overall, then burn the edges to lighten the vignette (which looks about right).

It's easy being an armchair quarterback.

[ShannonG]

good start,,,general rule for me any way...expose for the shadow detail,process for the highlights,,,,,that can be as simple as metering the last shadow with detail,and placing it at zone 4,,your meter reads every thing at zone 5. (15%grey) so you can adjust from there.im a zone 4 meter guy, and adjust with development... good start,,,keep going,,,nice image

[sun of sand]

Have you made a wet print? Could just be the scan. You're used to it and I don't scan so no help given on that

It needs to be darker
Print for the highlights/maximum black in the rebate to tell for sure
I don't believe a simple invert of a scan gives a true representation
I'm also not sure that they're blown. Maybe.
Print it darker

[tgtaylor]

IMO you should reshoot when there are no clouds or fog in the sky to reflect the city light. I would want a black sky. To me the negative is overexposed. I would want a black water reflecting "silver" from the bridge/city. This is a crappy PnS digital shot of a salt print which illustrates what I am talking about:

http://spiritsofsilver.com/yahoo_sit...3548_large.jpg

Thomas

[ic-racer]

It's obviously overexposed in the highlights

I don't know what your scanner is doing; you probably need to ask this in the digital forum. In film photography one exposes to render adequate shadow detail on the negative. The highlights are printed as desired by altering the contrast of the printing paper. For exposed, but yet undeveloped films, one can use scene contrast to predict negative contrast and alter development based on empiric data obtained from testing.

[Cor]

If you re-shoot: check if your horizon is level, it seems that the bridge is leaning to the left (the scan is also not level judging by the rebate). A gridded ground glass is a big help in this. And judging from my screen: I think a fine print could be made in the darkroom, but it requires burning and playing around with grades.

Good luck,

Cor