Basic landscape metering question (not so basic actually)

[RodinalDuchamp]

I have been struggling with my metering technique and hope someone can give me some insight.

I know it will be asked so I will provide some info about my technique/materials.

Tmax400 at 200
Rodinal semi stand dev inversions at each 15 min.

I started initially metering for shadows but this caused my highlights which are usually fluffy white FL clouds to lose texture and look unappealing.

Now I am trying to guess at where middle grey would fall and use that, I've had positive results but I feel this is just getting lucky while gambling and will not always work.

I have both a spot and incidence meter. Incidence readings usually give me flat prints, where as my new method of spotting for middle grey is giving me nice contrast in print.

Does anyone have any pointers for me? I have read everything I can about the zone system but at this point I understand I am not ready to begin trying this. I will begin testing tri-x320 for true film speed which is the first step in using the zone system. However for now I need a system or method that will yield repeatable consistent good exposures.

I have attached a bad picture of a negative I found to be successful in exposure. I spot metered for the gravel in the foreground.

Edit: I just thought about getting one of those grey cards and spotting it if possible in the same light as the scene.

129891

[Kevin Crisp]

I am sure you are going to get lots of advice in a very short period of time. My thoughts:

1. Trying to use the zone system without a film speed and development time test is problematic.

2. Your use of what I assume is a very dilute mix of Rodinal for very long development times with very infrequent agistation is complicating things. Why are you doing this and what do you hope to achieve? I'm not saying it is wrong, but it is unusual and a method generally used for taming contrast; specifically highlights that would otherwise be blown out. You are complaining about incidence readings giving you flat prints....then why are you using a developing technique that is used to tame contrast? You are simultaneously working to contract negative contrast and complainting about flatness.

3. If you want to go out and get decent results now, which is how I interpret the question, set a decent meter at the rated film speed, use a recommended development time (nothing wrong with sticking with Rodinal) for a dilution more in the 1:25 or 1:50 range, with gentle agitation at no less than one minute intervals, and meter using it for incident readings. (Kodak has an excellent on line publication on how to use a light meter.) If your first sheet looks too dense, back off the development time. If it looks to thin but shadows are adequate where you need them, you can increase develpment time a bit. This should get you decent printable negatives in short order.

4. Fred Picker, the founder of now-gone Zone VI Studios, had a technique which was his short-hand version of the zone system. Once you've done the testing, place the lightest/brightest area where you need a little texture on Zone 8 and take the picture. It works quite well in many -- dare I say most -- situations. But without the testing first, it may not. And once you throw in your special-purpose development scheme, I doubt it will. Zone VIII won't be where you placed it since you are pulling it lower.

[Robert Oliver]

If you are going to meter for the shadows not sure how you can do it without using the zone system... Or at least a basic version of it.

You can just take a gray card reading or incident meter and that will get you there for most average scenes.

I wouldn't recommend semi-stand for anything but the contrasti-est scenes.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Reason I am sticking to semi stand for now is because the nikor tank I own produces overdeveloped regions at the center of the neg where the developer flows through faster while agitating. I am working on tray dev but I am not very good at it and have ruined more than one negative with improper agitation.

Kevin, I understand what you are saying in point 1 but I mentioned I will begin testing tri-x for film speed very soon. I also have access to D76 which will be my main developer going forward.

[djdister]

In addition to the advice others have given, I will point out that you do not mention spot metering the mid tones and highlights. If you spotmeter only for the shadows, you have no idea what your subject brightness range (SBR) is, which is why your highlights (clouds) ended up blown out. If you are going to spot meter and try to apply the zone system, you should be taking half a dozen readings of the scene, and from there determining how to adjust your development time to accomodate the SBR. That is a highly simplified summary, but my main point was that you were not taking enough spot meterings to effectively judge the brightness range and required development approach.

[Regular Rod]

I have been struggling with my metering technique and hope someone can give me some insight.

I know it will be asked so I will provide some info about my technique/materials.

Tmax400 at 200
Rodinal semi stand dev inversions at each 15 min.

I started initially metering for shadows but this caused my highlights which are usually fluffy white FL clouds to lose texture and look unappealing.

Now I am trying to guess at where middle grey would fall and use that, I've had positive results but I feel this is just getting lucky while gambling and will not always work.

I have both a spot and incidence meter. Incidence readings usually give me flat prints, where as my new method of spotting for middle grey is giving me nice contrast in print.

Does anyone have any pointers for me? I have read everything I can about the zone system but at this point I understand I am not ready to begin trying this. I will begin testing tri-x320 for true film speed which is the first step in using the zone system. However for now I need a system or method that will yield repeatable consistent good exposures.

I have attached a bad picture of a negative I found to be successful in exposure. I spot metered for the gravel in the foreground.

Edit: I just thought about getting one of those grey cards and spotting it if possible in the same light as the scene.

129891

The most likely way to fix all this is to learn and use the Zone System. It's worth the work and it stays with you for ever once worked out....

RR

[Kevin Crisp]

I also cannot tray develop using the common technique of 4 to 6 sheets shuffled etc. I scratch them. But I tray develop, two at a time, in a tray with a divider made out of those plastic tripod things that come with home delivery pizzas. The legs (I just use two of them, sticking up) are so thin there is no agistation pattern, especially as the film constantly floats around and repositions itself. Yes it takes longer, but with the right sized tray for the format (at least 8X10 for 4X5 negatives, and 11X14 for 5X7), development is even and I never damage a negative. There must be hundreds of threads on agitation density issues involving tanks and hangers. The cure for this is unlikely to be dilute developer with nearly no agitation. Cure the problem rather than try to manage the symptoms; either use tubes or tray develop. For agitation, I use the method Kodak recommended in its publication for TMAX films, which is basically constant gentle agitation through a pattern of tray rocking, a constant cycle repeated about every 8 seconds. I use that will all films and developers and it works for me.

If you are doing your film speed test with very dilute developer and nearly no agitation you might get in a very big ballpark of film speed, but the development time test for Zone VIII will be a problem since you are inherently underdeveloping the higher densities.

[John Kasaian]

Why Tmax 400 at 200?

[Kevin Crisp]

Here is a link to the Kodak publication, which I thought was well done on metering: http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/af9/

[RodinalDuchamp]

I also cannot tray develop using the common technique of 4 to 6 sheets shuffled etc. I scratch them. But I tray develop, two at a time, in a tray with a divider made out of those plastic tripod things that come with home delivery pizzas. The legs (I just use two of them, sticking up) are so thin there is no agistation pattern, especially as the film constantly floats around and repositions itself. Yes it takes longer, but with the right sized tray for the format (at least 8X10 for 4X5 negatives, and 11X14 for 5X7), development is even and I never damage a negative. There must be hundreds of threads on agitation density issues involving tanks and hangers. The cure for this is unlikely to be dilute developer with nearly no agitation. Cure the problem rather than try to manage the symptoms; either use tubes or tray develop. For agitation, I use the method Kodak recommended in its publication for TMAX films, which is basically constant gentle agitation through a pattern of tray rocking, a constant cycle repeated about every 8 seconds. I use that will all films and developers and it works for me.

If you are doing your film speed test with very dilute developer and nearly no agitation you might get in a very big ballpark of film speed, but the development time test for Zone VIII will be a problem since you are inherently underdeveloping the higher densities.
Kevin thank you for taking the time to detail your process, it might not seem like it but its actually harder than you might think to find proper agitation strategies. Would it be a too much to ask for a picture of your tray, how its put together? Maybe you could PM it to me if you don't want it on the thread and if its not too much to ask of you. I do develop them in 8x10 trays but they never turn out right and its usually the sky that gets destroyed.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Why Tmax 400 at 200?
Trying to maximize shadow density. In have shot tri-x in smaller formats at this EI with success but I've been reading about both films curves which are a bit different.

I'm changing one variable at a time from where I am. First I need a reliable metering strategy. Then I will tackle tray development in d76. Once that's done I'll start testing tri-x 320 for true film speed in d76. Then I can shoot at that ei and start applying zone system technique.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

First thing would be whether you are using an incident or reflective meter. remember, with a reflective meter, the suggested exposure is for a medium gray. If you are metering a very dark area or a very light area and want them to be that way, you will need to adjust your exposure to take this fact into account.

[Kevin Crisp]

No problem, I will take a photo tonight. Yes, the sky, often being uniform, is typically where the uneven development sticks out.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Taking the short-cut here, why don't you bracket and then if the results
are not acceptable investigate your exposure & development procedure.

It is not rocket science.
.

[Kevin Crisp]

My two low volume sloshers, 4x5 and 5X7. The larger one is based on what I think was a lettuce tray or some such I found at the restaurant supply store. The dividers are 3 pole (4X5) and 2 pole plastic gizmos that came with home delivery pizza. The edges were sanded down (especially the stub of the post I cut off on the 5X7 one) and "Goop" adhesive has held them in place for 15 years. The larger tray has a very flat bottom that film could stick to, so I put a hump of goop on the bottom to prevent that. On the 5x7 one I also trimmed one side so the Zone VI probe would fit down in the solution.

The idea is that the film can wander around a lot during constant gentle tray rocking agitation, but can't scratch the sheet in the other side. Since the film moves around and changes position, you don't get agitation density patterns. You touch the film to put a sheet in each side and press it under, and to remove it. Otherwise not at all. The film is emulsion side up. You only have to be careful when you lift the film out to move on to stop or water bath. You don't want to dig into the emulsion with your finger nails and mine are a bit on the long side on my right hand because I play the guitar. I've never damaged a sheet in that way, I'm just saying pick the film up with the pads of your fingers to be safe.

Others do it differently but I can say this is simple and works fine for me in the volumes I shoot. Development is uniform even in So. Cal. summers when times get into the 4 minute range and I don't presoak.129927

[Bruce Barlow]

Why Tmax 400 at 200?

Cuz I get richer shadows... tune the development time and it's delicious.

I learnt from Freddie Picker hisself the "set the brightest on Zone VIII and take the pitcher" thang. Works for me, every time.

Sorry for the quirkiness, but it's midnight here in Sumy, Ukraine.

[RodinalDuchamp]

My two low volume sloshers, 4x5 and 5X7. The larger one is based on what I think was a lettuce tray or some such I found at the restaurant supply store. The dividers are 3 pole (4X5) and 2 pole plastic gizmos that came with home delivery pizza. The edges were sanded down (especially the stub of the post I cut off on the 5X7 one) and "Goop" adhesive has held them in place for 15 years. The larger tray has a very flat bottom that film could stick to, so I put a hump of goop on the bottom to prevent that. On the 5x7 one I also trimmed one side so the Zone VI probe would fit down in the solution.

The idea is that the film can wander around a lot during constant gentle tray rocking agitation, but can't scratch the sheet in the other side. Since the film moves around and changes position, you don't get agitation density patterns. You touch the film to put a sheet in each side and press it under, and to remove it. Otherwise not at all. The film is emulsion side up. You only have to be careful when you lift the film out to move on to stop or water bath. You don't want to dig into the emulsion with your finger nails and mine are a bit on the long side on my right hand because I play the guitar. I've never damaged a sheet in that way, I'm just saying pick the film up with the pads of your fingers to be safe.

Others do it differently but I can say this is simple and works fine for me in the volumes I shoot. Development is uniform even in So. Cal. summers when times get into the 4 minute range and I don't presoak.129927
Thank for the pics! I'm going to try to rif something up like this. At this point tray developing has become a necessity for me to master.

[Bernard_L]

I started initially metering for shadows but this caused my highlights (...) to lose texture and look unappealing.
Not sure what you mean by "metering for shadows". If you just take the meter reading from the shadows, you are effectively placing them on zone V. If said shadows are typical, this means the "real" zone V (middle grey sunlit) is pushed to zone VIII (!!) and the clouds, don't know where...
You (and not system X) should decide what is important for you in the picture. If it's the cloud texture, then place the clouds zone VI or VII (experiment with your film and development routine, evaluate, decide) and let the shadows fall where they can.

[Doremus Scudder]

RD,

General observations and thoughts about what your problem could be.

1st general observation: (no offense intended) You really don't know what you're doing and don't understand the process as well as you need to. Take a trip to the library or the Internet or whatever and read up on basic exposure and metering. Then you can move to the Zone System...

On to details:


I have been struggling with my metering technique and hope someone can give me some insight.

I know it will be asked so I will provide some info about my technique/materials.

Tmax400 at 200
Rodinal semi stand dev inversions at each 15 min.

I started initially metering for shadows but this caused my highlights which are usually fluffy white FL clouds to lose texture and look unappealing.

Tmax 400 at 200 shouldn't be a problem, even if you're overexposing (which you likely are by a bit). Developing we'll discuss later.
So --- what do you mean by "metering for the shadows"? When I meter for the shadows, I use a spot meter to get a reading from an important shadow area in the scene. Then I "place" that shadow where I want it to be, which is usually one to three less exposure than the meter recommends (i.e., underexposed from what the meter reads). If you are metering the shadow and then just using the meter reading for your exposure, you are "placing" (intentionally or not) your shadow at middle grey. This is usually wrong, and without understanding the visualization tools of the Zone System, simply blundering in the dark (pun intended), overexposing your film even more.

Next, your texture-less clouds: Once you've figured out how to place a shadow, if you're getting highlights that don't reproduce well when the shadows print as you like them, your development time is wrong. You don't say how you're printing; analogue or scanning. If you're just scanning, you may still have a negative that would print well optically. Nevertheless, for optimal developing time for either method just follow the good old Kodak advice: If your negatives are consistently too contrasty, reduce development time. If they are consistently too flat, increase development time. 15% is a good amount to adjust by. If you go too far, you can then find a middle value.




Now I am trying to guess at where middle grey would fall and use that, I've had positive results but I feel this is just getting lucky while gambling and will not always work.
I have both a spot and incidence meter. Incidence readings usually give me flat prints, where as my new method of spotting for middle grey is giving me nice contrast in print.

Again, you don't know what you're doing. Read up on metering techniques. You say spot metering gives you too contrasty prints and incident metering gives you too flat prints, but this is impossible if development stays the same. What could be happening is that one method results in overexposure and the other results in underexposure.

So, get this: Exposure mistakes will give you thin or dense negatives. A thin negative can have a small density range (which is likely what you're referring to with "flat"). However, it is really the development that determines the contrast of the negative, i.e., the separation of tones. Density range, i.e., the distance between the lowest and highest density in a given negative can be influenced by both.



Does anyone have any pointers for me? I have read everything I can about the zone system but at this point I understand I am not ready to begin trying this. I will begin testing tri-x320 for true film speed which is the first step in using the zone system. However for now I need a system or method that will yield repeatable consistent good exposures.

I have attached a bad picture of a negative I found to be successful in exposure. I spot metered for the gravel in the foreground.

Edit: I just thought about getting one of those grey cards and spotting it if possible in the same light as the scene.


My pointers. Reading about the Zone System and trying to apply it without understanding the metering techniques needed and doing the testing for personal film speed and development times is next to useless. Until you reach that point, you should probably just take an incident reading and use that.

And "repeatable consistent good exposures" are useless if your development is whack-o. You need to test that too. In lieu of that, use the manufacturer's recommendations.

It seems like you want to do tricky metering and developing without testing and mastering the techniques needed. Time to go back to square one?

Best,

Doremus

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

One of the easiest books to understand on the zone system is Zone VI workshop by Picker. Many of them available for a very reasonable price on the auction site.

[lfpf]

I have been struggling with my metering technique and hope someone can give me some insight.
However for now I need a system or method that will yield repeatable consistent good exposures.
I have attached a bad picture of a negative I found to be successful in exposure. I spot metered for the gravel in the foreground.
Edit: I just thought about getting one of those grey cards and spotting it if possible in the same light as the scene.
129891
Keep it simple. Your neg is in the ballpark and you want to adjust. Limit variables with a standard lens, film (EI 400), illumination (sunlight) , exposure (sunny 16), development (Rodinal dilution/temp/agitation/time) and print paper (grade 2). Lose the meter(s), lose the zone system, lose the grey card, lose other complications, graduate with Father Guido Sarducci's 5-minute sensitometry degree by understanding: expose for acceptable above-toe (above threshold) shadow density and develop for the sub-shoulder highlight density to print on, for example, a grade 2 paper.

First, adjust exposure variable. If too thin, add a stop or two. If too dense, reduce by a stop or two.

Second, adjust development time variable. If shadow density is acceptable and highlights are too dense for printing on grade 2 paper, then reduce D-76 development time by a minute or two (more or less). If shadow density is acceptable and highlights are too thin, then increase D-76 development time by a minute or two (more or less as needed).

After a few rounds you will arrive at what you like with no grey card, no meter, no zones, no complications and simply by applying the take-away from Father Guido Sarducci's 5-minute sensitometry degree.

Have fun out there and don't sweat the unnecessary.

Steve, zoneless