PDA

View Full Version : Developing for shadows



Steven Ruttenberg
19-May-2019, 23:33
Let's suppose I am shooting sunrise, I expose for darkest shadows, sun is as expected. If I developed to N+1 or +2 wiuld ygat help with shadow detail as I have read? In doing so, would I blow out high lights if not originally blown out?

I use regular, 2-bath and regular Pyrocat as well as working with SLIMTS.

Looking for ways to develop shadows, not blow high lights without exposing like I have 100 iso instead of 400 iso and developing for the determined iso with N +1 or +2.

Looking for technique to capture shadows and develop correctly, yet not blow out high lights.

Pere Casals
20-May-2019, 01:19
Looking for technique to capture shadows and develop correctly, yet not blow out high lights.

Steven, sensitometric curves explain all:

191438


So, in practice... Exposure is what it will impose how your shadows are, you have to know how shadows are at -3, -2 and -1 ( say with normal development), spot meter an scene and locate -3, -2 and -1 areas. So also the way you want your shadows it will impose exposure. You know what detail you have at -2, so perhaps you want an spot i the shadows with that detail... then just adjust exposure to have that spot at -2. You have the exposure !

You should also know how highlights are depicted at +1, +2,+3 and +4 with Normal development. With the exposure determined by the shadows then you evaluate (also with the spot meter) at what overexposure your highlights are. Say that an spot is at +5, it will be burned, but if you do a -2N development the +5 spot will move to +3, so by selecting the N you place your highlights where you want.

Just remember that the N+/- development won't move much your shadows, that are determined by the exposure only, you may have a 1/3 stop shift, so when you have placed your shadows you are free to move the highlights by adjusting N development, and this won't move shadows.

This works with any processing: regular, slimt, stand, stain... You only need the development times for each -/+N in your processing.

-/+N Development times are in tables, you can (BTZS) calibrate those times, or you simply may guess those times and trying until it works.

Bruce Watson
20-May-2019, 05:04
Let's suppose I am shooting sunrise, I expose for darkest shadows, sun is as expected. If I developed to N+1 or +2 wiuld ygat help with shadow detail as I have read? In doing so, would I blow out high lights if not originally blown out?

You can't really develop for the shadows. That's due to latent image -- either you have one, or you don't. If you didn't expose enough to form a latent image, you can develop for days and still end up with clear film.

OTOH, if you did expose enough to form a latent image, typical development maxes out early in the development process -- that is, the development process runs to completion for that part of your image with the faintest latent image (deep shadows). And again, once the process has run to completion, you can continue development for days without any change.

This is where the first part of the phrase "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" comes from.

All that said, I suspect that your problem might be reciprocity related. That is, I suspect that you are using an "old style" cubic grained film like Tri-X or HP-5+. These films have reciprocity characteristics that tend to push your shadow detail into reciprocity failure while the rest of the film is fine. This results in a sheet of film that looks fine on the light table but which can't produce proper shadow detail in a print. I'm familiar with this kind of thing because I fought it for years.

Once I finally understood what was probably happening, I created a test to prove it one way or the other. I did the typical Zone System testing (personal exposure index, and "N" development) for the film I was trying to use (Tri-X), and for 400TMax (TMY-2, a "modern" t-grain film). Then I loaded up some film holders with one sheet of each film, and went out in the woods making identical photographs on the two different films. Then I came back and separated the films in the darkroom and ran each film in the same developer (XTOL 1:3 used one shot) for their respective "N" development times.

As expected, the two different films of the same scene looked almost identical on the light table. But under a 10x loope, I could see density differences in the lowest density areas. And when I printed them, prints made from the different negatives showed that one (Tri-X) struggled to show detail in the shadows while the other (TMY-2) made it look effortless.

Now, it could be just the difference between the longer toe on the sensitometric curve for Tri-X vs. the shorter toe for TMY-2. But without a better lab (and some assistants!) I couldn't prove it. But I'm pretty sure the difference was in reciprocity characteristics.

Anyway, this might or might not apply to your particular situation. But at least, maybe, I've given you something to think about. ;-)

Paul Ron
20-May-2019, 05:30
Steven, sensitometric curves explain all:

191438


So, in practice... Exposure is what it will impose how your shadows are, you have to know how shadows are at -3, -2 and -1 ( say with normal development), spot meter an scene and locate -3, -2 and -1 areas. So also the way you want your shadows it will impose exposure. You know what detail you have at -2, so perhaps you want an spot i the shadows with that detail... then just adjust exposure to have that spot at -2. You have the exposure !

You should also know how highlights are depicted at +1, +2,+3 and +4 with Normal development. With the exposure determined by the shadows then you evaluate (also with the spot meter) at what overexposure your highlights are. Say that an spot is at +5, it will be burned, but if you do a -2N development the +5 spot will move to +3, so by selecting the N you place your highlights where you want.

Just remember that the N+/- development won't move much your shadows, that are determined by the exposure only, you may have a 1/3 stop shift, so when you have placed your shadows you are free to move the highlights by adjusting N development, and this won't move shadows.

This works with any processing: regular, slimt, stand, stain... You only need the development times for each -/+N in your processing.

-/+N Development times are in tables, you can (BTZS) calibrate those times, or you simply may guess those times and trying until it works.


This ^ says it all.

Expose for shadows, then develop for highlights. highs are effected more by development. The shadows actually stop or slow down to the point of exhaustion at a certain point and your highs continue to get denser as they race to their exhaustion point. To get that point of control in developing highs, you will need to do some experimenting till you find that delicate edge where a minute makes a difference.

comparing different films complicates your life. Find one film taht gives you waht you want n stick with it. I was fiddeling with Berger, Arista n TMax... Tmax won hands down for those subtle details and control.

.

Andrew O'Neill
20-May-2019, 06:56
Use an unsharp mask to open up shadows. I've used denser than normal to do this.

Corran
20-May-2019, 09:20
Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

I'm having déjà vu...

Peter Collins
20-May-2019, 10:34
BIG +1, Pere, Bruce, Paul, Andrew, & Corran. No need to add more.

koraks
20-May-2019, 10:39
> I use regular, 2-bath and regular Pyrocat as well as working with SLIMTS.

Keep in mind that with SLIMT you'll lose some shadow detail.

If you want more detail in the shadows, give more exposure. Just like the others said. There's no way to magically make up what wasn't there in the first place.

Doremus Scudder
20-May-2019, 11:13
Steven,

Anytime you change your development time from "normal," you'll change the effective film speed (your E.I., not the ISO) of the film a bit. However, this is often not much; 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop, or maybe a full stop+ at most, at that only at the most extreme ends of the development spectrum. However, ~2/3-stop less exposure at N-2 can be troublesome if you don't compensate for your chosen development at the time of exposure; you'll lose shadow detail. If you find you need N- developments, add some exposure to support the shadows. I give 2/3-1 stop more at N-2 usually. You can reduce exposure a bit for N+ developments, but you don't have to. The bit of "overexposure" doesn't usually affect the image. And, developing N+ to try and recover some shadow detail when the scene was pretty contrasty to start with usually results in unprintable negatives...

Assuming you have an E.I. that works for you at "N" development (i.e., delivers the shadow detail you want), then tweaking a bit for N-, SLIMTs, etc. should be easy. I think of it like a filter factor: N-2? Add 2/3 stop (that's for my SLIMT N-2, reducing development time to get N-2 requires a full stop).

There's no free lunch when it comes to shadow detail.

Best,

Doremus

P.S: check out this thread about a lost tripod; your name has come up there: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152339-tripod-found

Steven Ruttenberg
20-May-2019, 13:39
I get the concept of expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, but now it is starting to click in. Currently, I develop using normal times and either play with 2-bath or something. But I was looking at one of my Grand Canyon Sunrise shots and noticed the pretty much unexposed portion due to the grad nd covering that area. Very hard to see what you are covering with filter pre-dawn. While not the darkest area on my image, once covered with the filter it then became so by 3 stops, so it went from say ZV to ZII or I, maybe even 0.

Hence my question.

So, if shadows go to exhaustion during development first, then the highlights, I really do need to understand now the little nuances of developing the film now. This is also why I wanted to try a double exposure of sunrise/suset. For sunrise, when there is enough light to get a decent exposure, say, no more than 3-5 minutes, I would use a 1 or 2 stop Grad ND to avoid over exposing the sky since it will already be well lit up. Then, using an ND filter to help control exposure, I can then photograph the sun only and get the rays from it etc as it peaks above the horizon. In the Canyon, streaks from shadows shouldn't be a concern as your shooting directly into the sun. Will take some practice, but can use this tecnhique combined with the above information on development to achieve a decent image, or so I think.

I am now at the point of being a Sophomore in film. I know enough to be totally dangerous and I think I am totally smart. :) Can't wait to become a junior.

Bruce Watson
20-May-2019, 14:43
So, if shadows go to exhaustion during development first, then the highlights...

The reason you can "develop for the highlights" is that in normal use, the highlights (most dense) do not, in fact, develop to completion. Which is why we often use stop baths -- to force development to stop when we want it to. So... If you increase development time, you increase highlight density. And really exposed highlights can be developed to a very high density indeed. Way higher than you can print.

OTOH, a two bath developer can, and most of them probably do, run to completion, sorta. But it's really running to exhaustion of the developer. A duplicate sheet of film (same exposure) developed in a single bath developer would likely continue to develop density in the highlights as you left it in the developer longer.

And stand development or "compensation" techniques do something similar -- they run to exhaustion locally. That is, the developer that's in the emulsion itself can run to exhaustion in the densest highlights because of the lack of agitation keeps fresh developer from getting in.


...I really do need to understand now the little nuances of developing the film now.

You could read the massive two volume Grant Haist book Modern Photographic Processing if you want (a lot of) extra credit. Not for the faint of heart. It lays out in amazing detail all that Haist learned in his decades as a research chemist at Kodak. And that man learned a whole lot, and kept amazing notes.

A better starting point might be Anchell and Troop's The Film Development Cookbook, whatever the newest edition might be. It covers the practical side of film development and is a much easier read than most of the other books out there IMHO.

That said, there are of course dozens and dozens of books on all kinds of darkroom topics. And all kinds of exposure and development systems. You just have to find the ones that work for you.

Paul Ron
20-May-2019, 15:34
once you master developing film, you still have a way to go printing. my problem for many years was, the more i learned, the worse my pictures became. it takes time n alot of experimenting. but once ya got it, hang on... it will all make sense then.


keep the faith.
patience brudah

Steven Ruttenberg
20-May-2019, 17:11
The reason you can "develop for the highlights" is that in normal use, the highlights (most dense) do not, in fact, develop to completion. Which is why we often use stop baths -- to force development to stop when we want it to. So... If you increase development time, you increase highlight density. And really exposed highlights can be developed to a very high density indeed. Way higher than you can print.

OTOH, a two bath developer can, and most of them probably do, run to completion, sorta. But it's really running to exhaustion of the developer. A duplicate sheet of film (same exposure) developed in a single bath developer would likely continue to develop density in the highlights as you left it in the developer longer.

And stand development or "compensation" techniques do something similar -- they run to exhaustion locally. That is, the developer that's in the emulsion itself can run to exhaustion in the densest highlights because of the lack of agitation keeps fresh developer from getting in.



You could read the massive two volume Grant Haist book Modern Photographic Processing if you want (a lot of) extra credit. Not for the faint of heart. It lays out in amazing detail all that Haist learned in his decades as a research chemist at Kodak. And that man learned a whole lot, and kept amazing notes.

A better starting point might be Anchell and Troop's The Film Development Cookbook, whatever the newest edition might be. It covers the practical side of film development and is a much easier read than most of the other books out there IMHO.

That said, there are of course dozens and dozens of books on all kinds of darkroom topics. And all kinds of exposure and development systems. You just have to find the ones that work for you.

That is a nice simple explanation.

Steven Ruttenberg
20-May-2019, 17:12
once you master developing film, you still have a way to go printing. my problem for many years was, the more i learned, the worse my pictures became. it takes time n alot of experimenting. but once ya got it, hang on... it will all make sense then.


keep the faith.
patience brudah

I have already noticed that. My first set of negatives and such after my initial attempts, got better, but then as I started to learn more, they did indeed get worse. At some point, they will get better again.

Leigh
20-May-2019, 17:29
Hi Steven,

Please realize that all areas of the negative develop at about the same rate.
What changes with exposure is how long it takes to reach the final density.

Shadows, being the least dense areas of the negative (just above base+fog),
develop to final density before any mid-tone or highlight areas.

- Leigh

Steven Ruttenberg
21-May-2019, 12:09
Hi Steven,

Please realize that all areas of the negative develop at about the same rate.
What changes with exposure is how long it takes to reach the final density.

Shadows, being the least dense areas of the negative (just above base+fog),
develop to final density before any mid-tone or highlight areas.

- Leigh

Understood.

Jac@stafford.net
21-May-2019, 12:16
Let me know if I'm drifting off-topic, but is anyone familiar with intentionally 'shooting on the toe' of the exposure curve and processing just for that part?

Steven Ruttenberg
21-May-2019, 12:35
Perhaps, an example would help, at least for me. I can sorta picture what you are asking, but exactly how would you go about that. Not off topic.

Doremus Scudder
21-May-2019, 12:47
Digression Alert!


Let me know if I'm drifting off-topic, but is anyone familiar with intentionally 'shooting on the toe' of the exposure curve and processing just for that part?

You first need a film with a pronounced toe like 320 Tri-X. The toe of the film will has a lot of latitude, i.e., it will hold a lot of exposure information, but at the expense of separation, i.e., lots of stops of exposure captured, but no contrast in the very lowest bunch. If you, say take the same image on 320 Tri-X and 400 TMax (which I do often), you can see that the Tri-X negative actually has more information in the very least-dense shadow areas, and that the TMax negative doesn't render the very darkest areas of the scene at all, but then densities increase rather rapidly with exposure change.

"Shooting on the toe," as I understand it is intentionally placing a lot of the shadows of a scene rather low on the exposure scale, but then developing a bit more to get lots of separation (contrast) in the mid-tones. This is a bit similar to "pushing," but you're not really losing shadow detail, just "suppressing" them on the toe of the film. Portrait photographers used this technique a lot to get the separation and tonalities they wanted in the skin tones.

I often to just the opposite: In order to get more separation in the shadows with a film that has a long toe, I'll overexpose the film, thereby getting the shadows up into the straight-line portion of the film's curve. I find long-toe films really flexible in this respect; I can leave the shadows low on the toe and get a lot of mid-tone separation or I can move them up the curve and get a result similar to films with a straighter curve. What's harder to do is to get really black inky shadow by dumping them off the bottom of the film's curve. Long-toe films seem to hold on to detail in the darkest shadows rather tenaciously.

Best,

Doremus

Okay, back on-topic now :)

Jac@stafford.net
21-May-2019, 13:02
Perhaps, an example would help, at least for me. I can sorta picture what you are asking, but exactly how would you go about that. Not off topic.

I do not know if this qualifies. One of my PJ photos. 6x6cm printed on expired Agfa grade 6.

191513

Jac@stafford.net
21-May-2019, 14:02
"Shooting on the toe," as I understand it is intentionally placing a lot of the shadows of a scene rather low on the exposure scale, but then developing a bit more to get lots of separation (contrast) in the mid-tones. [..]

I often to just the opposite:

An example or two would be much appreciated.

Steven Ruttenberg
21-May-2019, 14:13
I do not know if this qualifies. One of my PJ photos. 6x6cm printed on expired Agfa grade 6.

191513

It does look very good to me if that is what you referring too. I always find it very hard to have subtle tonality and separation in the shadows. Where most might just think it is black or zone 0, reality there is a lot of subtle detail, which is also something I am after.

Steven Ruttenberg
22-May-2019, 10:52
Use an unsharp mask to open up shadows. I've used denser than normal to do this.

I use a contrast mask technique in PS

Steven Ruttenberg
22-May-2019, 20:43
Here is an image that is similar to what I am wanting to do. This used a 3 stop grad nd to tame the highlights, I did expose to "zone V" on the darkest area. Unfortunately, my filter covered a small portion of the image on the right which then became way under exposed. Really no detail there. But the idea is to take an image like this, avoid the blowouts as much as possible, then develop ensure no blowouts as much as possible while maintaining good shadow detail. This would be for both color and b/w images.

Point Imperial of Grand Canyon North Rim Sep 2018. Shot on Portra160 with 75mm Nikkor I believe at about f/22. Maybe f/16. I'll check my notes tomorrow.

https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/img/s/v-10/p3430910721-6.jpg (https://www.steveruttenbergphotography.com/p417033042/ecc7f8b01)