Metering Technique...any problems here? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

AdamD

15-Dec-2020, 19:39

Hi all. I'm going to discribe my current metering technique/methodology. I'd like you all to poke holes in it and maybe help me understand where I might go wrong. Of course you might think it's just fine and that would be nice to know too....

I recently picked up a Sekonic 858 it's got me noticing things I didn't quite appreciate before.

Here is what I do:

When I look at my composition, I look for the darkest area I want to maintain detail in, the brightest area I want detail in and what I think is the middle. Then I'll spot meter around and check those values.

Let's say the dark area is 1/15s and the highlights are 1/500s. That's 5-stops of separation right...

So then, I ask myself, is the middle good enough? That would be 1/80s which is basically 2-1/2 stops underexposing my shadows and 2-1/2 stops overexposing my highlights.

As a general rule, I like to place the darkest area (with detail) no more than 2-stops below my exposure setting. This may not always be true for transparencies, but for B&W and print film it works. For transparencies, it's the other way around and I'll guard the highlights by no more than 2-stops.

Anyway, in this example, I'm reasonably close to being happy IF the highlights were just as important as my shadows, I'd shoot at 1/80. AND if the shadows were more important, I'd shoot at 1/60 (2-stops over my darkest area). AND if the highlights were the most important to me, I'd shoot at 1/125s.

This assumes no filters. If a GND filter was appropriate, I would use a 2-stop grad and set the shot up at 1/30s.

Would you say this is sound logic? Is this a good approach?

Many thanks for your thoughts.

Adam

Alan9940

15-Dec-2020, 21:34

Pretty much the way I work with my Sekonic L-558, except I don't mess with a middle value. I meter and store the reading for detailed shadows, same for detailed highlights, and average the readings. Then, while holding the button down I scan the scene watching how the EV differs from the average. Based on that and whether I'm shooting B&W or color film, I'll adjust. For B&W film, I'm usually giving a bit more exposure because I want my high values further up the scale (assuming normal scene here.) For color transparency, I bias the exposure toward the more important areas, but always making sure I don't blow the highlights. I don't shoot much color negative film, but if I did I'd generally bias toward the shadows.

Vaughn

15-Dec-2020, 21:52

Using B&W film, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. I always assume the shadows are important, even if exposed to pure black on the print, so I normally place the shadow areas I might want detail in two stops less than I metered it, leaving some darker shadow areas with only texture or nothing. I then mess with development to get highlights that are easy to print. This will vary with the process used to make prints...usually alt processes. But I cannot pull details out of shadows that are not there.

And if you get too much shadow detail on the negative and don't want to burn it down in the print, a quick soak in bleach will take care of that. (and a slight bump in contrast) :cool:

And if one wants to enter into the world of Brett Weston Blacks, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Jim Noel

15-Dec-2020, 21:55

I fully agree with Vaughn's approach

Kiwi7475

16-Dec-2020, 00:49

There’s different ways to achieve the same result. Whether you average and then make sure your scenes stays within a certain range around there, or exposing directly for the shadows on zone 3 is pretty similar in the end if done properly.

What matters is that you always check the dynamic range of your scenes for the chosen exposure, and then also what you do to handle when you’re out of the comfortable range. B&W has lots of latitude for highlights for example, at least compared to slides.

In any case, you can control the highlights either by developing for them (shorter development, this forces to take notes in the field of how to develop each shot), this applies also to color (but there may be color shifts that need to be corrected, depends on the film) or, you can use grad filters, if it makes sense for the scene, to reduce the range directly on the exposure. I prefer the latter approach but YMMV. If you do that, then you do expose for shadows on zone 3 and then use a grad of N stops where N is how many stops the highlights are above zone 7 (for slides) or 8 for color neg or B&W. [You’ve probably realized by now that although similar in spirit, it is faster to expose directly for the shadows rather than taking averages and then checking the range]. There are times where using grad filters is not possible because of the type of scene, in which case you have to resort to adjusting the development or just not take the shot.

Also generally I find that with color negs or slides, using 3 stops in a grad filter can make the shot look contrived, unreal-looking (obviously this is scene dependent but generally true for skies), so if it looks like I need 3 or more stops to fit it, I will pass on taking the shot. B&W has more latitude of compressing the range.

Doremus Scudder

16-Dec-2020, 14:36

The danger with averaging high and low values, which you are basically doing, is that with scenes of larger luminance range, you end up underexposing the shadow values (or overexposing highlights, with transparency film).

Since you have a spot meter, base your exposure for b&w negative materials on a shadow value. Just check highlights and midtones to see where they fall. If they fall outside of "normal," there are lots of ways to deal with them. You don't need to alter your basic exposure.

The classic Zone System way is to choose different development times based on where the highlights fall. These days, many just develop "normally" and rely on contrast controls during the printing process to take up the slack. And, you can also do a little of each (e.g., I don't like the grain of N+2 or higher development, so I only develop to N+1 at the most and rely on contrast controls during printing to make up the difference).

Your assumption, at least for b&w film, that you'll end up losing either highlights or shadows if the luminance range is great, is erroneous. With development and print contrast controls, almost any scene can be made to fit onto the final print.

With transparency materials, it's a different story, so you'll have to compromise. Choosing lighting carefully and pre-flashing your film can help squeeze a greater dynamic range onto it.

Best,

Doremus

ic-racer

16-Dec-2020, 14:49

If you make contact prints from 8x10 and larger B&W negatives you can get a way with just about any metering technique, especially if using something like T-max film.

Not many are using good film like that. I know I'm not . The crummy Chinese films I'm printing today are less forgiving, they don't have an extended rightward portion of the curve and the shadow detail is poor. Plus, I enlarge my large format negatives. Therefore good metering and development are needed.

The common way to get the thinnest printable negative (the one that produces the best print) is to expose for the shadows.

210649

Alan9940

16-Dec-2020, 15:02

The danger with averaging high and low values, which you are basically doing, is that with scenes of larger luminance range, you end up underexposing the shadow values (or overexposing highlights, with transparency film).

Just like a lot things with photography...not if you use your brain! That's why following averaging of my shadow/highlight readings I scan the scene with the button held down to reveal EV offsets from the average. If I'm shooting B&W film and see, for example, that an important shadow area is a -3 EV offset, then I know that area is going to render without detail if I proceed with the metered exposure. So, I adjust. I'll give more exposure to ensure I hold the important shadow areas. Conversely, if shooting transparency film and I find a +3 EV offset for a highlight area where I'm expecting detail, then I reduce exposure to hold those high values.

Really, just a different way of working. With the VC head I have on my enlarger, the quality of current VC papers, and split-grade printing I really don't do plus/minus development anymore. Talking B&W film here, of course.

AdamD

16-Dec-2020, 19:00

Doremus Scudder

17-Dec-2020, 12:54

Just like a lot things with photography...not if you use your brain! That's why following averaging of my shadow/highlight readings I scan the scene with the button held down to reveal EV offsets from the average. If I'm shooting B&W film and see, for example, that an important shadow area is a -3 EV offset, then I know that area is going to render without detail if I proceed with the metered exposure. So, I adjust. I'll give more exposure to ensure I hold the important shadow areas. Conversely, if shooting transparency film and I find a +3 EV offset for a highlight area where I'm expecting detail, then I reduce exposure to hold those high values.

Really, just a different way of working. With the VC head I have on my enlarger, the quality of current VC papers, and split-grade printing I really don't do plus/minus development anymore. Talking B&W film here, of course.

Alan,

(Talking B&W film here too.)

Right you are! What you do gets the job done splendidly.

However, I submit (humbly) that you're maybe wasting a lot of time metering anything else but a shadow value and just placing that. Allow me to make my case:

If one places an important shadow value where they want it, i.e., to render the amount of detail desired, and if one isn't doing any development changes for contrast control, rather just relying on printing controls (as you do), then no other meter readings are really necessary as far as the ultimate negative exposure is concerned.

Let's use your example: You take two readings, average those, then scan the contrast range of the scene and then, if your shadow is a -3 EV offset from your average value (I'm assuming three stops under that average, Zone II in ZS parlance), you add an extra stop of exposure to compensate. How many meter readings is that? Five? Six?

Now my approach. Read that shadow, place it on Zone III (a -2 EV offset in your parlance) and make the shot. Same results; one meter reading.

All those other luminances that you didn't meter are going to end up on the negative wherever they were always going to be with your chosen development.

Of course, you can read all those other values for information about mergers and to help with visualization, choosing filters, etc. (and whether to make the exposure or not), but that's just superfluous (albeit interesting and valuable) information as far as the exposure per se is concerned.

I read lots of values in the scenes I photograph. Most of that is to help me visualize what the final print will look like, i.e., what mid-tone separation will be, or to choose filters to darken/lighten skies, rocks, foliage, etc. And, most importantly, to find the overall luminance range in the scene so I can decide which development time to use. None of that relates to the actual exposure.

The exposure itself is determined by the shadow value I measure and where I decide to place it, period (along with whatever adjustments I need to make for filters, bellows, reciprocity, etc.).

You might try just placing an important shadow, then going through your routine and seeing if things come up differently or not...

FWIW, I meter very differently when using TTL meters with smaller cameras, but that's a subject for another discussion. The above is for spot metering for B&W negative materials and has worked well for me for years.

Best,

Doremus

Alan9940

17-Dec-2020, 15:27

Doremus,

Very well articulated and, in general, I agree with your technique. I probably over-simplified with my example because part of what I'm doing while scanning the scene is evaluating the tonal values to see where they fall in relation to my anticipated exposure. Kind of an electronic pre-visualization shall we say? ;) Based on what you wrote, it sounds like we're kind of doing the same thing. Most times I will base my exposure on important shadow areas, but if I see that my important high values are on the edge or above Zone VIII, then I'll base my exposure on the high values and let the shadows fall where they may. Since I don't make development adjustments any more, my exposures are always based on what I determine to be the most important luminance values. Does this make sense?

What I don't like about simply basing my exposure on the shadow areas is: What if the high values are beyond the shoulder of the curve? In Zone System parlance let's say my important highlights fall on Zone X? Yeah, I've read the arguments that one can "print through" densities that extend well above Zone IX, but in my 40 years of LF photography I've never myself seen nor have seen an example of where a fine print was pulled from that style of negative. I'll admit...could be me, and I'm not a good enough technician to print a really dense negative.

Great discussion! I truly appreciate your feedback as I consider you a smart guy that I've learned a thing or two from over the years.

AdamD

17-Dec-2020, 17:51

Vaughn

17-Dec-2020, 18:42

...Most times I will base my exposure on important shadow areas, but if I see that my important high values are on the edge or above Zone VIII, then I'll base my exposure on the high values and let the shadows fall where they may. Since I don't make development adjustments any more, my exposures are always based on what I determine to be the most important luminance values. Does this make sense?
...

It seems odd to drop the development controls, but if an image does have highlights which are most important to preserve, then expose for those and compose for the shadows. I consider all the values in the scene important in my work...the deep shadows can support and bring out the highlights or make them gaudy...with the mid tones playing an important role. Crafting the negative to fit the process and the concept is key for me. The alt processes I use usually have me expanding the density range of the negative beyond the SBR (increased development and/or film choices), so I do not have to sacrifice shadow detail for highlight detail.

Yes...go from 1 second to 1/4 second (reciprocity failure comes into play, of course.)

ic-racer

17-Dec-2020, 20:35

I have not used 'development controls' in 30 years. Ever since I got my first multigrade enlarger head.

Alan9940

17-Dec-2020, 21:17

I have not used 'development controls' in 30 years. Ever since I got my first multigrade enlarger head.

Same here.

AdamD

17-Dec-2020, 22:03

Alan9940

18-Dec-2020, 08:13

What is/are 'development controls'?

Is that when you change the way you process the film to tailor it to how you shot the photo? Like varying the development time or stop time or fixer time. Is that what you mean?

I haven't done that for 1 year....:) Hey gotta start somewhere...in 29 more years I'll be able to say the same!!!

IMO, "development controls" is a pretty broad and general statement. In the simplest terms, it means changing development time and/or temp to expand or contract the high values (plus/minus development in Zone System parlance.) Taking things a step further, you can employ compensating developers, 2-bath developers, etc. Then, we have SLIMT techniques as described by David Kachel. Could post-negative intensification could be classified as a "development control?"

ic-racer

18-Dec-2020, 09:16

What is/are 'development controls'?

Is that when you change the way you process the film to tailor it to how you shot the photo? Like varying the development time or stop time or fixer time. Is that what you mean?

I haven't done that for 1 year....:) Hey gotta start somewhere...in 29 more years I'll be able to say the same!!!

Usually indicated as "N" or "N+" "N-" etc. Back in the days before high quality variable contrast printing paper, one needed to adjust the development of every negative to get it to print on the available grade paper that one had. Manipulating paper contrast with variable development was part of it too.

The "N" development techniques are still vary viable today due to the interest in alternative techniques, in which controlling contrast in printing as not as easy as setting a dial on the enlarger head.

There are some people that prefer to work with a single grade anyway, by not using the contrast filters and still use the "N" development control. Every little thing affects the tonality of a print.

Drew Wiley

18-Dec-2020, 13:08

I always spotmeter for the specific film and lighting situation actually at hand, along with a general ideal of expectation in the print. The point is a versatile enough negative relative to those parameters. In a high contrast scene, it is important to bag the correct placement of shadow gradation to the greatest advantage. This will differ between films having dissimilar toe structure.

Yesterday I was working with trees with burn scars against bright backlit sky, yet intermittently diffused by thin clouds. So I chose TMX 100 for its long straight line and deep shadow separation, and placed those shadows on ZII at box speed of 100. Sky texture would be effectively brought under rein using the appropriate contrast filter in conjunction with pyro development. But I certainly didn't want to compromise midtone microtonality by resorting to minus development, one of the weak points in the classic Zone System approach in my opinion. Nowadays there are other options, including better VC papers and also contrast masking technique if necessary.

If I just happened have ACROS film instead, I would have rated the film at 50 to get the shadow differentiation further up the toe, and possibly have placed those shadows up on Zone III instead of II like with TMX. Actually, going clear down to Z I placement works with TMax films if necessary; but it simply wasn't that contrasty yesterday, so I could be a bit more conservative.

The point is, I don't accept any one-shoe-size-fits-all model. The haggard old advice to place all shadows way up on ZIII seems designed for
shoot from the hip exposures without good metering skills, or for films like Pan F with ridiculously long toes. Just wasted real estate on the film curve which has to be compensated for at the upper end by minus exposure, thus smashing all the microtonality in between like a stomped peanut butter and jelly sandwich, turning it into blaah mush instead of a sparkly print.

Doremus Scudder

18-Dec-2020, 13:47

Doremus, ... Most times I will base my exposure on important shadow areas, but if I see that my important high values are on the edge or above Zone VIII, then I'll base my exposure on the high values and let the shadows fall where they may. Since I don't make development adjustments any more, my exposures are always based on what I determine to be the most important luminance values. Does this make sense?

What I don't like about simply basing my exposure on the shadow areas is: What if the high values are beyond the shoulder of the curve? In Zone System parlance let's say my important highlights fall on Zone X? Yeah, I've read the arguments that one can "print through" densities that extend well above Zone IX, but in my 40 years of LF photography I've never myself seen nor have seen an example of where a fine print was pulled from that style of negative. I'll admit...could be me, and I'm not a good enough technician to print a really dense negative.

Great discussion! I truly appreciate your feedback as I consider you a smart guy that I've learned a thing or two from over the years.

Alan,

You certainly have a point. However, most modern films (at least the ones I use) don't start to shoulder appreciably until Zone X or even higher. Knowing your materials is key here, as well as developing a strategy for finding your best standard development time.

Let's say you have a film, like TMY, that holds its straight-line section all the way to Zone XI or so and you have a highlight that is, say Zone X. Well then, if you want that highlight to print at print value Zone VIII, then you need to have a development time that puts that negative density in a place where you can use lower-contrast filtration to get that value where you want it in the print. Let's assume your normal developing time puts that value in Zone X on the print (when the shadows are rendered how you envisioned them) with a #2 filter. Well then, you just use a #0 filter to reduce the print contrast (and/or burn and dodge,flash or whatever).

What I'm saying is that if the film can record the detail on the straight-line portion of its curve and you have the proper contrast controls at the printing stage, you should still just base your exposure on that important shadow value. Why sacrifice desired detail in the shadows if you don't have to?

But, you're quite right, there are times when you do have to compromise if you constrain yourself to one development time for everything. Some films don't act so nicely above Zone IX or so.

Still, you can reduce the amount and number of times you actually have to compromise by getting that one development time squarely in the middle of the contrast situations you usually encounter. That means, if you consistently end up compromising for one extreme or the other, you need to adjust your standard development. Let's say you end up using #00 filters a lot, but rarely need a # 5 filter. Well, that means your average development time is likely too long. Decrease it 10% or so and see if things end up more in the middle. And vice-versa: if you're always using #4 and #5 filters (or equivalent filtration), but rarely a #0, then you need to increase development time.

And, get to know your film. In addition to your usual exposure in a really contrasty situation, make make a second one based on a shadow value. Print that one at a lower print contrast and see if you can get the more shadow character and still get highlights you want.

As for dense negatives: I like to overexpose 320Tri-X by a stop or two sometimes to get more shadow separation (moving the shadows up off the long sloping toe of this film up into the straight-line portion of the curve). This gets me negatives that proper proof as grossly overexposed; sometimes the proof is almost blank white and the high values of the negative are way up to Zone X or more. Some of my most satisfying prints have come from such negatives.

What your dealing with, in a scene with a high dynamic range, is a negative with lots of density difference between the lowest and highest values you want detail in. That's a bit different situation, but still, you should be able to print the highlights as long as the densities are still on the straight-line portion of the film's curve.

FWIW, I rarely use contraction developments (N-) to get the scene's dynamic range so that it prints "right" for shadows and highlights on grade 2 or whatever I've chosen for a "normal" print contrast. I find that such prints are flat, and just don't have the local contrast I want. Instead, I'll only use a "partial contraction," i.e., if the traditional Zone System calls for N-2 or N-3, I'll only develop to N-1 and then deal with the contrastier negative when printing, using a combination of dodging, burning, split-printing and flashing techniques to hold as much contrast as I can in the important textures while still getting the general density range right.

Bottom line: try using a film with a long straight line and dealing with those contrasty negatives at the printing stage and see if you like it.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus Scudder

18-Dec-2020, 13:53

This is awesome!!

Doremus, are you simply saying that you find your darkest shadow area you want detail in, meter that value and then set your exposure 2-stops above that value??

Example:
Your dark area meters 1 second. You set your lens to 1/4s.

Correct?

Basically correct.

As Drew above so succinctly formulated it, "I always spotmeter for the specific film and lighting situation actually at hand, along with a general ideal of expectation in the print."

I base my exposure on the shadow rendering I want. However, that's not to say that everything gets stuck in Zone III (so, not just a rote 2 stops under the meter reading). Often, I want a luminous feel, and place important shaded values in Zone IV. Or, I'll want a real dark area with just a hint of substance; then it goes in Zone II, etc. Important snow shadows I like in Zone V.

However, once I've decided that, read the area with my meter and applied all the exposure factors for whatever I need (including small exposure tweaks for different development schemes), then that's the exposure I use.

Highlight values are evaluated when metering and where they fall and how I intend to deal with them at the printing stage determines the development time I choose. Often, as mentioned above, I'll develop contrastier than the classic Zone System calls for and count on working harder in the darkroom (I'll often make notes about this in my exposure record, like, "Burn and dodge like hell," or whatever).

The possibilities are myriad; knowing your materials is key.

Best,

Doremus

Michael R

18-Dec-2020, 15:39

What I don't like about simply basing my exposure on the shadow areas is: What if the high values are beyond the shoulder of the curve? In Zone System parlance let's say my important highlights fall on Zone X? Yeah, I've read the arguments that one can "print through" densities that extend well above Zone IX, but in my 40 years of LF photography I've never myself seen nor have seen an example of where a fine print was pulled from that style of negative.

I just wanted to chime in on this particular point to say I have to do this all the time, and I’ve seen many awesome prints from negatives that required exposing highlights way up there - in zone parlance XI, XII and higher.

Most of my photographs are made under extremely high contrast conditions, and being the obsessive weirdo I am, in addition to rich shadows and midtones, I want detail in light sources.

Luckily, current films accommodate these long luminance ranges beautifully - as long as you don’t destroy those highlight separations (along with shadows and midtones) with too much minus development.

Drew Wiley

18-Dec-2020, 15:52

Not long ago, I did a thick negative trick like Doremus described, not with Tri-X but 8x10 FP4, which has a slightly longer straight line. I wanted almost unnoticeable deep shadow texture in some huge backlit oaks to become very delicate and silvery, but against a blank sheet sky backdrop. So I overexposed the shot two stops, yet fully developed it. Then I made a gentle contrast mask to more fully accentuate the detail, and printed it on VC paper through a blue filter for high contrast. That left the highlights the only remaining issue. I wanted character up there, but no detail, so I used slightly aged glycin in the developer for a bit of staining warmth, plus some very subtle split toning with gold followed by a pinch of sulfide toner - nothing brown, just a gentle warm background glow effect. A bit of print bleaching was also involved.

A well-known photographer who routinely uses overexposed thick neg technique with Tri-X to expand shadows is Roman Loranc. His highlights are always shouldered off. Since he also routinely split tones, when this goes well, the highlights have inviting character, and when it doesn't go so well, they're outright blank and boring. This was a strategy he developed working with the blank tule fog skies of Central Valley winters, just like today's parallel thread about that kind of fog. The only time I've ever spoken to him, I asked him how he felt driving through that to get to his favorite riverside setting. He's not a man of many words, so just gave a wide-eyed stare and said it really scared him, and that's why he moved on to different subject matter.

Joe O'Hara

18-Dec-2020, 17:26

Agreed with the above that the middle tones and highlights will pretty much take care of themselves if the exposure is set correctly for the shadow areas, if one is using modern film (e.g. Ilford, Kodak, or Acros). One of the nice things about B/W is how far you can move tonality around both during film development and printing to change how things look. It is a very flexible medium.

FWIW, I extend development when I am working in low contrast situations (e.g. overcast light) because relying entirely on contrast filtration during printing can make getting the overall print exposure (including the dodging and burning) kind of fiddly at high contrast settings (higher contrast after all means the material responds more to small changes in exposure). I'm not fanatical about it but I am most comfortable when printing at contrast grades below "4". Of course, we do what we have to do in a given situation. All other things being equal, you'll also get a bit more density and contrast in the shadows when development is extended.

Separately, I found Bruce Barnbaum's advice in his "Art of Photography" helpful, that if you care about shadow detail at all, place it on Zone IV not Zone III. Films like TMY have so much ability to preserve details in the high end (as Doremus noted) that it's not likely to hurt if your negative is a little denser than theoretically necessary. Your base film speed of course depends on your developer and film choice; I usually use Tmax 400 and D-23. Since I started exposing that way I find I rarely have to fight to bring out the shadow areas when I'm printing.

Vaughn

18-Dec-2020, 17:27

I have not used 'development controls' in 30 years. Ever since I got my first multigrade enlarger head.

You don't worry about controlling your developer's dilution, temperature, or length of development of your negatives? odd :cool:...

That is all I am talking about. It might be interesting to allow those factors to be random.

Bruce Watson

18-Dec-2020, 17:38

Using B&W film, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Yep. This. Exactly this.

Drew Wiley

18-Dec-2020, 17:56

Kiwi7475

18-Dec-2020, 18:53

AdamD

18-Dec-2020, 19:39

You guys are losing me in the weeds!!! It's interesting, but, I'm kinda getting lost.

Shadows with desired detail...."put it on Zone III" Translation = your selected exposure should be 2-stops higher. 2-stops higher means you are exposing for Zone V. This also means the really dark areas of the scene that are lower than Zone III will appear more black.

Assuming this is all correct, then, well that's how I at least try to do it. And again assuming I have this understood, I want to ask this question in the form of a comment....

Let's say for the fun of it, I wanted a bush or rock to be in Zone III, but I made a mistake and and actually set the exposure for the rock. I think that means I just set that rock to Zone V. And the final results is an image that has the dark area looking more grey than black and the light grey areas ending up looking white and the darkest of the dark areas will look "ok" but weird. Basically I under exposed the shot.

Is this what you'd expect to see?

Vaughn

18-Dec-2020, 19:56

...Let's say for the fun of it, I wanted a bush or rock to be in Zone III, but I made a mistake and and actually set the exposure for the rock. I think that means I just set that rock to Zone V. And the final results is an image that has the dark area looking more grey than black and the light grey areas ending up looking white and the darkest of the dark areas will look "ok" but weird. Basically I under exposed the shot.

Is this what you'd expect to see?

If you are using B&W negative film, you over-exposed. That rock you wanted to place on Zone III was given two more stops of light to be placed on Zone V. All other values you measured in the same scene are also exposed two stops brighter than what you measured. A dense negative at normal development.

When it comes time to print, it will just take a longer exposure to get that rock back down to Zone III -- and depending on where the highlights fell and how you developed the film, the highlights might take some skill to handle nicely.

AdamD

18-Dec-2020, 21:10

Yes, I'm sorry. I totally wrote the wrong word. I mean overexposed and wrote under....thank you for the clarification.

But this leads to another question....you mentioned 'when it comes to the print...'

When it comes time to print, it will just take a longer exposure to get that rock back down to Zone III -- and depending on where the highlights fell and how you developed the film, the highlights might take some skill to handle nicely.

In my case, I use a DSLR to scan my images. So, in this example, I overexposed the shot. Now when I take my DSLR image of the negative, I have found I can "push" and "pull" with my exposure. In this case being I overexposed, I can under expose my scan and get back some of the detail (Zone III on the rock).

But here's my question, is doing this with a DSLR or a flatbed scanner just as effective as contact printing or final printing?

I think it is as I've been able to recover some pretty good (bad) screwups with my DSLR scans. The only problem I've run into, well it's not so much a problem, but....I often don't know I have an exposure problem on my first scan. I have to process the negative and then "discover" it's overexposed and then go back and re-scan it.

Vaughn

18-Dec-2020, 22:09

But here's my question, is doing this with a DSLR or a flatbed scanner just as effective as contact printing or final printing?

Scanning can pick up detail in the shadows that are difficult to work with in silver gelatin printing. Scanning will have problems with blocked up highlights. There are work-arounds -- for example if your DSLR can not fit all the values of the negative onto its histogram in one go (too much contrast), two images can be made, one for shadow detail and one for highlight detail, then combined -- HDR stuff I guess they call it.

Negatives that are to be scanned typically have lower contrast...well exposed shadows and no blocked up highlights. All the info is there to be used or discarded as desired for the image.

But if one is going to make wet prints -- contact or enlarged -- then the negative can be crafted specifically for one's print material, chemicals, and process.

And it is the same when crafting an enlarged inkjet negative from the scans for contact printing alt and silver processes. As long as you got all the info you need on the neg, then into the scan, then you can make a negative to match whatever printing process you are using.

What do you see as your final product? On screen image, inkjet print, silver print, alt process print?

AdamD

19-Dec-2020, 02:28

That's interesting. It seems most often that I shoot in high contrast situations. My digital histogram looks like a "tooth"!!

I never thought about making an HDR negative!! I should just try it and see.

Joe O'Hara

19-Dec-2020, 08:37

Joe, I'm one of those persons who finds Barnbaum's advice ludicrous and counterproductive. Why even buy a light meter if you have to be that paranoid about shadows? With certain films like Super XX or Bergger 200, I've even placed the deepest shadow values on Zone 0 with complete predictability. Only with Pan F do I ever use ZIII for sake of shadow detail threshold. Is Barnbaum's meter three stops off, or does he just think a good negative is one that needs dynamite to crack through all that needless extra density?
TMax 400 will begin to hit the straight line around Zone 1-1/2 with most developers except compensating ones like D23. And I never need to fight shadows; they do exactly what I want. Crisp separation, no problem. And not overexposing the shadows is the best way not to blow out the highlights with TMax films, while retaining excellent tonal separation in between. Glad I never spent a dime on any of Barnbaum's how-to books. I like many of his pictures, but am convinced he did some the hard-headed hard way.

Drew, I think it depends on things like what developer you use and how you "rate" the film. For me, placing shadows on Zone III and using box speed ISO results in anemic density there that is hard to print. If course if you rate a box speed 400 ISO film at 200 based on your own testing, you'll get exactly the same results as mine if you place the shadows on Zone III. Probably if I were still using Xtol I would get similar results placing shadows on Zone III-1/2. BTW I have two Pentax digital spotmeters and they agree with each other and are exactly right on with exposure for color reversal film.

My negatives are by no means bulletproof, as Barnbaum's are said to be. You could probably read a newspaper through the high tones if you put it on the light table. There's nothing to be gained from more exposure once the detail and contrast you want is recorded, I think we can all agree with that.

Books, advice from others, and data sheets are all a starting point, like a recipe. A good cook knows when to stop cooking!

Drew Wiley

19-Dec-2020, 14:59

Joe, I'm glad you are getting negatives satisfactory for your own expectations. But for the record, TMax films are easily capable of high gamma development, and are in fact among the most flexible films ever made in terms of development. That's what they were engineered to do, essentially replacing multiple previous films, or at least that was the idea, although people whined back then with the discontinuance of Plus-X Pan, Super-XX, and nearly Tri-X, due to the silver bullet of TMax with its sheer versatility. Because of its very long straight line in most developers, one can rely on much lower zones than III and still have excellent shadow gradation. I gave up on both D23 and D76 long ago in favor of pyro and certain other developers. But by using of D23, you're creating more of a long upswept toe on this film than is typical, in effect, making it behave more like old Plus-X Pan itself. I've done hundreds of densitometer plots with TMax films for all kinds of applications and respective developers, so understand its curves very well.

As far as the "thick neg" school of men like Barnbaum and Tice goes, I wonder how much of that is simply a holdover from azo and pt/pd days with Tri-X addicts. It doesn't make much sense for silver printers today.

AdamD

19-Dec-2020, 15:14

Michael R

19-Dec-2020, 15:29

In the case of Barnbaum, it appears to be a classic case of “not getting what you think you’re getting”. He talks in detail about sensitometry but at the same time proclaims he has never owned a densitometer. I’m certainly not suggesting anyone needs a densitometer to make great prints, but if you are going to teach people about sensitometry and use diagrams of characteristic curves to support your exposure and development stuff, then I would say it is problematic to not have done any actual sensitometry.

Tice is in a totally different category. He’s not basing his technique on anything like that. It’s sheer decades and decades of having done things in a relatively simple way which works perfectly fine for both silver and platinum. Tice has never been interested in the minutiae of film curves. It’s Tri-X for everything, and killer printing/finishing.

Michael R

19-Dec-2020, 15:35

Drew, are you saying or suggesting that TMax has a broader exposure tolerance? So for instance, you can place "Zone III" on Zone II?

If this is true, you may have identified something for me. My eye has been gravitating towards TMax for some time. I really like the blacks. They tend to look jet black. I've stated re-learning on FP4+ and one of my gripes is that it looks too grey. The blacks are not inky black.

Now for possibly misguided reasons, my eye also gravitates to Delta 100. Any thoughts on how to meter Delta 100?

Thx!!

Be careful. Drew has very strange beliefs on these things. For example, he will no doubt tell you TMX 100 has a short toe and Delta 100 has a long toe and/or that Ilford’s ISO speed ratings are optimistic (?). Nope. Those two films are virtually identical in “tonality” (tonality being nothing more obscure or complicated than a simple characteristic curve). As for FP4+, also the same.

Attached is an example - comparison of TMX 100 and Delta 100.

210723

AdamD

19-Dec-2020, 15:45

Michael R,

Two things.

Your post is hilarious, and....
This totally explains why I like TMax and Delta 100 so much!!!

Thx!!!

Drew Wiley

19-Dec-2020, 15:57

Delta has a slightly longer toe, Michael. FACT. And due to this, one can shoot TMax a full speed faster, or in effect place your shadow threshold values a full zone lower than Delta, and be on the straight line. FACT. All this is engineered in to the native curves of the respective film, Michael. I don't know where your get your ideas. If all these films are the "same" - then why do they even bother to market them all ????? Maybe you should go argue with the manufacturers rather than me. Now if I can be allowed to address a sincere question :

Adam - Let me phrase it this way, from a logistical standpoint. TMax films are not very forgiving of exposure errors. In other words, they're not a good choice for someone who wants to rely on exposure "latitude" in lieu of careful metering. But they are very versatile films. For example, if I want extreme shadow separation in a high contrast scene, TMax is the best choice out there now that classic straight line films like Super XX are gone. But if you underexpose it a bit, then you will get hard black shadow placement, those kind of pure graphic blacked-out shadows reminiscent of Brett Weston's work, for example. With a longer toed film, a bit of underexposure is still likely to give you some shadow gradation, but not as well defined. FP4 would be a good choice for that kind of thing - a long straight line but somewhat more toe. (FACT, Michael).
That's why FP4 is more popular with beginners. I use it too, but for slightly different applications than TMax. For instance, TMax is way more versatile at high altitude or out in the desert where contrasts tend to be extreme. It will handle everything from deep shadows to shiny full sun ice glare in the same shot without resorting to minus development, whereas FP4 will not.

Michael R

19-Dec-2020, 16:07

Drew and I have a history of arguing about these things here and on APUG (Photrio now). But it’s all in good fun and neither of us ever gets bent out of shape.

Michael R,

Two things.

Your post is hilarious, and....
This totally explains why I like TMax and Delta 100 so much!!!

Thx!!!

Michael R

19-Dec-2020, 16:20

A few films have different curves. As you know, TMY-2 has a longer straight line than most current films, extending well further into the highlights. Acros is also like that. Then, as you also know, there is classic TXP which has a longer toe and relatively “upswept” curve.

But some other general purpose films do not differ much at all when it comes to “native” (your term) curves/tonality. The question you ask why bother marketing them if they are the same is a non starter. They are being sold by different companies, that’s why. They are competitive products.

Now, this is not to say there are no differences. They do differ in image structure characteristics - most noticeably graininess. However since we are talking large format, that’s a non issue unless one is making really big prints.

Different films may (or may not) also behave differently in terms of curve shape when processing with more exotic developers.

Delta has a slightly longer toe, Michael. FACT. And due to this, one can shoot TMax a full speed faster, or in effect place your shadow threshold values a full zone lower than Delta, and be on the straight line. FACT. All this is engineered in to the native curves of the respective film, Michael. I don't know where your get your ideas. If all these films are the "same" - then why do they even bother to market them all ????? Maybe you should go argue with the manufacturers rather than me. Now if I can be allowed to address a sincere question :

Drew Wiley

19-Dec-2020, 16:27

Delta 100 would be my less than ideal substitute for TMX100 if Kodak Alaris ever does take a final nose dive. It's spectral sensitivity is different, and long exposure curves with respect to deep contrast filters veer off quite a bit, unlike TMX100. I've experimented quite a bit regarding the pro and cons, mostly with respect to roll film applications. Once LF sizes are involved there are more options because such fine grain is no longer a priority. I distinctly prefer TMY400 to either TMX or Delta in sheet film sizes. FP4 is OK when things aren't blowing around - I rate it at 50 except in softer light. In other words, I sure hope Kodak stays around, but if it doesn't, I've got a workable Plan B.

Vaughn

19-Dec-2020, 21:06

Answer: As thick as a brick.
Question: In what way is my head and my negatives alike.

I usually just hope I have enough sheets of a film and keep good enough notes, so that if I blow the first few sheets, I have enough of the same to carry on and do it properly. A view on a light table says a lot, but the proof in is the printing. Rich beefy detailed shadows with small clear areas on the neg. Probably a stop 'overexposed' by some people's preferences.

Long exposure times for the prints, of course -- processes that create a printing-out image (such the image one sees after pulling the neg off one's cyanotype) can benefit from longer printing times. In any case, I get the shadows on the negative that works well with my processes and vision. The DR of the negs range about from 2.5 to 3.0. Whatever works.

Edited to add -- all this just means I expose and develop to match my 'normal' printing process.

Alan Klein

19-Dec-2020, 23:25

One thing so far needs to be said: those less concerned with going up to zone X and beyond are doing printing in a dark room. The same approach won’t yield as good results if you’re scanning. In that case you should strive for a little flatter, less contrast and dynamic range, to match the scanner’s linear range, and you add it back in post processing.

I do my development outside in a lab - "normal development". I don't use the zone system although the lab could pull and push if I ask. I expose so the picture fits into the range per my metering. I might add a grad ND filter for too bright skies. I then scan and keep the image in the middle of the histogram range by setting the black and white points just past the histogram range for each image. Then I adjust final exposure, contrast, curves, etc in Lightroom to satisfy my eyes.

Any recommendations?

Alan Klein

19-Dec-2020, 23:40

Yes, I'm sorry. I totally wrote the wrong word. I mean overexposed and wrote under....thank you for the clarification.

But this leads to another question....you mentioned 'when it comes to the print...'

In my case, I use a DSLR to scan my images. So, in this example, I overexposed the shot. Now when I take my DSLR image of the negative, I have found I can "push" and "pull" with my exposure. In this case being I overexposed, I can under expose my scan and get back some of the detail (Zone III on the rock).

But here's my question, is doing this with a DSLR or a flatbed scanner just as effective as contact printing or final printing?

I think it is as I've been able to recover some pretty good (bad) screwups with my DSLR scans. The only problem I've run into, well it's not so much a problem, but....I often don't know I have an exposure problem on my first scan. I have to process the negative and then "discover" it's overexposed and then go back and re-scan it.

I find that the shot when I bracket is where the picture sits closest to the middle of the histogram is the best exposure. You can see the histogram info after the prescan.

Kiwi7475

20-Dec-2020, 11:58

I do my development outside in a lab - "normal development". I don't use the zone system although the lab could pull and push if I ask. I expose so the picture fits into the range per my metering. I might add a grad ND filter for too bright skies. I then scan and keep the image in the middle of the histogram range by setting the black and white points just past the histogram range for each image. Then I adjust final exposure, contrast, curves, etc in Lightroom to satisfy my eyes.

Any recommendations?

That’s what I do as well, I scan at 48bit (color)/16 bit (b&w), which gives you plenty of latitude for adjusting later provided you don’t clip anything.

In terms of post-processing you have it exactly right, I also add localized dodge/burn as needed (sometimes nothing). Depending on taste you can also add/remove vignetting, a digital ND filter (gradations), etc.

And then the clone tool to get rid of dust and other artifacts!

Doremus Scudder

20-Dec-2020, 13:11

Alan Klein

20-Dec-2020, 14:23

That’s what I do as well, I scan at 48bit (color)/16 bit (b&w), which gives you plenty of latitude for adjusting later provided you don’t clip anything.

In terms of post-processing you have it exactly right, I also add localized dodge/burn as needed (sometimes nothing). Depending on taste you can also add/remove vignetting, a digital ND filter (gradations), etc.

And then the clone tool to get rid of dust and other artifacts!

We're on the same wavelength here too. Thanks.

Alan Klein

20-Dec-2020, 14:34

In other words, the "Normal" you are developing to is simply a different contrast index than that for traditional photo paper. In all other respects, the Zone System applies to scanning just as well as to "analog."

Best,

Doremus

Doremus or anyone else who wants to jump in. Let's take your point one step further. I want to see if I can use your calculation methods whether zone system or other, to apply to my exposure settings and scanning to make it better and more consistent. A little challenge of thinking out of your usual box.

So when I shoot for "normal" development in a lab, I try to capture in the negative the full range in the exposure, if possible, from black blacks to white whites. As long as I can do that, then I can handle whatever I want to do in post-processing after scanning. The "pushing" and "pulling" occur then.

So if you were scanning and printing digitally rather than chemically, what adjustments would you do to your capture exposure settings to accomplish it to have the best negative to work with?

Alan9940

20-Dec-2020, 14:36

In other words, the "Normal" you are developing to is simply a different contrast index than that for traditional photo paper. In all other respects, the Zone System applies to scanning just as well as to "analog."

Best,

Doremus

Exactly! And, personally I don't understand all this "develop one way for printing in the darkroom" and "develop a different way, if you're scanning." Not that anyone should do what I do, but I develop all my negatives such that a Zone VIII density is 1.25 - 1.35 over fb+f. I print these negatives in the darkroom as well as occasionally scan and I have some beautiful B&W desktop generated prints hanging on the walls of my living room. Several of these prints were produced from 8x10 negatives that I shot back in the 80's.

Michael R

20-Dec-2020, 15:33

I’m not an expert at the digital aspects yet, but my understanding is that generally speaking if negatives are destined for scanning/digital editing, you are best off with lower densities (ie lower gradient). As long as the negative contains the information you need, you can extract all of it and manipulate contrast at will. A higher gradient doesn’t really add any value, and can only degrade image structure.

Neal Chaves

20-Dec-2020, 15:35

First you must know the true film speed for your film/developer combination. If you do careful tests, you may be quite surprised at the results, and at other factors like reciprocity failure, for which some users just apply the box suggestions. I tried many different film and developer combinations and paper and developer combinations too. Most of the differences are very subtle if noticeable at all, but if your negative is a good two stops underexposed, you are far out of the ball park when it comes to producing a quality image. Doesn't matter how may books the gurus and experts have written or how much their prints sell for, if you follow their recipes, which they all disclaim one way or another, you will get nothing worth printing. The old TriX and the old HC110 are gone. Who knows where the stuff comes from now? Not even worth discussing. Ilford came out with two virtual clones, HP5+ and Ilfotec HC, produced in a modern factory in the UK. I suggest rating HP5+ and developing for 5mins at 75* 1:31 or 7mins at 68* 1:31 for an exposure index of 400. If you rate at an exposure index of 100, and develop for 5mins at 68* 1:31 you will produce and other excellent "normal" negative with a bit more highlight and shadow detail. Adams would rate at 160 here, although sometimes he "feels the shadows need extra support" so kicks them up a Zone. This is like rating the film at 80! At least Phil Davis discloses the truth no matter how round about. You can easily pick off the film speed of TriX in 5 mins of HC110B 68* on his "Wonder Wheel" as 64.

Do you need a guru to tell you your film speed after you send him a burnt offering negative and $5 (maybe it's ten or twenty now) when you can do it yourself for a little film and chemical testing. I have detailed my procedures on this forum for some time and no one has questioned them. so here they are again.

Years ago I learned an excellent method to find the correct developing time and EI for any film. The source was an article by William Mortensen. Mortensen wrote some excellent books and articles about basic sensitometry. The last time I did this test was when I abandoned Tri-X and switched to HP5+ due to cost about five years ago. I proceed as follows.

I set up my trays with my favorite developer HC110B (1:31), now Ilfotec HC (1:31). I pull out a sheet from the package in the dark. and then when the package is sealed again I turn on the room lights. This part of the test is done under the lights. I cut the sheet into five strips and mark them 1-5 by punching holes with a paper punch. Lets say the recommended time is 5:00. I want to see 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00, so I throw all the strips into the developer and agitate as usual until 3:00 when I move the No.1 strip over to the stop bath. Then I pull No.2 at 4:00, No.3 at 5:00, etc. I fix, wash and dry the strips as usual. What we are looking for is the best usable film DMax value. Obviously the film has been fully exposed! When strips dry lay down a page of news print on a table in good light. Find the strip through which the news print is barely visible. That's your developing time. Now to find the film speed.

Go outside in unchanging light conditions and expose five sheets and expose one at the manufacturers rating and then the other four at one half a stop and one stop less and one half a stop and one stop more. In the dark, develop them all together for your newly derived time. Contact print them together exposing and developing the paper for maximum usable paper DMax value through the film base plus fog negative rebate area. Pick out the best-looking contact print and you have your film speed.

Because my 7:00 negative looked the best on the first test, I did the test again with 7:00 as the central developing time and found that 8:00 was indeed too dense. This HP5+ time was the same as the as the developing time I had been using for Tri-X and film speed was also the same, EI400. I have also switched to Ilfotec HC developer due to cost and availability and find it to be a clone of the old HC110.

Many of the last generation of B&W gurus favored a development time of 5:00 for Tri-X and suggested an EI of 64-100. You can do the above test backwards, developing for 5:00 minutes and finding the film speed. I like 100. The difference between negatives exposed at 100 and developed for 5:00 and those exposed at 400 and developed for 7:00 is quite subtle. Both could be considered "normal" or N negatives. The 100 negative has slightly greater shadow and highlight detail that only a careful, knowledgeable viewer could detect. This slight improvement might not be worthwhile trading for two stops in the field. I do routinely rate HP5+ at 100 under powerful strobe light in the studio and it produces beautiful skin tones.

From here, if you are still with me, you can derive expansion and contraction schemes for both the 100 and 400 "normal negs". I do this by changing dilution rather than time. Make sure you have at least 1 oz. of the concentrated sauce for each 8X10 sheet or equivalent. For contractions I found that 3/4 oz. concentrate to 31 1/4 ozs. H20 yields an N-1 neg at a one stop loss in film speed and 1/2 oz. concentrate to 31 1/2 ozs. H20 yields an N-2 neg at a two stop loss in film speed. For expensions, 1 1/4 oz. of concentrate to 30 3/4 ozs. H20 yields an N+1 neg at a one stop gain in speed and 1 1/2 ozs. concentrate to 30 1/2 ozs. H20 produces an N+2 negative with a two stop gain in speed.

If you look at the chart of Tri-X film speed in Phil Davis' BTZS book you can easily pick out the film speed in HC110B 5:00 as EI 64.

Don't apply reciprosity exposure and development corrections for long exposures (1/2 sec. +) based on published data. Test for yourself and you may be surprised. I wasted a lot of time and effort producing long exposure negatives that were thick and flat. When I finally tested, I found no compensation was required for TXP or now HP5+ out to one minute.