Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Average Spot Metering Question

  1. #31
    8x10, 5x7, 4x5, et al Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    5,454

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    If you want detail in the print, it must exist on the negative.
    Therefore, you must expose for the shadows when shooting negative film (b&w or color).

    An averaging meter assumes open shadows, like under a tree, not deep shadows like in a cave.

    - Leigh
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,707

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    Heroique,

    Nice to see you posting! I haven't seen any posts from you in quite a long time and was wondering where you had gone. Glad to have your insightful comments here always.

    Best,

    Doremus
    +2

    I was thinking the same; welcome back.

  3. #33
    Randy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,486

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    This has always seemed to work for me:

    Fred Picker Zone VI Newsletter #51 June 1987 p. 7

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    It had finally dawned on me that when I made two exposures of a subject (to be absolutely sure I had enough exposure) the "overexposed" one always made the better print. Right? The best negative is the one that places all values as high as possible without blocking .

    So I began to consistently place the high value on VIII, regardless of where I wanted that value to end up in the print.

    I have made thousands of negatives that way and I am convinced that there is no faster, simpler, more foolproof way to get the best possible negative. I've been teaching this procedure at workshops for many years and hundreds of photographers have been delighted to find that it always works. I call my modification of the Zone system, "Maximum Printable Density (MPD) . " Note: The operative word is "printable," not "maximum!"


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/bigger4b.jpg

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,397

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy View Post
    This has always seemed to work for me:

    Fred Picker Zone VI Newsletter #51 June 1987 p. 7

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    It had finally dawned on me that when I made two exposures of a subject (to be absolutely sure I had enough exposure) the "overexposed" one always made the better print. Right? The best negative is the one that places all values as high as possible without blocking .

    So I began to consistently place the high value on VIII, regardless of where I wanted that value to end up in the print.

    I have made thousands of negatives that way and I am convinced that there is no faster, simpler, more foolproof way to get the best possible negative. I've been teaching this procedure at workshops for many years and hundreds of photographers have been delighted to find that it always works. I call my modification of the Zone system, "Maximum Printable Density (MPD) . " Note: The operative word is "printable," not "maximum!"


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Fred Picker's method does indeed ensure adequate exposure for most situations, however at the expense of some increase in graininess in many cases. This may be of no import when the negative is large enough and/or the degree of enlargement is relatively small, but for smaller format film, this approach, due to the increased negative density, especially for lower contrast scenes, will give a grainier print.

    Fred was cutting corners here to save time metering. He'd also all but given up on developing for different negative contrast ranges, using only N and N+1 1/2 if I remember correctly. Simplifying things may speed things up sometimes, but there's always a trade-off.

    For "normal" scenes, placing the high value in Zone VIII keeps the shadows in Zone III, exactly where we want them. For less contrasty scenes, the shadows fall higher, e.g., in Zones IV, V, or even VI. This keeps all the values on the straight-line portion of the film's curve, so no lost detail, just more density than is really needed. (Still, we're not developing to achieve optimum density spread in the negative and relying on different paper grades to get the desired final print contrast if we just develop N. If, like Fred, you use N+1 1/2 here the result is basically an overexposed and overdeveloped negative).

    The problem with this approach it that in very contrasty situations, you will lose shadow detail. If you have an 8 or 9-stop spread between the highest and lowest values in which you want detail, placing the high in Zone VIII will shove the shadows down to Zone I or 0. So, no detail in the shadows where we might want them. I have to develop at N-2 often enough that this approach won't work for me at all.

    I believe it is better to base your exposure on a shadow value whenever possible, and when not, be aware of how the range of subject luminances can push the shadow exposure around and compensate when needed. A tweak to Fred's system would be to place high values in Zone IX or even X for very contrasty situations.

    Best,

    Doremus

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Doncaster UK
    Posts
    627

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    For less contrasty scenes, the shadows fall higher, e.g., in Zones IV, V, or even VI. This keeps all the values on the straight-line portion of the film's curve, so no lost detail, just more density than is really needed.
    Doremus,
    Putting Fred's method to one side for a moment. With scenes which have a short brightness range maybe only 2 stops in some cases on a dull overcast rainy day, would you suggest placing the lowest value (you want) on zones 3 or 4 and extending the development time around 20% to spread the mid-tones further apart to give more separation.

  6. #36
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    I put Fred Picker's method aside a long time ago - in the trash can. One shoe simply does not fit all. You need to learn each kind of film according to its specific characteristics if you want optimal results. I'm just about to go thaw some roll film. Some of this has an extremely long relatively straight line (Efke 25), and some a horrible S-curve with a very short straight section (Pan F). Both can yield wonderful results IF you know what kind of lighting each excels at, and don't go around applying goofy shortcut advice. Then I have some other films in there too, constituting less radical extremes, like ACROS and both
    Tmax's, but even these strongly differ. And when it comes to sheet film, esp 8x10, I simply can't afford to wing it. With a spotmeter, there's no need to.
    Measure the shadows and ensure adequate exposure there, but don't leap up to a ZIII placement if you don't need to, or you're sacrificing something else,
    either risking blowing out the highlights, or else being forced into reduced development and scrunching intervening tonality flat. With low contrast scenes,
    you have the opposite problem, and benefit from either a higher-contrast film with a steeper curve or stronger development; but in such cases, you might be operating wholly between III to VII or even less range.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,397

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    Quote Originally Posted by IanBarber View Post
    Doremus,
    Putting Fred's method to one side for a moment. With scenes which have a short brightness range maybe only 2 stops in some cases on a dull overcast rainy day, would you suggest placing the lowest value (you want) on zones 3 or 4 and extending the development time around 20% to spread the mid-tones further apart to give more separation.
    I suggest (and practice) placing the important shadow or low value where I/you want it. This assumes you know what a metered value will look like on the neg/print. Then I check the other values and choose a development scheme that will give me the best negative to print from. For very low luminance-range scenes, like you describe, I'll choose an extended development time, usually coupled with planning to use a higher paper contrast grade/filter (I hate grain, so if N+2 or 3 is indicated, I'll often develop N+1 and use paper grade to get more print contrast).

    However, although your concept of increasing development to "spread the tones out" is correct, I wouldn't recommend any arbitrary development-time increase, such as "20%," as you suggest. Test your system for expansion developments and find your own times. 20% might be just fine, it might be too much, etc., etc. I know what to expect exactly when I indicate N+1. and I know how much more contrast I can get from X paper with 170M on my enlarger.

    That said, there's no harm in experimenting or making a "guesstimate" about how much extra development you need. Next time you have a situation like you describe, go ahead and give it 20% more development and see what happens, just don't expect the neg to be exactly right.

    Best,

    Doremus

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Doncaster UK
    Posts
    627

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    That said, there's no harm in experimenting or making a "guesstimate" about how much extra development you need. Next time you have a situation like you describe, go ahead and give it 20% more development and see what happens, just don't expect the neg to be exactly right.

    Best,

    Doremus
    Thank you Doremus, appreciate the reply

  9. #39
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy View Post
    This has always seemed to work for me:

    Fred Picker Zone VI Newsletter #51 June 1987 p. 7

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    It had finally dawned on me that when I made two exposures of a subject (to be absolutely sure I had enough exposure) the "overexposed" one always made the better print. Right? The best negative is the one that places all values as high as possible without blocking .

    So I began to consistently place the high value on VIII, regardless of where I wanted that value to end up in the print.

    I have made thousands of negatives that way and I am convinced that there is no faster, simpler, more foolproof way to get the best possible negative. I've been teaching this procedure at workshops for many years and hundreds of photographers have been delighted to find that it always works. I call my modification of the Zone system, "Maximum Printable Density (MPD) . " Note: The operative word is "printable," not "maximum!"


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I remember this. And after running my own experiments I don't agree with it.

    What Mr. Picker was advocating in the end was "expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may". Which worked for him; he was only interested in highlights that "sang" for him. And his photographs of ice on small New England streams in winter are gorgeous, so it clearly worked for him.

    Me? I actually like shadow detail. So for me I found what worked best was exactly the opposite: "expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may". This works startlingly well for me and my drum scanning workflow.

    Which goes to show that you should listen to what the teachers tell you, look at their work with a critical eye, and examine what you value, and look at your own work with a critical eye. Then, try everything. You'll find a workflow that works for you and lets you do the work that emphasises what you value.

    But there's no substitute for doing the actual work. Reading about it is not enough. If you don't run your own experiments, you can't fully understand the results.

    Bruce Watson

  10. #40
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: Average Spot Metering Question

    I like to have my cake and eat it too: excellent highlights and shadows, and good tonality in between to. Sometimes I might make an esthetic decision to
    deliberately blank out one end or the other of the scale, but utilize the same metering skill and specific film knowledge to do that precisely. Even Picker's choice of paper didn't leave much room for shadow expansion. Brilliant Bromide dropped the shadows very very hard. It could be a wonderful paper for some
    images, but was not highly versatile in my opinion. The DMax was luxurious when this paper was appropriate, and nothing since has been equal to it. it would probably be prohibitively expensive to make today. I do give Picker credit for some things. His images per se were nice but predictable. I liked his products
    better, but otherwise ignored his advice. At that point in time, the Zone System had been beaten to death. And Picker certainly did not improve upon Adam's
    time-tested adage to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Similar Threads

  1. Spot Metering Help
    By 4x5fan in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 21-Apr-2015, 09:21
  2. spot metering flash?
    By cosmicexplosion in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 29-Oct-2012, 17:57
  3. Spot metering
    By Tri Tran in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 21-Apr-2009, 16:47
  4. Spot Metering for Velvia 100
    By Casey in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 25-Jun-2007, 20:19
  5. not your average polaroid 545 holder question
    By linuxpng in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 18-Dec-2006, 17:10

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •