I should clarify the above statement a little. Rather than imagining the film to comprise a direct exposure to density ratio over the full range of applicable "Zones", I visualize the actual curve of any specific film & developer regimen at the time of the shot, and place the shadow meter values relative to that, toe or not, right onto the specific characteristics of a given curve. I know its shape already. No charts, no Smartphone programs, no Zone blurb. After having made gosh knows how many denstitometer plots over the years, of various films, often for technical applications far more demanding than ordinary photography, the whole process has become almost subconscious and spontaneous. But in principle, for learning purposes, one could easily carry a visual reference to any particular film's characteristic curve, either in print or on a Smartphone. The specific characteristics of the toe are very important to me. If placement is correctly made relative to that, there will be a lot of room left over toward the top of the curve without risk of a shoulder. But there are cases when I deliberately underexpose and overdevelop the film for sake of significant expansion of the midtones (the direct opposite of conventional advice). But with a deliberate felony like that, a contrast mask is generally required for easy printing (always required back in the days of graded only papers). The look is quite different from conventional methodology. With HP5, it can produce almost etched-looking prints from 8x10 shots, wonderful microtonality and edge effect; but it's not a good strategy for high contrast scenes. I approach each shot differently, tailor it.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net
Bookmarks