Determing correct exposure

[Dwarak Calayampundi]

I would also like to add that it also depends on the kind of film you are using bw, color or slide film due to the exposure latitude. Find slide film with absolutely 0 exposure latitude. I have never used large format before but shot film 35mm format and now use digital. Exposing correctly can be achieved as explained above.

[Shen45]

With B&W correctly tested film. BTZS, ExpoDev and either Incident or Spot metering. Then process each sheet to the individual development time given on the Palm or your i-thing.

Couldn't be easier.

[Old-N-Feeble]

...process each sheet to the individual development time given on the Palm or your i-thing.

My i-thing is nun o' yo' binness especially if it's in my Palm.

[Vaughn]

Experience = Chicken

Excellent point. Sometimes it does seem I ritually slaughter my experience.

Ken -- I think one has to include the "Print" in with "Film, Exposure, Development". Especially noticable for us who do different processes that require very different negative qualities. I treat the film differently to get a negative for carbon printing from one for platinum and from one for silver (and I suppose one for scanning).

And I factor in the film's failure of reciprocity as an important part of the process. Most of my exposures are 10sec to several minutes long -- I get myself into trouble sometimes photographing in Yosemite as I tend to over-expose. Dealing with exposures that are only fractions of a second are not my common experience!

[ROL]

...There is often deep shadows right next to direct sunlight. It is extremely beautiful in places (the bears can be a problem) and I would like to make a larger percentages of easy to print negatives. Many people do not try LF because they doubt their ability to make a good exposure. As film becomes more expensive (especially 8x10) one wants to do the best they can.

That is precisely why smart photographers use the (a) (their version of) (etcetera) zone system, particularly if they are also fine art printers, no matter what the much maligned and poorly understood AA (by members of many forums) has said. The guesswork of exposure is entirely gone, assuming you yourself understand the quality of light present in the scene, and know what you want your final print to look like (i.e., previsualization) – and you don't forget to adjust for bellow length (). If appreciated adequately, a ZS is equally useful in artificial light.

[Ken Lee]

Ken -- I think one has to include the "Print" in with "Film, Exposure, Development". Especially noticable for us who do different processes that require very different negative qualities. I treat the film differently to get a negative for carbon printing from one for platinum and from one for silver (and I suppose one for scanning).

Yes. Making a print is the same trio all over again: either we expose and develop a sheet of paper, or scan the film and make a print. We choose developer and paper, or paper and ink. It's never just exposure.

I started with the Zone System a while ago, and only recently studied BTZS (which includes the Zone System). Both of them consider the entire process, not just exposure.

While it's tempting to submit an explanation in a few sentences (or to gloss over the whole subject as inconsequential), control of exposure+development+printing is a huge part of the craft of analog photography. I don't think we ever master it: we just improve over time if we're lucky.

[adam satushek]

Yeah chicken is good. Especially Ezell's if you like it fried....but if i want wings i prefer making my own....

Anyways, I used to pretend I used, understood, and cared about the zone system, but have given up on that. I took exposure notes for every sheet I shot for years....but failed to ever look at them again. If you are developing your own negs, especially black and white, it seems like a very powerful and useful system. However, I send out my C-41 negs for development so have no control over that end. In terms of metering I kind of hold down the trigger of my pentax digital spot and wave it around (including shadows and highlights of course) to get a sense of the dynamic range, if its like 12 to 16 ev (which is common for me), I set it at like 14 or so. I used to (mistakenly) overexpose everything by about 1 stop to try to get more detail. However, now that I do my own drum scans I find it easier to pull detail out of shadows than out of blown highlights. So, in an attempt to say something of some use...it seems like final output (and the processes of arriving at it, ie. scanning or traditional printing, and learning the strengths and weaknesses of your particular equipment) is also very important in determining how one meters/exposes.

[Mark Barendt]

Anyways, I used to pretend I used, understood, and cared about the zone system, but have given up on that. I took exposure notes for every sheet I shot for years....but failed to ever look at them again. If you are developing your own negs, especially black and white, it seems like a very powerful and useful system.

I really tried to like the zone system, and practiced it a bunch, but like you I have essentially given it up.

The thing I found (as boring as it may sound) is that using incident metering, following the directions provided by the manufacturer for shooting and processing my films, and then printing on VC paper can reliably produce surprisingly nice prints.

One can surely refine their processes to improve certain things they might like, like I duplex to place priority on highlight and main subject placement over shadows, I like negative film for the ease of printing and extra latitude it provides and VC paper in place of special film development.

These things simply make photography easier and more reliable for me.

[Jay DeFehr]

Well, I just bought a metering back for my Sinar P, so maybe my technique will change! I really can't feature using a probe at the film plane to meter portraits, but I'll give it a try.

[Jerry Cunningham]

The viewpoints of everyone are important. There is a lot of food for thought in these entries (even if one excludes the chicken.) The broad range of answers suggests that good results may be obtained with several methods. Mr. Lee's point of looking at the entire process rather than just exposure seems valid. Nevertheless my interest is in what "you" do and your satisfaction with the results. I thank everyone for input they have given.
Jerry