Determing correct exposure

[cyrus]

I think I may have choked a chicken while waiting for the right light but I didn't wave it in the air... not that I can recall anyway... long time ago, ya' know. It didn't help with the lighting. But I did experience some overexposure.

HA

[cyrus]

Jerry, if you think we're done opining about this, no matter how politely you keep saying "thank you", well, you've got another think coming!

[Leigh]

Mr. Lee's point of looking at the entire process rather than just exposure seems valid.

Yes, calibrating the entire process is important for achieving maximum quality.

That's quite a different subject from your original question. Many books and magazine articles have been written about it.

- Leigh

[Jerry Cunningham]

Cyrus
Drive on. I am not trying to end the conversation I just don't want to wear out my welcome. Everything is valuable.

[Lenny Eiger]

Yes, calibrating the entire process is important for achieving maximum quality.


- Leigh

I think Ken's point which you are agreeing with here is key. Let me go one step further. Back in the day when I shot Tri-X I set it to a full stop less ISO than Kodak recommended. Was Kodak stupid ? Well, yes for other reasons, but the point is that the print quality they were targeting was different from the quality I was looking for.

One of the reasons we have many differing opinions on whether or not one can use an incident meter, or where to point a spot meter, is that different people want differing amounts of contrast, shadow detail and black. Kodak's contrast range has been a very commercial look since the 50's. If people follow that, like AA or Sexton, for example, then their exposure might match the recommended ISO. Others might want more...

Some unknown percentage of us here want more shadow detail, a less heavy black or less contrast overall. The specs change considerably. This is why compiling a list of development times or an exact ISO fails at being "authoritative". What everyone is looking for is different... so there can not be one standard.

I am using Delta these days and I rate it at the manufacturer's ISO, but I point my meter in fairly dark areas. It's the same as pointing it in a lighter area and cutting the ISO in half... Ultimately, it is all about consistency. One simply has to develop one's own system. However, one starts with the print quality one is after.... and goes back from there...


Lenny

[Leigh]

However, one starts with the print quality one is after.... and goes back from there...

That's the critically important detail that most people miss.

You have to calibrate the printing process first, then work backwards to the exposure/film speed/metering technique
and developing regimen that will produce the negatives you need to make those prints.

- Leigh

[Ken Lee]

Kodak's contrast range has been a very commercial look since the 50's. If people follow that, like AA or Sexton, for example, then their exposure might match the recommended ISO.

Ansel and John rate(d) their films at 1/2 the Kodak speed - in spite of Kodak, not in accord with them. They want(ed) fuller shadows, not a bold "commercial" look.

[Lenny Eiger]

Kodak's contrast range has been a very commercial look since the 50's. If people follow that, like AA or Sexton, for example, then their exposure might match the recommended ISO.

Ansel and John rate(d) their films at 1/2 the Kodak speed - in spite of Kodak, not in accord with them. They want(ed) fuller shadows, not a bold "commercial" look.

This is an interesting detail, but the contrast they both went after was more similar to a Kodak "Moments of your Life" look than it is to a Paul Caponigro or Stieglitz. Not to mention PH Emerson or Frederick Evans. Hey, I like John Sexton, I think he's a nice guy. He was gracious to me win I met him. But I don't want to print like him - to my success or demise. These are generalized large differences an both of them fall into that category.

A lot of folks want to think that Ansel is the quintessential printer. He certainly was for him. However, there have been a number of great printers, and some different styles. Everyone gets to like the style that speaks to them. There is no value judgement here, just interest. I happen to be more interested in the range of alternate process prints. I also happen to like the PhotoSecession and generally speaking, photographs that are about light. That's just me...

Lenny

[Ed Richards]

> Ansel and John rate(d) their films at 1/2 the Kodak speed - in spite of Kodak, not in accord with them. They want(ed) fuller shadows, not a bold "commercial" look.

Or perhaps, as Bruce Barbaum maintains, Ansel really put his important shadows on Zone 4 rather than Zone 3 - which is exactly what rating your film a half speed does. For reversal film, I use incident. For black and white, I use Xtol which gives rated film speed and I use the zone system. I was putting the shadows on zone 3 and not worrying about the highlights unless it is an extreme scene. If it was, then I would shorten the development. After reading Bruce's book, The Art of Photography, I started putting my shadows on Zone 4. The negatives are more dense, and I need to shorten development more often, but it really does work better.

For black and white film, the key is enough exposure, and to always err towards over exposure. Incident meters are fine as long as you do not have important detail in shadows. If you do, I find my zone exposures to be 2 or more stops more light than the incident reading.

[Nguss]

At the moment I am predominantly using transparencies. For me I use a spot meter on the darkest part I want to retain detail in, and then look at the lightest part I want to retain detail in and add a grad filter to balance the readings as much as I can, erring on slight underexposure. If the range is too far apart I will use black and white film instead if the image suits it (although I send this out to be developed and so have no tips on this) or I will use negative film if I have any.

Having said this, there is probably no 'correct' exposure for any one image, I suppose it just depends on what you want the final image to look like.