African Portrait Series -- Zonal Placement of Black Skin

[mmcclellan]

Colleagues,

In the coming months, I will be starting a series of portraits of African religious workers. I will shoot all the portraits on either 4x5 or 8x10, probably using Tri-X Professional, and developing in HC-110. The usual Zone System methods will be used in determining exposure and development.

My question is this: based on your experiences in photographing dark-complexioned subjects, what Zonal placement do you typically use for black skin? Obviously, I want to ensure good shadow and skin detail, but not lose highlights on the clothing in the process. Assuming subjects are in open shade or other "soft" lighting (nothing artificial, by the way), what has been your experience with exposure and development? Caucasian skin is normally placed on Zone VI in my experience, and Zone V for tanned Caucasian or South Asian complexions. It seems it will be a very delicate balance between maintaining good details throughout the faces without washing out the highlights.

Any advice is much appreciated. I will, of course, run tests with a stand-in subject before launching the project but would like to hear your guidelines. Thanks in advance!

 

[Chuck_P]

One suggestion might be that if the subject is going to be in open shade, i.e., evenly illuminated, you might try using an incident reading first (or use your spot meter to read the gray card, make sure the gray card is illuminated the same as the subjects face) to see where the dark skin value will "fall" in relation to the other values. You can always reduce exposure from the gray card reading if needed, in that situation, to suit the darker skin values, with increased development to enhance the local contrast of the middle zones iv, v, and vi. However, make sure that the expansion of the negative scale does not make any important high value difficult to deal with in printing.

Local contrast is important in scenes/subjects with short SBR's. So, if all your subjects are going to be evenly lit in diffuse lighting or open shade, I think you will have to plan on some reduced exposure and then expanding the negative scale in development to increase the local contrast in the middle values, regardless of using an incident reading or trying to place the skin value on a particular lower zone with the spot meter.

Just my thoughts, hope they may be of some help.

Good luck,
Chuck

 

[Ole]

I would say it all depends on how dark "black" is.

I one photographed a former "miss Gambia" and used the same lighting and exposure as I've always done with pale Norwegian models. To my surprise the final prints on G4 looked softer than the ones I did on G2 (my "normal standard"). I finally realised that all the tones were from specular reflections in her skin, so the more I increased the contrast the softer the image looked.

But between Gambian and "pale black" is a very long range of tones, and there is no one answer that will fit all complexions.

 

[DrPablo]

I've done a lot of medical work in Africa, with some informal photography on the side. I've never done B&W there, but in general I agree with Ole. People from Sudan, Mali, Niger, and the northern part of Senegal are very dark skinned. The farther south you go (even within West Africa) the lighter they are.

I would say that you'll never want to place their skin below zone 4, because that will leave room for some detailed shadows. For lighter complexioned people zone 5 or even zone 6 may be appropriate.

But the key is not so much zone placement as it is lighting. Shoot with low, angular lighting, in the morning or afternoon, with them either facing the light or better yet with the light coming from the side.

 

[cowanw]

I have not had much opportunity to check this yet but I have read that the major problem is that exposure to tame the specular highlights leaves deep shadows and that adequate fill lighting is important. While in Kenya last year my portraits were much better with reflected fill.
Regards Bill

 

[bjorke]

specularity is more important as skin gets darker. A very dark person may have white oily hilights, which may also be on the pale person next to them -- you just don't notice them as readily on the pale person. Some theatrical designers I know have theorized that this is why strong-colored stage lights, which usually don't look good on pale people,often look GREAT on dark ones -- and this why you can light a typical production of a show like, say, "dream girls" with a stronger palette than, say, "the producers"

 

[mmcclellan]

Excellent advice all around! Thanks!

I'll run tests once I get there and take your guidance to heart in setting up the tests. It sounds like lighting is the key and going for low angled sun should not be a problem.

Thanks again!

 

[noseoil]

Michael, make sure to give enough exposure to push the lower values up off the shoulder. TX320 can have a "sag" in the curve at the toe, which will compress shadow values and not give good separation. Take a look at the contrast curves from Kodak and pick a developer which gives a good, strong straight line. Try a couple of different exposure settings to get the look you want on the bottom end. With flat lighting, you want to give enough development to bring up contrast by "just enough" to open up the range of values. Sounds like an interesting project. tim

 

[Rolleiflexible]

My much-less-scientific method is to meter as I would for a pale person, then open up another stop and proceed as usual. I don't know how that flies by Zone standards but it works for me. Sanders.

 

[mmcclellan]

Again, thanks. Ole, does this mean perhaps rating the film at a lower EI or placing the shadows on Zone III 1/2 instead of III? I will definitely be running tests once I get settled there as I have never photographed such subjects before and want the portraits to be rich in detail -- especially since many of them will be wearing black, anyway.

Thanks again!

 

[Ole]

If I remember correctly, I used an incident meter and opened up one stop as I always did. Some of the photos were shot with a Metz flash close to the lens, just using the automatic exposure of the flash unit.

For the record - at that time I used FP4+ in a Bronica ETRS, and developed in Ilfosol S - always 10% more than Ilford's recommendation.

 

[colivet]

I think a lot depends in what kind of feeling you want to get out of the portrait. If you want drama with blocked shadows you know what to do. If you want all the tones to read straigh as your eyes sees them then you know how to expose.

 

[benjiboy]

I would place the skin tone in zone 111 or 1V depending on how dark the sitter is, or if they are exceptionally light zone V.

 

[GraemeMitchell]

I don't know about zone placement, but I'd do an incident reading and then open up a stop over that. Just as a general starting point. But as Colivet said, expose for the look you want.

TXP is awesome, but maybe test some HP-5 for this too. In my experience if you push the lower values up with TXP the highlights can build density quickly and become flat and chalky. HP-5 may hold the guts of the highlights better. Just a thought.