Bright sunny days, NDs and Film

[Alan Edward Klein]

That does not negate what I posted. It in fact makes it all the more important.

You said in that post as well: "But generally speaking film has so much latitude that you have to go a long long way from the correct exposure to think you have unworkable contrast."

That isn't true when the ground is in shade.

 

[wiltw]

2pm here, bright blue skies -- what OP describes...

1. meter on 18% gray card says ISO 250, 1/250 f/16 + 0.7EV.
2. Spotmetering the sky it is -0.2EV darker than gray card reading

...unless the sky is white due to fog/solid cloud cover and the ground is illuminated at f/5.6, the difference of sky vs. average scene illumination is miniscule

If the ground is in shade, you'll exceed the stops of the film due to a normal sunny sky. Hence the need for graduated ND filters.

I just repeated my measurements, and aiming at a dark tree stump in the shade, that measured -6.7EV from the gray card reading. Indeed, if you expose so that you retain shadow detail, both the sky and the overall sunlit scene are BOTH grossly overexposed. And a graduated ND filter would not help because sunlit areas flank either side of the the trunk in the shade.

 

[otto.f]

If I were OP I would be completely lost in this deafening noise. Better read a good book, Adams’ The Negative for instance than this bickering from a fishmarket. But in B&W your own experience in your own darkroom with your own equipment and environment is the most reliable knowledge.

 

[250swb]

Edit: Set your camera or your meter to the ISO of the film, take a light reading without the sky in the view of the light meter, and use the information it gives you to set your shutter speed or aperture. Contrast is something you are dialling in yourself, maybe by not making a correct metering choice or not understanding the principles of film photography. But generally speaking film has so much latitude that you have to go a long long way from the correct exposure to think you have unworkable contrast.

Please don't edit my posts, especially when you are wrong. The guy is a beginner, he doesn't need to know about 18% grey or anything like that just yet, he wants an average result on an average day, not to be nagged at. He'll then think of victory and not defeat and become all the more interested in film photography and all its techniques. But you can help here with your expertise, if the sky should be excluded without exception where would the OP point an incident light meter should he have one?

 

[foc]

Don't worry about filters unless you have experience. As a beginner, I would suggest you shoot a few rolls (colour and B&W) and see how you get on.
I would also suggest you keep notes of the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO of each shot.
Harsh and high contrast lighting conditions are always difficult to photograph in. Maybe use this to your advantage and create stark, high contrast images.
Remember the other guy in the cloudy low contrast light, wishes he/she had your bright light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Please don't edit my posts, especially when you are wrong. The guy is a beginner, he doesn't need to know about 18% grey or anything like that just yet, he wants an average result on an average day, not to be nagged at. He'll then think of victory and not defeat and become all the more interested in film photography and all its techniques. But you can help here with your expertise, if the sky should be excluded without exception where would the OP point an incident light meter should he have one?

Even a beginner can benefit from not metering with the sky in the meter field of view. I am not wrong and I am not talking about an incident meter and never was. So you are just plain wrong. Naaaaaah

 

[Doremus Scudder]

There sure is a lot of noise in this thread... And, it has devolved into a discussion on metering instead of addressing the OP's original question.

So, in an effort to simplify, here's my two cents' worth:

First, if the OP is worried that they will run out of shutter speeds or have to stop down too far in overly bright conditions, then they should know that even with faster film, this is rarely the case. If this is indeed the case, then, by all means, use a ND filter (or whatever) to get the aperture/shutter-speed combination that you need.

Note: using a neutral-density filter does not affect the contrast of the scene. If the OP thinks that a ND filter will somehow keep the highlights from getting "blown out," then they are wrong. Dealing with contrast is separate from exposure.

If you think the scene is too contrasty, you have to deal with it when 1) developing the film (esp. for B&W film) or 2) printing the negative (paper contrast etc.). With color film there are fewer options, so control the lighting or wait till the lighting is better. Of course, exposing correctly is very important (more later).

A polarizing filter can be used as a ND filter. You can adjust the amount of polarization so you don't even have to eliminate reflections. It's a good choice since it serves more than one purpose. IM-HO, everyone should have a polarizer.

A word about metering: Metering style depends on the kind of photography being done. All this stuff about whether to meter the sky or not is meaningless without describing the entire approach (not to mention the film being used).

The OP seems to want to do more action-related, "decisive-moment" type of work. In such a case, metering shadows, highlights, fiddling with placements, etc. for each shot is just too time-consuming. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Zone System user and spot meter most everything carefully. That said, when doing "action" photography, I'll be using an averaging meter of some sort and arriving at a general setting that I can use for everything under those lighting conditions, regardless of the type of film I use.

So, at the risk of adding to the noise, here's my advise for using an average meter reading in for "action" photography:

Point the meter at the subject. Be careful that nothing overly bright or dark can affect your meter reading too much. Take the reading, set aperture and shutter speed and shoot away.

If the scene is predominantly brighter than average (i.e., "high key" as opposed to brightly-lit), compensate by overexposing a stop from the meter reading.
If the scene predominantly darker than average ("low key" as opposed to dimly-lit), compensate by underexposing a stop from the meter reading.
If the scene is very contrasty, compensate by overexposing a stop from the meter reading; two if the scene is very, very contrasty (this ensures adequate shadow exposure in contrasty situations).

That metering approach will give you a 90+% success rate, even with transparency film, as long as you've done the initial testing to find what E.I. you need to set your meter at for what film.

So, if I were photographing kids playing in the park under static lighting conditions (e..g., sunny day) and using a meterless TLR and a hand-held averaging meter, I'd take a reading from something with an even distribution of tones from high to low that's in the lighting I'm going to be working in, apply that to my camera (compensating as described above if needed) and then click away. Only one initial meter reading is needed until the lighting changes.

Best,

Doremus

 

[250swb]

Even a beginner can benefit from not metering with the sky in the meter field of view. I am not wrong and I am not talking about an incident meter and never was. So you are just plain wrong. Naaaaaah

You don't even know what meter the OP has so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. He has a Hasselblad, so maybe assume a hand held meter, and an M6 so obviously a dedicated reflective meter. Experience with digital cameras and using aperture priority may mean he is simply metering off the wrong things when using film or something else is off. I think the less BS heaped on the OP the better, you don't catch a fish by striking to soon.

 

[MattKing]

Point your meter at the parts of the scene that matter to you, and apply your judgment in respect to the results:

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one is taking slides for example including the sky will result in overall over exposure and washed out colors. Hence over exposure. The same is true for negative film. If the subject with or without the immediate area, the exposure will be in the middle of the exposure scale and the sky will fall into the proper exposure.

 

[wiltw]

I just repeated my measurements, and aiming at a dark tree stump in the shade, that measured -6.7EV from the gray card reading. Indeed, if you expose so that you retain shadow detail, both the sky and the overall sunlit scene are BOTH grossly overexposed. And a graduated ND filter would not help because sunlit areas flank either side of the the trunk in the shade.

I just did another set of measurements, as the sky conditions were different from the prior posts

Where I am, 4pm PDT, sky overhead has thin cloud cover obscuring the sun. Gray card reads ISO 250, 1/250 f/8 +0.8EV, gray card was sitting on the table in foreground
Distance sky is +2EV brighter than gray card, and far horizon there is a band of blue where the edge of the cloud cover ends, also +2EV brigher than local gray card, and the tree trunk is -2.4EV dimmer than the gray card.

As Sirius Glass mention, in this case including too much sky in a meter reading will result in overall under exposure and poor muddy colors in the shade, the tree trunk lacking detail (-4.4EV below sky's brightness), and a graduated ND would be very poorly suited for use in this scene.

This shot just taken in my works-in-progress backyard renovation. Gray card measured ISO 250, 1/250 f/8 +0.7EV.

• Shot 1 was taken at f/8 (my point and shoot's smallest f/stop). Sky is somewhat blown out, even with -0.7EV as exposed. Shot 2 is a crop of the area of the tree trunk, not much shadow detail
• Shot 3 had exposure adjusted by +1.0EV, to brighten the shadow detail yet blowing out the sky even more. Shot 4 is a crop of Shot 3 using the same crop area as Shot 2, better shadow detail

Just to illustrate the sky's influence if too much of it were included in the metering area of the camera. And the inability to apply a graduated ND.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Point your meter at the parts of the scene that matter to you, and apply your judgment in respect to the results:
View attachment 304825

Matt That scene could have used a graduated ND filter I believe. The land portion is too dark.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I just did another set of measurements, as the sky conditions were different from the prior posts

Where I am, 4pm PDT, sky overhead has thin cloud cover obscuring the sun. Gray card reads ISO 250, 1/250 f/8 +0.8EV, gray card was sitting on the table in foreground
Distance sky is +2EV brighter than gray card, and far horizon there is a band of blue where the edge of the cloud cover ends, also +2EV brigher than local gray card, and the tree trunk is -2.4EV dimmer than the gray card.

As Sirius Glass mention, in this case including too much sky in a meter reading will result in overall under exposure and poor muddy colors in the shade, the tree trunk lacking detail (-4.4EV below sky's brightness), and a graduated ND would be very poorly suited for use in this scene.

This shot just taken in my works-in-progress backyard renovation. Gray card measured ISO 250, 1/250 f/8 +0.7EV.

• Shot 1 was taken at f/8 (my point and shoot's smallest f/stop). Sky is somewhat blown out, even with -0.7EV as exposed. Shot 2 is a crop of the area of the tree trunk, not much shadow detail
• Shot 3 had exposure adjusted by +1.0EV, to brighten the shadow detail yet blowing out the sky even more. Shot 4 is a crop of Shot 3 using the same crop area as Shot 2, better shadow detail

Just to illustrate the sky's influence if too much of it were included in the metering area of the camera. And the inability to apply a graduated ND.

These scenes are always difficult. As you say, graduated ND filters are a problem because you have ground extended into the sky. The horizon is filled up. On days like this, try to eliminate the bright sky and look for subjects on the ground that fill up the frame such as your last shot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Matt That scene could have used a graduated ND filter I believe. The land portion is too dark.

No it is perfect. Some might burn in the sky more, but there is no need for a graduated ND filter here. There is not even a need for a filter that did not finish to school either.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... a filter that did not finish to school either.

???

Could you elaborate, please?

 

[MattKing]

Matt That scene could have used a graduated ND filter I believe. The land portion is too dark.

It was intended to be dark Alan.
The 11x14 print on my wall does a better job of imparting the mood than the screen version - something I often find to be the case.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It was intended to be dark Alan.
The 11x14 print on my wall does a better job of imparting the mood than the screen version - something I often find to be the case.

As long as you're happy with it. That's what's important.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No it is perfect. Some might burn in the sky more, but there is no need for a graduated ND filter here. There is not even a need for a filter that did not finish to school either.

???

Could you elaborate, please?

A filter that finished school is a graduated filter, one that did not drops out. Come on DS I always thought that you could keep up with the banter. <<wink>> <<wink>> <<nod>> <<nod>>

 

[Doremus Scudder]

A filter that finished school is a graduated filter, one that did not drops out. Come on DS I always thought that you could keep up with the banter. <<wink>> <<wink>> <<nod>> <<nod>>

You got me completely!! I can be awfully and blindly literal sometimes (much to the amusement of my spouse and friends. That seems to have been the case here. Now I'm chuckling a lot, though...

Over-educated filters... filters with only theoretical knowledge and no practical experience... filters that are too smart for their own good... filters with tens of thousands in student loan debt... Stop me, please...

Doremus

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Doremus said it:
It's not usual we really need ND filters.
If the case is direct sunlight and a camera with a low max. shutter speed, they are truly necessary if we are using slide film. Sunny f/16 rule is for slide film and not for negative film.
I use a couple of pairs of different size ND8's and ND64's only for wide f-stops under direct sunlight. That happens twice in a lifetime.
I don't use them for sun with ISO400 black and white negative film. Optimal exposure in this case is 32 times the amount of light recommended by the sunny rule. For ISO400, 1/500 f/16 is awful, and 1/125 f/5.6 is perfect: 5 stops more light than the slide film sunny rule recommends.
I've found that contrary to what happens with users of real, physical materials affected by light, users of virtual photography waste years and years without being able to understand light, as they don't need the same degree of precision real photography requires. We can't change things with edition software: we need to do things perfectly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You got me completely!! I can be awfully and blindly literal sometimes (much to the amusement of my spouse and friends. That seems to have been the case here. Now I'm chuckling a lot, though...

Over-educated filters... filters with only theoretical knowledge and no practical experience... filters that are too smart for their own good... filters with tens of thousands in student loan debt... Stop me, please...

Doremus

Now I am in search of a well educated and very smart filter that automatically corrects exposures [self-lightening and self-darkening], adjust focus, improves compositions, moves subjects around and fixes the expressions on faces. I am willing to pay the sales tax and shipping, I just want that filter.

 

[npl]

It's been mentionned, but to add a bit If you're shooting black and white films : yellow, orange and red filters are usefull to carry in bright sunny days because they can 1) darken the bright skies, helping with getting details in the highlights 2) act as ND filters if you don't carry somes.

How ? very very simply put, they'll brighten red and oranges tones, and darken opposite color such as blue. They do that at different strength, yellow being subtle, red very dramatic, orange in the middle. The stronger the effect, the stronger the loss of light. As an exemple, with my set (hoya), I loose 1 stop with yellow, 2 stops with orange and 2.5 stops with red. Theses numbers will depend on the brand and model of the filters and are hopefully available on the manufacturer website (or not). Search for "filter factor".

Practical exemple from yesterday : I had a 400 ISO film loaded, intented to be shot at E.I 400, and wanted to take a pictures of a nice flower with a shallow depth of field to separate it from the background. Sun was shinning more or less directly on the subject. My incident meter told me that to shoot at f/4 with a 400 ISO film, my shutter speed needed to be set at 1/2000 (or higher, don't remember) . Now I can't do that because my camera only goes up to 1/1000. So, I used a red filter, allowing me by losing 2.5 stops to shoot at f/4 with a slower shutter speed that my fujica could do.