Bright sunny days, NDs and Film

[hiroh]

I'm pretty new to film photography and I found myself reluctant picking up film camera on the bright sunny day. I guess its due to my lack of experience, but I'd rather have digital camera so I can adjust the exposure if I don't like the shot. But I'd like to change this and use film more often, since where I live, we have 300 bright sunny days a year, and I don't want to miss all these days, waiting for the nice moody, cloudy day. How do you deal in this light situations with film cameras? Do you use ND filters?

 

[wiltw]

Bright sunny days always make for contrasty lighting...ND filter really changes nothing, but what f/stop is used!

 

[Paul Howell]

Your question is not really about Medium Format, applies to all film and might be better asked in Exposure.

I live in the Desert Southwest, in my experience a bright day does not mean more contrast. In the desert we often have reflected light, I find the scenes to be low contrast and I often add additional time to my black and white development time to compensate. Yet the light is very bright, I do use a 2X ND filter when shooting ISO 400 or 3200 films with my older cameras with top shutter speeds of 1/500 and 1/1000, my 35mm lens have a F stop that generally will only stop down to F16, a few longer lens will stop down to F22. My newer AF 35mm cameras with top shutter speeds of 1/8000 and my Minolta 9 with 1/12000 of a second don't need a ND filter. You can also use a mid or low speed film.

On the other hand if in your area you have cloudless days with high contrast you can adjust your development time to lower contrast, if shooting color use Porta.

 

[gone]

Keep in mind that the usable exposure latitude of film far outstrips digital. Digital specs are not to be believed, the highs and lows are not usable. When those digital highlights get blown out they stay blown out, not so w/ film.

Choosing the proper ISO film and knowing what it's optimum EI is are important. On sunny days, I have a camera w/ an 1/8000 top shutter speed, so shooting in Az sun at noon at f2.8 is no big deal. If you have a camera w/ a lower top speed, you should choose a slower film and develop it accordingly.

Photography is all about the quality of light. Early morning shots will look very different than shots made later on in the day. W/ film, everything is going to be visible in your photos because it resolves so well.

Just put some Tri-X in your camera, rate it at 200-250, and develop it normally. If it's exposed and developed properly you should be very happy.

 

[Paul Howell]

As I thought about my reply, I should add that I was thinking about landscapes, in cityscapes lighting will be very high contrast, bright light reflecting from glass panes with deep shadows. In that case I would reduce than than expand development times.

 

[BrianShaw]

If I find myself in the position of even thinking about using a ND filter I know that I should be using a slower film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I find myself in the position of even thinking about using a ND filter I know that I should be using a slower film.

True but the OP does not seem to have interchangeable film backs, so the OP should consider using a ND filter or even just contrast filters for black & white.

 

[ic-racer]

The smaller the film format, the more important ND filters become to avoid troublesome diffraction. For example Minox LX comes with a built-in ND filter, and i have ND filters for all my B&W movie lenses. I dont have any ND filters for my 8x10 gear because i found i can go down to f64 and still get a very sharp 11x 14 enlargement.

 

[hiroh]

Thanks all for replies.

It might be worth mention that I have Rolleiflex 2.8f and Leica MP. I shoot mostly street and my kids, aka fast moving objects in varying lighting conditions. Shadows vs brigth light, inside vs outside. I don’t do much landscapes, parked cars and gas stations, and those static things where I have all the time in the world to set everything up. Digital worked fine for me in aperture priority mode, where I can adjust a bit blown highlights or underexposed shadows. With film (which, again, I didn’t shoot much in my life), I’m not sure how much I can deal with this contrast.

And I’m here asking this because I want do more film and less digital.

 

[grat]

Keep in mind that the usable exposure latitude of film far outstrips digital. Digital specs are not to be believed, the highs and lows are not usable. When those digital highlights get blown out they stay blown out, not so w/ film.

This is about 10 years out of date. For all intents and purposes, given the rarity of 12+ stop scenes, they're effectively equal-- if you don't try to shoot them the same. In bright light here in Florida, it's rare that a scene has a range of more than about 10 stops.

With film, you want to preserve shadow detail-- so you meter for the shadows, and worry less about the highlights. On digital, as momus says, once you hit max value, there is no more data to acquire, so you tend to meter for the highlights, knowing that the shadow detail can always be boosted a bit.

But reality is, retrieving data from shadows or highlights will result in less than satisfactory results for both film and digital.

I haven't seen anyone mention polarizers-- how effective are they for controlling unwanted highlights on film? I assume as much as they are for digital, so I'm surprised they haven't come up in the thread.

 

[projectbluebird]

You’ve told us what cameras you use, but not what film(s).

I have also recently returned to using film, after a very long absence. Like you, I’m using a rangefinder for 135, and a Hasselblad for MF (I blame Sirius!) So far, I haven’t had a problem with bright sunny days even at EI 400 - but I also don’t have any fast lenses. YMMV.

I would like to play around with ND filters and very long exposures, but they’re pretty far down my list of ‘equipment to look for’.

 

[MattKing]

With film, you want to preserve shadow detail-- so you meter for the shadows, and worry less about the highlights.

For clarity, this is true for negative film.
If you are using positive transparency (slide) film, you meter for the highlights and mid-tones, and worry less about the shadows. I find that if I approach digital the same way I approach slide film, I get similar results.
Unless you are in desperate need of very shallow depth of field or long exposure effects in bright light, there is little need for ND filters. I think I've used one once in a half century + of film photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You’ve told us what cameras you use, but not what film(s).

I have also recently returned to using film, after a very long absence. Like you, I’m using a rangefinder for 135, and a Hasselblad for MF (I blame Sirius!) So far, I haven’t had a problem with bright sunny days even at EI 400 - but I also don’t have any fast lenses. YMMV.

I would like to play around with ND filters and very long exposures, but they’re pretty far down my list of ‘equipment to look for’.

Portra 400 and Tri-X 400 are the main stays, with Rollei 400 IR for the right occasions and Delta 3200 for the Hasselblad 500mm lens with or without the 2XE. I will take the blame for your getting into Hasselblads. Refer any problems with the significant other to me for attitude adjustments.

 

[@DrHSTGonzo]

I haven't seen anyone mention polarizers-- how effective are they for controlling unwanted highlights on film? I assume as much as they are for digital, so I'm surprised they haven't come up in the thread

I was thinking the same thing. A CPL will help block out a stop or 2 of light, depending on the polarizer filter being used. Plus help tame specular areas.

 

[eli griggs]

I absolutely think an assortment of ND single grade filters are a big assist on bright locations, but especially with leaf shuttered cameras and lenses.

Some of the old medium format cameras have leaf shutters of only 200 - 300th of a second and Hasselblad C, cf, cfi, etc lenses are limited to 500th of a section.

ND filters assist in both time and appatures, from pinholes on up and if your camera has a roll of fast film, pushed or no, it saves you from having to unload a partial roll of HP5+ or Tri-x at 1600 iso or higher, from a night shoot to bright daylight on a beach or city street.

On the advice of others and my own readings avoid multi-grade filters, they are false promises of projected efficiency and a waste of money.

IMO.

 

[otto.f]

I'm pretty new to film photography and I found myself reluctant picking up film camera on the bright sunny day. I guess its due to my lack of experience, but I'd rather have digital camera so I can adjust the exposure if I don't like the shot. But I'd like to change this and use film more often, since where I live, we have 300 bright sunny days a year, and I don't want to miss all these days, waiting for the nice moody, cloudy day. How do you deal in this light situations with film cameras? Do you use ND filters?

300 days of sun is the perfect chance to try out films slower than 100ASA, all with their special characters. And if not, an orange filter is always nice for dark skies, sympathetic for skin tones and 1.7 stops slower.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My WideLux F7's smallest aperture is f/11 and the fastest shutter speed it 1/250 second so I have to use the ND2 filter for color or black & white ISO 400 film, a PITA.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think the OP is referring to the brightness of the sky compared to the ground. He might need to learn about graduated neutral density filters to darken the sky while keeping the ground at the same exposure, not so much ND filters that affect the whole picture.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think the OP is referring to the brightness of the sky compared to the ground. He might need to learn about graduated neutral density filters to darken the sky while keeping the ground at the same exposure, not so much ND filters that affect the whole picture.

There is no need to expose for the sky. If one meters the subject only, the sky will fall into place and darker detail in the subject will show up. Leave the sky out of the light reading; the sky knows where it is supposed to be.

 

[Paul Howell]

Might be true, he may want to comment, but as he is not shooting landscapes a graduated ND filter will be little use without a defined point of when the sky become ground. I used graduated ND filters with landscapes but not often cityscapes, I suppose one could be helpful with the upper 1/4 of a frame of a cityscape but not with what he is shooting.

 

[250swb]

With film (which, again, I didn’t shoot much in my life), I’m not sure how much I can deal with this contrast.

Set your camera or your meter to the ISO of the film, take a light reading, 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.

 

[wiltw]

I think the OP is referring to the brightness of the sky compared to the ground.

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

Set your camera or your meter to the ISO of the film, take a light reading, 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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

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