Common exposure with TMax400 with yellow filter for sunny scenes?

[Juan Valdenebro]

I wonder if you -possibly landscape and architecture photographers- find your exposure for sunny scenes change a lot, or if on the contrary, it's more or less stable...
I'm finding I believe -for now- they're more or less stable... Maybe they change basically a stop from direct sun with clean blue, open sky, to direct sun with clouds in the sky or some bounced light from walls or the floor, sand or water...
Or also if the shadows have important subjects or not...
What are your common speeds and f-stops for sunny scenes when you use TMY-2 with medium yellow filters that take two thirds or a stop?
Thanks.

 

[madNbad]

With a 022 medium yellow, I normally expose at half box speed or 200 For TMY-2. Recently, I picked up a couple of Heilopan #15 dark yellow. Dividing box speed by the filter factor equals ISO 100. The film is developed in HC-110 dilution B for about six minutes. If you have an incident meter, that should give you a more accurate reading for your initial exposures.
Leica M4, Voigtlander 50 2.0 collapsible Heilar, TMT-2 @ 200 B+W 022

 

[madNbad]

Here's one, early morning: Leica M4, Voigtlander 35 2.0 Ultron ASPH, 022 filter, TMY-2 @ 200.

 

[MattKing]

I don't use yellow filters with T-Max films, except under special conditions. One of the features of the T-Max emulsions is their slightly reduced UV and blue sensitivity, compared to films like Tri-X.
Generally speaking I expose them at box speed, but I will take separate shadow readings and consider increasing exposure where it seems necessary.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't use yellow filters with T-Max films, except under special conditions. One of the features of the T-Max emulsions is their slightly reduced UV and blue sensitivity, compared to films like Tri-X.
Generally speaking I expose them at box speed, but I will take separate shadow readings and consider increasing exposure where it seems necessary.

Thank you, Matt...
It's known in general TMax films have a slight yellow filter built in, to say it some way, but I've also heard that's precisely the reason why yellow/orange filters lovers like to put a yellow filter on: because the effect is stronger as the film's already darkened blue sky a little bit before the filter... I'm testing that.
What I was wondering is the f-stop and speed people tend to use.
Once Bill Burk said close to 1/250 f/11 without filter.

 

[MattKing]

For me, without a filter, 1/500 at f/11 would be more common.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I feel those two options are good depending on how filled shadows are... One is sunny f/11 and the other one is sunny f/8, just to remember them... I'd dare say for developers that lose speed, with short enough development, and for condenser enlargers, a stop more exposure is possible / necessary.

 

[Craig75]

It depends on time of day, time of year, and where you are in the world to give a true statement of what f stop to use

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It depends on time of day, time of year, and where you are in the world to give a true statement of what f stop to use

I'm afraid not... It doesn´t depend on sunlight, but on shadows...

 

[Craig75]

I'm afraid not... It doesn´t depend on sunlight, but on shadows...

"
I wonder if you -possibly landscape and architecture photographers- find your exposure for sunny scenes change a lot, or if on the contrary, it's more or less stable.."

yes it changes based on time of year and time of day. I've literally photographed the same scene for a whole year in sunlight.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It's not exposure what changes: this is not slide film.
The changing intensity of direct sunlight is controlled by development and multigrade filters, but it doesn't affect exposure: what affects exposure is how filled shadows are.

 

[Craig75]

It's not exposure what changes: this is not slide film.
The changing intensity of direct sunlight is controlled by development and multigrade filters, but it doesn't affect exposure: what affects exposure is how filled shadows are.

yes juan... the intensity of light is a constant all year at all times at all places on earth....

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm afraid not... It doesn´t depend on sunlight, but on shadows...

The yellow filter darkens skies and brings out clouds. Look at the description of the filter makers literature.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

yes juan... the intensity of light is a constant all year at all times at all places on earth....

Read well: I said the changing intensity of direct sunlight...
You're thinking right for slide film, wrong for B&W negative film.

 

[MattKing]

It's not exposure what changes: this is not slide film.
The changing intensity of direct sunlight is controlled by development and multigrade filters, but it doesn't affect exposure: what affects exposure is how filled shadows are.

This reveals a preference, not a rule.
The preference is for illuminated and detailed shadows, and that certainly can be appropriate.
But a slavish attention to the shadows often ignores the strengths of the scene itself.
To take an example, let us say you are photographing a family enjoying a picnic lunch. There will probably be parts of the scene (e.g. under the table) that are in deep shadow, and therefore unimportant to the photograph. You should not let those shadows influence your exposure decisions. Your exposure should be keyed on the parts of the scene that matter the most to your photograph. No matter what the film is.
If the family is light skinned, enjoying vanilla ice cream and have a bright table-cloth on the table, you are going to want to expose that film in a way that makes sure that light mid-tones are rendered well. Most likely you will want to base your exposure decisions on the skin tones, but the ice cream may be an even better target.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I agree; Matt... But what is a rule, and not preference, is that we use exposure to control highlights for slide film, but we use development and MG filters to control the same highlights and get the best out of a negative, while we use exposure for placing the shadows.
Both types of film work differently. In contrary ways.
And it doesn't matter that much the intensity of direct sunlight: if it's common strong sunlight, and the development time is prudent, the information will be on film, and for B&W, exposure is determined by our shadows preferences. Negative film takes care of sunlight, unless development is wrong.
Midtones and skin under sunlight will be fine. Even if I place shadows a stop above or not.
Apart, even if skins under sunlight are well printed, shadows can be wrong if we consider sunlight metering the important part.

 

[BrianShaw]

Perhaps I’m missing the point of the thread, or perhaps I don’t understand photography after practicing it for 50 years... but more often than not simple exposure readings work just fine. Fussing like this is likely to result in no photograph at all. I’d be frustrated to the point where I’d start bringing watercolors instead of a camera.

 

[ic-racer]

There are a number of known variables that affect film exposure in sunlight.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Perhaps I’m missing the point of the thread, or perhaps I don’t understand photography after practicing it for 50 years... but more often than not simple exposure readings work just fine. Fussing like this is likely to result in no photograph at all. I’d be frustrated to the point where I’d start bringing watercolors instead of a camera.

Have you seen, Brian, how often people post sunny scenes (made by themselves) that look horribly dark and don't convey the open, luminous sensation we have when we're in person under sunlight? That's mainly because of wrong shadows placement, even if main subjects under direct sunlight look more or less fine.
When both highlights and shadows are clean, we show reality in a better way.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

There are a number of known variables that affect film exposure in sunlight.

View attachment 270034

No, ic, that graph doesn't talk about exposure nor about photography. At all... It talks about light only. Of course sunlight varies. That variation doesn't mean the same for slide film and for negative film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perhaps I’m missing the point of the thread, or perhaps I don’t understand photography after practicing it for 50 years... but more often than not simple exposure readings work just fine. Fussing like this is likely to result in no photograph at all. I’d be frustrated to the point where I’d start bringing watercolors instead of a camera.

On this we violently agree. There seems to be, to quote William Shakespeare "Much ado about nothing".

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have you seen, Brian, how often people post sunny scenes (made by themselves) that look horribly dark and don't convey the open, luminous sensation we have when we're in person under sunlight? That's mainly because of wrong shadows placement, even if main subjects under direct sunlight look more or less fine.
When both highlights and shadows are clean, we show reality in a better way.

I have not found that to be true at all. Film does a wonderful job. Actually when I think about it, so does digital.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You're in your right to feel all photographs are the same. I'm fine with that.
Film does a wonderful job, but people don't.

 

[Vaughn]

The shadows vary with atmospheric conditions, also

When both highlights and shadows are clean, we show reality in a better way.

We are not showing reality...at least I am not. Where is the smell, the taste, the colors? No reality there! Expose/develop/print to express oneself, not a false sense of duplicating reality...YMMD (your mileage may differ)

 

[BrianShaw]

Juan... I understand completely what you are describing but you seem to be referring mostly to “non-average” scenes. Can you show us example of your work where the image is what you are looking for, and an image that is not what you are looking for.

Asking others for an exposure recommendation doesn’t seem to be the approach I’d be taking to address photographic exposure. I’ve had some spare time on my hands lately and compared spot metering of shadows vs average metering and found them to generally be close enough to each other. Hence, an assurance that paying more attention to subject matter and composition results in more and better photographic images.