Developing Roll Film for various contrasts - bruce barnbaum

mporter012 said:

Bill -

I have not used a grey card. If I understand correctly, the issue in development is mainly with contrast correct? This is essentially what I think Barnbaum is recommending in his book in having two backs. If I shoot 10 shots of snow with dark tree line and 10 shots of dense fog on the same roll, in one way or another, either the contrasty shots (trees and snow) or the un-contrasty shots (fog) will likely suffer to some extent in development.

Am I on the right track?

Click to expand...

Exactly. The amount the shots "will likely suffer", as LJSLATER may agree, is not that much.

If you develop both normally, the snow shots might need a Grade 1 filter and the fog shots might need a Grade 4 filter (when you print). This is not a bad thing in itself.

Bruce Barnbaum would not like to have the poorer quality - it is measurable in terms of detail and grain and sharpness. Measurable but it's not much. Most amateurs are quite satisfied with the compromise you might make. Bruce and other very quality conscious photographers will strive for the very best negative, so they will talk about how you can still make perfect negatives with roll film and several cameras.

I personally am happy with a lot. But I also get great pleasure from understanding and applying these exposure and processing techniques.

Bill Burk said:

Exactly. The amount the shots "will likely suffer", as LJSLATER may agree, is not that much.

If you develop both normally, the snow shots might need a Grade 1 filter and the fog shots might need a Grade 4 filter (when you print). This is not a bad thing in itself.

Bruce Barnbaum would not like to have the poorer quality - it is measurable in terms of detail and grain and sharpness. Measurable but it's not much. Most amateurs are quite satisfied with the compromise you might make. Bruce and other very quality conscious photographers will strive for the very best negative, so they will talk about how you can still make perfect negatives with roll film and several cameras.

I personally am happy with a lot. But I also get great pleasure from understanding and applying these exposure and processing techniques.

Click to expand...

I agree. And if I may submit one last thing, mporter012, if you're going to be sharing equipment and chemicals with other photographers, your film "will likely suffer" regardless! Not to be overly dramatic; hopefully your instructor will mix and monitor the chemicals....

I have the book you are reading. I have to say it is not one of my favorite.... I won't go into why it isn't because I don't want to turn your thread into discussion of the book itself.

I have to say you are WAY ahead of yourself, especially if you never developed your film. I'll go as far as to say all that is really unnecessary at this point. Today's film are so forgiving, if you can get the exposure reasonably close and develop it normally, you can get a decent image printed. My suggestion is to ignore that book for now for it will make what's easy very VERY complicated.

Since you asked though, I will share my experience.

I have 3 Nikon F-100. I never carry all 3 and label N, N-1, and N+1 as Mr. B suggests. Why? Because I find it unnecessary for my photography. For THAT much of adjustment, I can easily do it at printing time by using different filters. What I do is, if I encounter extreme situations, I expose the entire roll at N, N-1, or N+1 and develop it accordingly. Realistically, I've never been in a situation where I needed all 3 at the same time. Most of the time, I just expose it as normal and develop it normally.

Snow and backlighting condition require special handling. So as dark subject with dark background. It has a lot to do with proper exposure in a situation where in-camera light meters are likely very confused. What you said is called bracketing. It is a good idea but you'll learn how to deal with it as you study photography. It's not as difficult as it sounds....

Yes, if you develop your roll in certain way, you have committed your decision onto that film. But.... think about this too. Your film can record a huge range of brightness. If you error your metering somewhat, it will still record it. You might have to struggle a little when you print but you don't have to have a perfect negative to print your image. If you can get it reasonably close, that's all you need a lot of the time.

There are times you need to be precise. Then you need to do a lot of what Mr. B says. But ahead of that, you need to know how to process your film correctly, and ahead of that, you need to know how to expose your film correctly. Ahead of that, you need to recognize adverse conditions and know what technique to deploy to meter the scene. This is why I said you are way ahead of yourself....

There is a book called "Photography". It is written by Upton and London. (I think) It explains a lot of more applicable topic than the book you are reading. I think that'll be a better book to read.

So what I'm gathering is that the general suggestion would be, at this point, to use one camera with my in camera light meter and expose at its suggestion or open up one stop, and then develop as I see fit.

mporter012 said:

So what I'm gathering is that the general suggestion would be, at this point, to use one camera with my in camera light meter and expose at its suggestion or open up one stop, and then develop as I see fit.

Click to expand...

I'm a huge proponent of the ZS, but I would urge you to take a much simpler approach to your beginnings. This book gets into some basic ZS discussion, but not before very good discussions on exposure and development in general, including a good discussion on the "the middle gray" standard. If you wanted to even get THE book on the ZS, just reading the chapter on exposure alone should help immensely on the basics. It is not difficult to read as many may eventually suggest.

mporter012 said:

So what I'm gathering is that the general suggestion would be, at this point, to use one camera with my in camera light meter and expose at its suggestion or open up one stop, and then develop as I see fit.

Click to expand...

mporter,

Another one of reason I suggest you don't bother just yet (which I didn't explain before) is that despite what the books say, N+1 exposure and 20% less development or the other way around, the fact is, those manipulations do not make that much difference and it's such that if you aren't trained to see the difference, you won't actually see it or appreciate it. I can tell you this with confidence because I actually did a multi-day experiment to try all the combinations. A long story short, I ended up with 9 prints with various combinations that are very difficult to see the difference from a normally processed reference print.

At this point, I'd suggest you don't even bother "open one up" unless you have a specific reason why you want to do it.

Mr. B and Mr. A (Mr. Adams) along with many others will go length on the benefit of these manipulations, and they are all telling the truth. What often get lost in interpretation is that the subtle change or benefit they are talking about. It won't make a night and day difference. It certainly is the level of change that can easily get buried in processing variations you will likely encounter for the first few months.

Michael R 1974 said:

Bill - This is not quite true as far as Barnbaum is concerned. He is pretty much unconcerned with graininess and resolution.

Click to expand...

Michael R 1974,

Right. I enjoyed Barnbaum's enthusiasm in his video, but I know he oversimplifies. I know putting shadows on Zone IV isn't going to give the finest-grained, highest resolution negatives. So you are right, I shouldn't have named him as one who seeks these high quality characteristics in his negatives.

Michael R 1974 said:

He'll put his shadows on Zones V or VI too if he wants to apply expansion development.

Click to expand...

Makes sense too, Fred Picker also later adapted Zone System to consider where highlights will likely fall.

If you have the latitude (and are not concerned with grain/sharpness/resolution), it will help you keep print times consistent.

I don't really want to buy the book, but if I am going to keep misrepresenting him I guess I better.

Michael R 1974 said:

Bill - in the end that's my point. You don't need his book. I don't recommend it. The "densitometry"/Zone System stuff is seriously flawed. He just seems to be a very stubborn, opinionated guy.

Click to expand...

It works for him, so it's ok for him, but he is one of the guys responsible for leading me un-necessarily down the un-needed extra exposure road.

Like Michael I'd say pass on his teaching.

I believe the idea is thru a test, set a ISO rating for your choice of film and developer to give a normal development for zone 5, which you carry across into your paper exposure and development. This sets a logical sequence that gives you a standard from start to finish. From there you set your N- and N+ film development, which is easier shooting cut film and from the beggining. What I did was to shoot a roll of a scene with no brightness change with under, average and overexposure up to three stops either way and develop the film in Diafine. I compared the negatives (either thru printing or scanning) and found out how much I could deviate and still get a good negative. But if your not interested in using a compensating developer, just shoot multiple exposures based on your tested film/developer. Film might not be as cheap as it use to be, depending on the film of course, but it's easier to carry one body then three, and perhaps a tripod as well. As concerns 3 backs for a MF body, it's the same amount of shoulder/backpack fun cause your lenses and accessories are going to up the pack weight. When I was younger I carried a big pack which became smaller and smaller till now it's a body with 2 lenses and a light tripod normally. Of course it just depends on what you need to accomplish.

Michael R 1974 -

I must say, Barnbaum's book has been the biggest photographic inspiration for me yet (as well as Michael Kenna and Vivian Maier prints). Barnbaum has a couple PhD's and spent at least a part of his career in Mathematics, so it is line with his ideology that he seeks to explain part of photography systematically or mathematically - which is partially what the ZS is, if i understand it correctly.

mporter012,

I don't mean to speak out against Bruce Barnbaum. He is enthusiastic and he encourages giving film sufficient exposure. So that's not bad.

If I shortchange him by summarizing his approach as "expose shadows on Zone IV", it's because of his video which emphasizes that.

But if you do take his approach, don't use "half box speed" as that would push you one more stop. At that rate you would be exposing your shadows at what the light meter says, Zone V. So you have to be thoughtful if you mix your mentors.

Bill Burk said:

If I shortchange him by summarizing his approach as "expose shadows on Zone IV", it's because of his video which emphasizes that.

But if you do take his approach, don't use "half box speed" as that would push you one more stop. At that rate you would be exposing your shadows at what the light meter says, Zone V. So you have to be thoughtful if you mix your mentors.

Click to expand...

That's excellent advice, BIll.