expose for shadows, develop for highlights

[steve kessel]

I was advised to expose iso 400 at iso 250 and develop at iso 320. Can anyone advise on development time in Ilford DDX (in this case I've used HP5)?

Many thanks

Steve Kessel

 

[Steve Smith]

Try reducing the ISO 400 time by 20% or have a look here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html



Steve.

 

[Chuck_P]

Steve,

Exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights is a competant way to approach all black and white film. Essentially you are simply providing extra exposure to the film relative to it's box speed, a little underr one stop from 400 to 250 ISO in this case for added density in the shadow areas----but, this will also add density to the highlights. Without film testing, you don't have a "normal" dev time to go by. So pull the development time by, say 30%, to try and offset that added density to the high values. I would take the recommended manufacture's time and reduce it by 30% for a start.

 

[reellis67]

The only way to tell for certain how to get what you want is to do a little testing. I find that a %20 cut in development time is a good place to start coupled with a 1 stop increase in exposure. Then, if you still need more, go to %30 less than the standard dev time and a 1 1/3 stop increase from box speed. It all depends on a) the strength of the light, b) the film, and c) the developer. I use a dilute compensating developer so I rarely have to go past the %20 + 1 stop stage, but with a different developer you may need the extra to get a more easily printed negative. I've got an article on my website that covers all the details if you want to know more. Just click 'Articles' in the navigation frame.

- Randy

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Do this to find out how you need to expose your film:

Expose a film at the manufacturer's recommended speed. Bracket + and - one stop. Develop it normal according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

Examine the negs. Find out which has adequate shadow detail. That is your film speed. If the + one stop was best, it means you need to consistently overexpose by one stop. If the 'normal' neg was enough, you can shoot at box speed.

Then shoot another roll at the preferred speed. When done, cut the film in three pieces. Start developing one of the pieces about minus 20% from the recommended dev time, and examine. Print, scan, whatever you do for your final output, and see if your highlights are pleasing too. If you find that you need more contrast, increase development. If you find you have too much, decrease development.

You'll come to understand that different lighting situations call for different development times, depending on how much contrast the scene has to begin with. But this should give you a good average of where you need to be.

This method works with any film and developer combination. Test until you're happy. It's the best way. Otherwise you're relying on other people's skill and local circumstances. Simple things like water quality changes how film develops, different lighting situations, varying metering techniques, other cameras (shutters) and lenses. There are lots of variables. Do it your own way, it works best like that.

- Thomas

 

[2F/2F]

"Expose for the shadows" is generally bad advice to give without further explanation, IMO. It places your shadows at a middle grey tonality, thus overexposing your whole neg by several stops, reducing contrast, adding grain, and making the picture harder to print. Do you want your shadows middle grey on the print? Probably not most of the time. I think if you have to resort to simple generalizations, I would say to underexpose your last desired detail area (not "shadow") by two stops, and then develop for the highlights (*and* the midtones). OR, if you really want to expose for a shadow to make it BLACK BLACK, take a reading there and underexpose that by four to five stops.

Whoever told you to rate at 250 and develop as if you rated it at 320 is not really helping you to understand anything. They are probably just seeing that your negs are a bit hard to print and trying to give you a shortcut to bypass the understanding of metering.

Also, cutting 30% from development is quite a lot of reduction to apply blindly and needlessly. I have always found manufacturers recommended times to need very little alteration- a minute at most, and always *more* development than recommended - to achieve normal development based on a zone VIII.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

DDX produces about 2/3 of a stop more film speed than std devs like D76/ID11 and prob one stop or more than rodinal, microdol, perceptol etc. I would strongly advise you do not rate your 400 film at 250 in DDX as you are likely to suffer appreciable over exposure. With D76 I would typically rate TriX or Hp5+ at 250 in bright contrasty light and 320 in soft sunshine and 400 in flat light. With DDX I really would start out at box speed as indicated. 250 plus 2/3 stop is 400 so in effect you are still adding generous exposure by rating it at its ISO speed of 400 when using this speed increasing developer.

Remember experimentation is the only way to go. Most people over expose and under develop to get good shadows and controlled highlights using std speed devs. If I do that I get muddy awful prints as my enlarger is very, very low contrast. They look OK at G5! The same neg would print at G1.5-2 on my old condensor enlarger. Generally, those using condensors would cut dev time by about 25% from the manufacturers time and those using diffusers would keep it broadly the same or slightly less. I have to increase development times over the manufacturers times in order to print at G2-3.

A lot of people think they must be doing something wrong if they are not over exposing and cutting manufacturers times heavily. Not always so. I find most dev times are fine for about G3.5-4 on my head which means I have to add about 15% to get to to the middle grades. My head is noticeably softer than a new diffusion Multigrade head for example.

My advice: Rate at 400 in DDX and process for the manufacturers times. If you have to use lower than G2 on your head, reduce dev time next time. If you get poor shadow detail, increase exposure/reduce film speed.

Are you printing your own negs or using a lab?

 

[nsouto]

"Expose for the shadows" is generally bad advice to give without further explanation, IMO. It places your shadows at a middle grey tonality, thus overexposing your whole neg by several stops, reducing contrast, adding grain, and making the picture harder to print. Do you want your shadows middle grey on the print? Probably not most of the time. I think if you have to resort to simple generalizations, I would say to underexpose your last desired detail area (not "shadow") by two stops, and then develop for the highlights (*and* the midtones). OR, if you really want to expose for a shadow to make it BLACK BLACK, take a reading there and underexpose that by four to five stops.

Agree entirely. I'm just re-reading " The Negative" by you-know-who and there is a very specific and clear warning there about precisely this. Particularly for modern film.

When he discusses exposure for the shadows, he clearly and specifically recommends AGAINST putting them in zone V!
What he says is:

1- Measure exposure for what you visualize as shadows, with the meter at the rated film ISO.
2- ReDUCE the exposure to place those shadows at zone 3 or 4 depending on visualized outcome.


My results so far confirm precisely this. The "expose for shadows" thing is just urban myth taken out of context and incomplete in information.
What should be said is "expose the shadows in order to place them in shadow zones".

 

[jmal]

There is plenty of good advice to be had, but I shoot HP5 at 500 when using DDX. Develop for 7 minutes at 20C. Ilford's published times always blowout the highlights for me.

 

[jmal]

Also, the expose for the shadows advice NEVER says to use the meter's indicated reading for the shadows. The idea is that you set your shadows at the desired level (zone) and then develop for the desired amount of hghlights, thus "framing" the outer limits of the tonal range. This means that you meter the darkest area in which you would like to retain some hint of detail and then underexpose by about two stops. There is no urban myth involved. When you do this you are indeed exposing for the shadows.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I never thought exposing for shadows meant placement on Z5 either. It just means exposure is dictated by shadow requirements rather than highlights. It means deal with the highlights by means other than exposure.

 

[2F/2F]

"Also, the expose for the shadows advice NEVER says to use the meter's indicated reading for the shadows. The idea is that you set your shadows at the desired level (zone) and then develop for the desired amount of hghlights, thus "framing" the outer limits of the tonal range. This means that you meter the darkest area in which you would like to retain some hint of detail and then underexpose by about two stops. There is no urban myth involved. When you do this you are indeed exposing for the shadows."

"never thought exposing for shadows meant placement on Z5 either. It just means exposure is dictated by shadow requirements rather than highlights. It means deal with the highlights by means other than exposure."

Exactly. You guys know it, and so do most who have done some experimenting, reading, etc. But a lot of people follow the phrase alone without ever having the theory of "placement" explained to them. That's why I hate the expression (and most "neat" little phrases like it) unless followed by more information.

 

[nsouto]

Exactly. You guys know it, and so do most who have done some experimenting, reading, etc. But a lot of people follow the phrase alone without ever having the theory of "placement" explained to them. That's why I hate the expression (and most "neat" little phrases like it) unless followed by more information.

Bingo!
And thanks a lot to the other two folks as well for pitching in
with much better explanations than mine.

 

[jgcull]

>>They are probably just seeing that your negs are a bit hard to print and trying to give you a shortcut to bypass the understanding of metering.

Steve, may I ask how you are metering?

Does all the advice above mainly apply to spot metering? (I'm asking because I have no spot meter.)

 

[Chuck_P]

I was advised to expose iso 400 at iso 250 and develop at iso 320. Can anyone advise on development time in Ilford DDX (in this case I've used HP5)?

Many thanks

Steve Kessel

Are you shooting roll film? Have you tested for personal film speed and development times? The assumption is yes for the former and no for the latter. Then, IMO, you would be better off providing the one stop of added exposure for the whole roll from ISO 400 to 200 (or, rate it at 400 give one stop more exposure for a single frame if you want), and then reduce the development time by 20-30%. Your're simply beefing up the density in the shadow areas of the negative and it is not a blind thing to do, that is a standard and acceptable way of "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights" with roll film, especially if no film testing has actually been done to determine the "normal" dev time. Contrast can be further controlled during the printing stage with dodge and burn and the use of VC papers or graded papers for those frames that need the most.

With roll film and without having done any proper testing, I would not subject the roll to various low zone shadow placements that call for reducing exposure by 1 - 4 stops as has been suggested and then trying to develop for the highlights. When reducing exposure like that, an increase in development time may be needed to get the density of the desired highlights back up higher on the scale. But then again, it may not and that is one of the benefits of doing personal film tests and being able to develop a singe exposure by itself, as is commonly done in LF.

You have to remember that once you loose shadow detail in the negative, it's lost forever. So, with roll film and with no film testing, adding exposure and controlling the highlight densities by reduced development is a step that protects the information in your shadow areas, and provides printable densities in the highlight areas of the various contrasts the roll, most likely, has been subjected to. It's a smart thing to do.

 

[reellis67]

Steve, may I ask how you are metering?

Does all the advice above mainly apply to spot metering? (I'm asking because I have no spot meter.)

A very good point! Many of the comments appear to assume so, but I don't use a spot meter, I use a plain-Jane Luna Pro (without the 7/15 degree attachment). I meter the entire reflected scene, make any adjustments to exposure that I feel are warranted by the strength of the light, and trip the shutter. I have always found my results to be generally easy to print with between a 2 and 3 filter. Using a spot meter might change things dramatically though, so please keep how I work in mind when you read my comments.

I always understood the Expose.../Develop... method to be stand alone rather than requiring the use of the Zone system, spot meters, and such, but what do I know...

- Randy

 

[jmal]

I'll repeat some advice metioned earlier: DO NOT shoot HP5 below box speed if you are developing in DDX. It's a fairly fast film to begin with and DDX is a SPEED INCREASING developer. If you shoot ot at 200/250/320, you will have very overexposed film regardless of the kind of meter you use. As I mentioned, I shoot it at 500 in DDX. This is my film/dev combo of choice. Try it out.

 

[Chuck_P]

I always understood the Expose.../Develop... method to be stand alone rather than requiring the use of the Zone system, spot meters, and such, but what do I know...

I think this is entirely true----it is an axiom and the ZS is simply a refinement to it.


BTW, Randy, love the "Driftwood" series on your site---neat stuff.

Chuck

 

[steve kessel]

Actually I'm pretty much a novice in most areas. I've been using 35mm rangefinders for just over a year with built in averaged central area weighted metering, sometimes adjusting the reading for backlighting, or dark or light scenes, sometimes taking the reading off a mid green area, more recently experimenting with incident light readings from a separate meter. I haven't as yet ventured into spot metering shadow areas.

More recently I've started to develop my own b&w negs, with mixed results (best so far is T-Max). I decided to follow the aforementioned advice and shot a roll of HP5 (because I happened to have some - my advisor recommended Tri X). In the spirit of experimentation I'll adjust its development time according to one or other of the suggestions offered here. I realize there are wider issues and would like to thank everyone for all the information and experience they've shared.

 

[michaelbsc]

More recently I've started to develop my own b&w negs, with mixed results (best so far is T-Max).

I think you're changing too many variables at once by jumping around. If T-max works for you, unless there's a compelling reason not to use it, then I would use T-max until I learned more about how changing this variable or that variable changes the results. T-max isn't *MY* personal favorite, but if it were my "best so far" I would certainly latch on to it tight for a while until I got a little more experience under my belt.

Goodness knows there nothing "wrong" with T-max. Whenever I'm out of town somewhere happening to need another few rolls of film and wandering into a local photo shop (when you can find one) I usually wind up with T-max because that's what they have on the shelf. It works fine.

MB

 

[reellis67]

I think you're changing too many variables at once by jumping around. If T-max works for you, unless there's a compelling reason not to use it, then I would use T-max until I learned more about how changing this variable or that variable changes the results.

I agree wholeheartedly. Stick with one film, any film, until you understand it enough to know why you want to change to another. I started with Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+, EFKE (various), and others and didn't really learn anything until I dropped all of them but FP4+. I was fortunate enough to stick with only two developers up front, Diafine (1st) and Rodinal - I still use Rodinal as my main developer (%95) and am only now, after a number of years, working with a new developer (Pyrocat-HD). Sticking with one or two things makes learning progress far, far faster than if you try to experience the whole film world in a weekend.

I think this is entirely true----it is an axiom and the ZS is simply a refinement to it.

BTW, Randy, love the "Driftwood" series on your site---neat stuff.

Chuck

That was my understanding as well. And thanks for the kind words!

- Randy

 

[steve kessel]

Well I did it. HP5, Exopsed at iso 250, developed in DDX 20% less time than recommended

 

[Chuck_P]

Well I did it. HP5, Exopsed at iso 250, developed in DDX 20% less time than recommended

And, what do you think? Can you compare it to HP5 rated at box speed and developed normally with a similar scene?

 

[markbarendt]

Okay I'm confused, a normal state BTW.

The reason I shoot 400 film is to be able to shoot at 400 (or more) not 250.

I do understand the advantage of staying somewhat on the "over exposure and under developement" side of the equation, but I don't really get the point of rating down faster films to get there.

If I have a target film speed I want to shoot at, say 400, aren't generally equivelant results available just by opening up the shutter and/or aperture a bit extra then developing as advertised, rather that letting the film dictate the rating and having to underdevelop?

 

[Larry Bullis]

...I have always found manufacturers recommended times to need very little alteration- a minute at most, and always *more* development than recommended - to achieve normal development based on a zone VIII.

I have not found this to be true at all; Usually, in my own tests, the mfr's recommended ISOs tend to be over-rated (thus, the advice to decrease ISO is probably well founded) and that when adjusting for that, the development time is often a bit shorter. I think what is going on here is that using their lab tested ISO, the development time must be a bit on the long side to compensate in the higher values for the effect of underexposure. A one stop over-rating in ISO is not at all uncommon.

It is not that they are "wrong". It is that their tests are based on what it takes to get the film to move, rather than what we need for a practical printing threshold. Work in the field generally proves more successful with a bit more substance in those thin areas.

In saying this, I must also qualify that film testing is dependent upon a number of factors which are extremely hard to quantify from one worker/lab to another. Equipment and working procedure variables make significant differences. What I find may not accord exactly with your results. It could vary by quite a bit.

The point about what it means to "expose for the shadows" in 2F2's post is really important in that to do so, it is not enough to just point the meter into the shadows and go with it. What's important is that the shadows are exposed correctly to be shadows, not to be mid values. Generally, adequate detail in shadows would result if, when you do point the meter into the shadow, you don't give the indicated exposure but two stops less. That is, if the reading you get in the shadow is say, f/8@1/30, the actual exposure that would accomplish the appropriate exposure would be f/8@1/125. This will produce a great deal less density in that area, but if all's well, enough separation in the densities to show adequate detail while still allowing enough exposure in the printing to produce a substantial black.

It's kind of a tricky concept to get, but as you work with it, should come clear.