Exposing & Printing Bright Sunlit Photographs

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think there are two scenarios here, and I always use incident metering:
1. The light is very bright and flat. It's sometimes difficult to 'read' the light but it comes with practice. I meter from the scene towards the camera lens, and then I judge the light. If it's super flat lighting I will underexpose the film by up to a stop, and then over-develop the film. This takes your shadow values lower, stretches out the mid-tones for good local contrast, and with the right agitation I can get enough zing to the highlights that it makes for an interesting print.
2. The light is very bright but there is also lots of contrast. Here I meter the same way, and depending on how much shadow detail I want I overexpose by up to two stops. I then process the negatives for a shorter amount of time and I also slow down agitation.

In both these scenarios I focus very hard on what makes the picture interesting, and I try to bring that forward in the scene. If it's a landscape I want to know what part of the landscape is most interesting and then emphasize the hell out of it. If it's a portrait, skin tones and eyes are obviously important, so we try to bring that out. The goal, for me, is always to have to manipulate as little as possible in the negative when I print.
This is also why I mainly use just one film and one developer (maybe two developers down the road when I graduate from the first one) - because it means less surprises in how the film behaves and responds to exposure and developing treatments.

I can say with confidence that I have learned how to find what's interesting about a scene - to me anyway - and that I know by instinct how I need to shoot it and subsequently process it in order to get the print that I want.

I don't think there's a secret recipe for this that covers all aspects of a photograph, but I do know that for the most part there's a certain range of tones I want to stand out, and usually those are in the high mid-tones to highlights. However I get there is a bit different each time, but the focal point is what makes it stand out.
And, you can make the focal point of the picture stand out either by emphasizing it, or suppressing the 'stuff' around it, or a combination of both. So we're dancing with light, moving the mid-tones up and down the tonal scale like a yo-yo. Sometimes that means less shadow detail, sometimes that means purposely blocked up highlights. Whatever it takes to bring the picture forward. Show what the picture is about.

I should add that I'm not successful every time. Of course I'm not. But it gets me closer with every roll that I experience.

I don't know if that helps or not.

- Thomas

 

[tlitody]

The zone system is very useful and allows you to "place" tones in the negative. But what it leads you to ignore is that when you expand or contract development which alters the overall scale, it also alters the relative contrast between elements within the subject. That very often renders the result in a very different way than you perceived it.
When we look at a subject our eyes are continuosly adjusting exposure subconciously so that shadow detail or highlight detail can be seen. But if you look at the subject highlight detail and try and see whats in the shadow detail from your peripheral vision you will see black or if you look at the shadow detail you will see blown highlight detail in your peripheral vision. A long contrast subject which fits the paper does NOT show what your eye sees when looking at a single point in the subject. So expanding or contracting the development fundamentally alters what you were looking at.
The question is, what is most important in the subject? I'd suggest that exposing for a highlight and letting the shadows go black will produce a far better result than exposing for a shadow and letting the highlights get blown. This is because the "main subject of interest" is invaribaly mid tone to highlight tone and not shadow tone. Sure shadow tones help but not at the expense of the main subject being rendered incorrectly which expansion or contraction will cause.
Take a leaf out of the colour film photographers book and go shooting when the subject contrast range fits the film and paper and don't beleive that B+W can be bent to fit any subject contrast unless you want to spend your time trying to do printing somersaults in the darkroom.

Why do you suppose dawn and dusk are favoured times of day for professional photographers? The term "catch the light" is about optimum subject contrast for your materials and not only because of colour. Even AA spent long periods of time waiting for the light and he was the master of bending contrast to fit the paper.

 

[BetterSense]

I can understand negative expansion when in low contrast situations; but still don't understand the need for neg contraction.

I don't understand how you come to this opinion, when I have found just the opposite. Living in TX sunshine I will often pull development to save highlights. But increasing development in low-contrast situations (rainy days etc) makes no sense. This is because it is much more efficient to increase contrast with the printing paper. Highlights and shadows are always the slaves of the midtones. In the darkroom, you are more or less compelled to adjust contrast in the printing stage until midtone local contrast looks pleasant. Then, highlights and shadows are shoved onto the paper as necessary with D&B. In gloomy, low-contrast lighting situations, developing more will never separate local tonal values sufficiently and you will still have to increase paper contrast for midtone separation, the result being that you only end up spilling the absolute highlights and shadows off of the paper. In very flat lighting, I process normally or even pull development. Then when I print at grade 4 or whatever to get sufficient local tonal separation my shadows and highlights, such as there may be, will not need excessive dodging or burning.

The idea behind the zone system (contraction in this particular case), is to try and match the negative scale to the print scale as best as you can to minimize the printing acrobatics you will have to go through to achieve the print you visualize in your mind.

Not necessarily. The Zone system the way Adams describes it in his book is clearly not intended to make printing easier; it is designed to leave as many printing options open as possible, which may make printing rather hard indeed. Adams himself states that he doesn't intend that a 'Zone systemized' negative will print easily, only that it will contain the maximum amount of information possible.

I prefer to make negatives that plop themselves undramatically onto the paper without fuss, which requires abandonment of some ZS principles. Adams would have loved TMAX with it's long straight line, but I find burning in highlights to be way too much work and use pulled Neopan 400. If I ever want the highlight information back, I'm screwed, but I don't really care.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In the darkroom, you are more or less compelled to adjust contrast in the printing stage until midtone local contrast looks pleasant. Then, highlights and shadows are shoved onto the paper as necessary with D&B. In gloomy, low-contrast lighting situations, developing more will never separate local tonal values sufficiently and you will still have to increase paper contrast for midtone separation, the result being that you only end up spilling the absolute highlights and shadows off of the paper.

If your method works for you - great. But I usually nail my negatives to such a degree that I don't need to adjust contrast in printing very much at all. I maybe fine tune with a half degree or so.

I think your argument that local contrast in mid-tones can't be separated enough by expanding development is false, because I'm able to do it. For the most part. (I screw up sometimes).

There is so much to learn about photography, and one thing you will want to acknowledge is that there are more ways than one to get to the results of a fine print. Just because you can't do something a certain way, doesn't mean that it can't be done, or that it wouldn't in fact be the preferred method by someone else.

Not saying that you're wrong. It's just that it's not the only way, and your method is one I would personally not choose, same as you don't choose mine.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...How are you guys exposing your sunlit photographs? Are you placing shadows on zone II? Maybe placing highlights on zone VIII? Reduced agitation in development most of the time?...

For almost all sunlit scenes, I place shadows on Zone III and make sure development takes the highlights to Zone VIII (mostly N-1). This will give me a flat negative, but it's easy to print the shadows down to Zone II if needed.

 

[Steve Sherman]

You're going to get a lot of subjective answers, so here's mine.

There are development methods / techniques to control ANY lighting / contrast scenario.

That said, why than do the the very best pros always make photographs, color or black and white during early or late light?

The quality of light will always be the determining factor in the success of a photograph. Traditional film responds best to a less harsh light and lower color temperature than light found when the sun is above the horizon.

I've photographed the natural environment for nearly 30 years, on the rare occasions when I make photographs when the sun is out I always say to myself, "It would be better in soft light".

Invariably, I find I almost never print the negatives that I do occasionally make durning harsher lighting conditions.

My 2 cents

 

[tlitody]

Not necessarily. The Zone system the way Adams describes it in his book is clearly not intended to make printing easier; it is designed to leave as many printing options open as possible, which may make printing rather hard indeed. Adams himself states that he doesn't intend that a 'Zone systemized' negative will print easily, only that it will contain the maximum amount of information possible.

That is just a different way of saying the same thing. Trying to make a negative that more closely matches your desired print scale is the same as making a negative that gives you more options. It will take a little less work to get an "informative" (as Adams would call it) print, and that in turn means you have more flexibility to achieve your visualization. It doesn't mean you're going to make straight prints. It just means hard work might get you closer to your goal (or maybe a few less hoops to jump through to get there).

I think you miss the point. If the subject has 11 stops and you are only going to get 7 or possibly 8 stops on the paper, then it is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It won't fit. The only way to make it fit is too shave the corners off so you have a round peg to fit in the round hole. The point being that what you end up with can't possibly be the same as what you saw. It's no longer the same.
Sure you can make a good print but it can't have the same dynamic range as the subject did. You may be able to give the impression of great brightness range if you are a good enough printer but you can't replicate it since the paper is incapable of that. So it comes down to printing skill because a straight print will never do it.

 

[brian steinberger]

Sure you can make a good print but it can't have the same dynamic range as the subject did. You may be able to give the impression of great brightness range if you are a good enough printer but you can't replicate it since the paper is incapable of that. So it comes down to printing skill because a straight print will never do it.

Exactly, so what is the printing skill required to give the impression of brightness that was in the original scene?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Exactly, so what is the printing skill required to give the impression of brightness that was in the original scene?

You are of course limited to the luminance range of the paper, which is typically less than 200:1. The subject luminance range on a sunny day can be a few times that. You can still create the illusion of a bright sunny day by considering a few points:

(De)emphasize important Print Features
Use dodging and burning to emphasize and de-emphasize print features. This improves local contrast and guides the viewers eye.

Create Brilliant Highlights
Specular highlights have no density and are reproduced as pure paper-white, adding brilliance. Diffuse highlights are bright and have a delicate gradation with clear tonal separation, without looking dull or dirty.

Optimize Midtone Contrast
There is good separation, due to high local contrast, throughout the midtones, clearly separating them from highlights and shadows.

Protect Detailed Shadows
Shadow tones are subtle in contrast and detail, but without getting too dark under the intended lighting conditions. The image includes small areas of deepest paper-black without visible detail, providing a tonal foundation.

Select the Right Mount
Brilliant white mounts compete with and degrade the highlights of the print. Chose an off-white or light gray mount for print highlights to get the 'upper hand'. Stay away from black mounts as they only degrade the shadows.