Exposure in the woods

[Anupam Basu]

Yes it is two exposures of the same subject (double exposure). I usually shoot one with the camera set for proper rendering of shadows,...

This is where you lost me. When making this exposure for the shadows, the highlights are going to be blown out unless you have some way to prevent the highlights from receiving light on this exposure.

 

[Lee L]

Well I think Fred Picker had the answer. He said to use the same approach as architectural photographers use to get a window lit evening pic where the outside is darkened and the interior remains lit by its own lighting. To get both areas exposed and to save both areas of tone do two exposures.

You can do this two ways. The first, which I've done on a couple of jobs for Andersen Windows, is to wait until the exterior and interior lights are balanced. There's a time window for this at dusk (or dawn, but the home owners all seemed to prefer dusk ), and it gives you the chance to make several shots with differing balances between indoor and outdoor light.

The second way is to shoot the house with interior lights off near dusk, and then add a second exposure with interior lights on after it's gotten dark. You may or may not have good enough alignment with film holders to get a second shot aligned properly if you're trying several shots. I'd expect that some problems would crop up in that area. Otherwise, you only get a single shot off per day, not something that I could see most professionals doing.

As others have already said, you simply can't compress a long exposure scale using the method you're describing. It defies the laws of physics. If the dynamic range of the subject is too great for the film, then the Zone III shadow exposure will blow the highlights, and adding another zone VI or VII placement exposure of the highlights won't lower highlight density in the negative, it will increase it.

Perhaps you haven't described the method in a way that we can understand. Have any reference to a Picker writing that others can look at? I don't have any Picker material myself, but I think you may be misunderstanding what he wrote.

Lee

 

[Shelly Grimson]

The Fine Print Amphoto, American Photographic Book Publishing Co. Inc. Garden City, New York 3rd Ed. 1978 Library of Congress 74-83645. On page 68 in the explanation of the photo MILLERTON, NEW YORK he discusses this.
"Despite years of disappointments I persisted in attempting to recreate the atmosphere of sunlit woods. Success came one day when I was waiting for clouds to pass by. Suddenly the solution became obvious.
for years I had made commercial photographs of buildings by exposing for the face of the building at dusk, then exosing again for the lighted windows at night. The problem in the woods was identical and the technique employed ought to be the same: double exposure. I made the first exposure as a cloud passed over the sun. The leafy areas were poaced on Zone IV. When the sun dapples reappeared, I made a meter reading of a nearby sunlit leaf and made a second exposure with thatvalue placed on Zone VII. the second exposure, to add the sunlit area was so short that the effect on the first exposure ws negligible. Since there was no wind at all, each leaf remained in perfect register. The First exposure was for 1/2 sec.at F32, the second exposure was for 1/60 sec. at F32 both with the 121mm lens.
A 4x5 Tri-x developed normally in MC-110 provided a negative that printed easily on No.2 Varigam in Ardol 1:1. This developer is less brilliant than Dektol byt is very gently to the lower values. Dektol has a tendency to push the delicate lower tones into blacak and must be handled more carefully than Ardol if luminous low values are desired. Ardol also imparts a warm tone which seemed appropriate for this scene."
Well that's the most typing I've done in a blog... Anyway I read and re-read this many times and I can understand why you needed a better explanation than mine. It's a bit much to take if, like me you are so concerned with expansion and contraction in the development phase of the process. Short cuts in photography are usually compromises, aren't they. But this one really works for me. I hope you can find it works for you. I remember having driven my motorcycle all the way to redwood forests in California and how impossible lousy my photos ended up. I was afraid to shoot shaded and dappled forests for years figuring that you had to be some genius who spent his life in testing every batch of film and paper before you could nail it. Well I can't say that my negs are the supreme ones that the
'greats' take, but at least I can get some of the way there using this method. I das much struggling in the darkroom as anyone but am usually satisfied at the end of it. But don't get me into the laws of physics. I'm a lawyer and I usually am more comfortable with those ...

 

[Lee L]

I made the first exposure as a cloud passed over the sun. The leafy areas were poaced on Zone IV. When the sun dapples reappeared, I made a meter reading of a nearby sunlit leaf and made a second exposure with thatvalue placed on Zone VII.

Ah! There's the missing info... The technique you're describing requires both a cloudy low contrast/low light exposure for shadows and a sunny higher contrast/higher light level exposure for the sun dapples. Combining those could work well as you describe.

Lee

 

[John Irvine]

After a lot of thought, I might understand the idea. Keep in mind, it is a situation where you want to expand the contrast range. You want the light part of the negative (shadows) to stay light, but you want the dark part (highlights) to get darker. Usually you will increase the development time to do this, but as Shelly says you can do it with exposure too. In a low contrast setting, when you expose for the shadows, the highlights only get enough light to reach, say for example, Zone VI and you want Zone VII. A second short exposure will not add much to the shadows, the light part of the negative, because there is not much light there. But it will add to the highlights, the dark part of the negative, where there is more light. In the negative, the darks get darker and in the print, the lights get lighter.

I know I've read about this somewhere. A quick scan of two of Picker's book didn't reveal it, but if a closer look finds it, I will post the reference.

 

[Lee L]

Keep in mind, it is a situation where you want to expand the contrast range.

It's a situation where the difference between shadows and highlights is too great for normal development to hold detail at both ends of the range. That requires contraction/compression of the negative by some means, not expansion.

Lee

 

[CBG]

It all sounds so simple here at the computer. When I get in the field, all sorts of thoughts come crashing in to confuse me. I am easily confused. ... but there at the camera, I am liable to do anything. ...

When you are new to some technical conundrum, and it sytmies you, maybe it makes sense to adopt a couple of ideas:
1. Don't expect every new problem to solve well the first time round. Corrolary - plan on reshooting repeatedly till yo make progress. Corrolary 2 - Don't judge yourself harshly if one or two runs at a problem fail to crack it. I now simply plan to keep at a problem till I "get it".

2. If you are prone to haphazard solutions in the field, have a pre - planned project, as your current fungi hunt has become, and do your planning away from the field where you can plan in relative leisure. A single defined project that you approach in depth allows you to develop expertise in one defined area.

3. Create notes of what you intend to do, then take notes of what you actually did. Those will help you form a discipline of premeditated work. Eventually, you will find certain tasks become second nature and pre planning notes won't be needed any more.

On lens extension compensation:
The simplest scheme I ever heard was wonderfully simple and direct. It is on a recent thread either here or on LFforums. Someone here will know exactly where it is. For every half the lens focal length you extend, add a stop of exposure. Say you have a 210 mm lens - think of it as an eight inch lens - should you extend to twelve inches, add a stop - if you're extended to sixteen inches your total compensation for extension would be two stops - twenty inches yields three stops etc. It is not quite exact, but is so close to exact, and so easily usable, I'm grateful someone mentioned it.

Best,

C