Exposure / zones / print grades

[Jessestr]

So recently I made two very big topics about contrast in my prints (I have to print at grade 4 frequently).
The solution was either increase development time or expose for the highlights when the SBR is less then 10. (By RobC)

However, I was printing today and while my prints were drying I was asking myself that even if I expose for the highlights and thus get a denser negative, I have to expose longer to get the right exposure on the paper... and it should fix the contrast problem.

BUT, that isn't true right? The relation between a zone 3 and zone 5 spot in the print stays the same with exposure or is it not?

So even if I expose for the shadows and I don't get those dense negatives, I will have to print at a lower time and a higher grade. But if I expose for the highlights and get denser negatives, I will have to print at a longer time but also at a higher grade? Since the shadows went up in exposure too when exposing the film longer to get dense highlights.. So what's the difference here?

Since, let's say I have a closed scene portrait ( no real zone 7 anywhere ), so the lightest spot in the print is zone 6 (skintones) and the hair is about zone 3, I get perfect shadow detail there and good tones on the skin. But what's the difference if I place the hair on zone 3, or place the skin on zone 6? I should get the same exposure here, right? If not, please enlighten me.
(Or, should I place the skin on zone 7 then, because it's the lightest part in my negative, thus overexposing 1 stop?)

Then the only solution is to development longer, since the shadow parts are almost not touched in development right?

If I'm wrong, please tell me.

 

[markbarendt]

Jessestr if I'm reading this post correctly it seems to me that you are expecting a direct zone placement carry through from camera to print.

If I may be so bold, I'd suggest that you need to set that expectation aside because that can only be true if the film development and the paper grade remain fixed, which isn't happening in your world.

 

[ic-racer]

Don't base negative exposure on the highlights. Don't do any thing oddball. Expose for the shadow and develop to get the printing contrast. These are not arbitrary guidelines, but a straight-forward description of how film works.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

So recently I made two very big topics about contrast in my prints (I have to print at grade 4 frequently).
The solution was either increase development time or expose for the highlights when the SBR is less then 10. (By RobC)

However, I was printing today and while my prints were drying I was asking myself that even if I expose for the highlights and thus get a denser negative, I have to expose longer to get the right exposure on the paper... and it should fix the contrast problem.

BUT, that isn't true right? The relation between a zone 3 and zone 5 spot in the print stays the same with exposure or is it not?

So even if I expose for the shadows and I don't get those dense negatives, I will have to print at a lower time and a higher grade. But if I expose for the highlights and get denser negatives, I will have to print at a longer time but also at a higher grade? Since the shadows went up in exposure too when exposing the film longer to get dense highlights.. So what's the difference here?

Since, let's say I have a closed scene portrait ( no real zone 7 anywhere ), so the lightest spot in the print is zone 6 (skintones) and the hair is about zone 3, I get perfect shadow detail there and good tones on the skin. But what's the difference if I place the hair on zone 3, or place the skin on zone 6? I should get the same exposure here, right? If not, please enlighten me.
(Or, should I place the skin on zone 7 then, because it's the lightest part in my negative, thus overexposing 1 stop?)

Then the only solution is to development longer, since the shadow parts are almost not touched in development right?

If I'm wrong, please tell me.

If you overexpose a negative and don't change development time, then yes, you'll just get a longer print exposure time and no real increase in contrast, in comparison to a "correctly-exposed" negative.

If you need to expand the contrast (density range on the negative) between two values, say Zone III and V but you want the latter in Zone VI, then you need to increase development (the best way to do this is to increase development time).

However, if you've been underexposing your negatives and are now giving more exposure (for whatever reason, like a change in metering technique, etc.) then you will get negatives with a greater density range (i.e., more contrast) just because you are exposing more "correctly" now. I find that 75% of print contrast problems for beginners stems from underexposed negatives.

A word about metering for highlights or shadows or whatever: There are a number of metering techniques dependent upon 1. the type of meter you have, 2. the type of film you use and 3. the type of subject matter you shoot. For sheet-film users with spotmeters, a shadow-based exposure and development system that allows different development schemes for individual scenes depending on subject contrast range is practical. For roll-film users with in-camera meters, it's often easier to just use an average reading and use exposure compensation for scenes that would tend to result in underexposure (backlighting, high-key shots, high-contrast scenes).

However, if underexposure is a concern, then basing exposure on a highlight value in a scene is equally good, provided that a similar exposure compensation is made for high-contrast situations. Metering a Zone VII or VIII value and placing it correctly will result in usable exposures and prevent underexposure in all but the most contrasty situations. For these, you can just add more exposure with the exposure compensation. It's recognizing when and how much to add that's the trick here. For scenes with a low-contrast range, however, you'll end up with a slightly overexposed negative, which, however, should still be printable with a higher-contrast-grade paper. This, of course, is dependent upon having a normal development scheme that allows a wide range of contrast situations to be developed on one roll and all fall favorably within the extremes of the printing paper contrast. Judging from what you posted about earlier, you haven't arrived at this yet and are underdeveloping your negatives. This will make low-contrast scenes very difficult to print well.

Summary: base your exposure on a value in the scene that best fits your film and meter type as well as the subject you are shooting. Many portrait photographers base exposure on skin tones, but then again, they are controlling lighting and know where the highlights and shadows all will fall from experience. Err on the side of overexposure if the situation is really contrasty if you use average or high-value placement. If you consistently have to use high-contrast grades for "normal" scenes and your negatives have good shadow detail (i.e., are not underexposed), then you need to increase your development time so that they print well at an intermediate grade.

Good luck,

Doremus

 

[markbarendt]

Jessestr,

Doremus provides some great examples.

I'd say the majority of people are like Doremus in that they view correctly exposed negatives as negatives that are exposed just enough to get everything you want onto the film curve. Another way to say this is that all the shadow detail you need is just far enough up the toe on the film curve to be usable, that's what ic-racer is trying to get across. There are some real advantages here; faster shutter speed, smaller aperture, minimizing grain, ...

For me though that's simply the minimum exposure I want and if I'm shooting with HP-5 for example I'm happy with as much as 3-5 stops over what Doremus and ic-racer might call correct exposure.

If you overexpose a negative and don't change development time, then yes, you'll just get a longer print exposure time and no real increase in contrast, in comparison to a "correctly-exposed" negative.

As camera exposure grows more and more shadow detail comes onto the film curve, all the tones keep moving right and up the film curve. With this extra exposure the zones you measured in the scene don't fall at the typical zone placement densities you might see from Bill Burk and other's H&D curves.

With extra exposure the "zones" you measured in the scene get denser and denser and move farther and farther right on the curve. ic-racers "zone 0" may correspond to a 0.1 density on film, mine might fall at 0.6 and that's ok.

As doremus suggests my print exposure time will be longer than ic-racer's. Our prints though won't even necessarily be different if we used the same tripod holes.

 

[RobC]

Also if you are using zone system placement it is sometimes difficult to judge what subject tone should be what print tone. And its no good trying to use zone system if you haven't verified that what you select in subject actually ends up being the print value you expected. This is highly variable without proper testing but will be better if you expose for a highlight. Its much easier to make judgements at either end of the scale than in the middle. And a grey card will invariably underexpose by 1 stop if you are using ISO speed and manufacturers recommended dev, it ain't the middle contrary to popular opinion.

 

[Jessestr]

If you need to expand the contrast (density range on the negative) between two values, say Zone III and V but you want the latter in Zone VI, then you need to increase development (the best way to do this is to increase development time).

However, if you've been underexposing your negatives and are now giving more exposure (for whatever reason, like a change in metering technique, etc.) then you will get negatives with a greater density range (i.e., more contrast) just because you are exposing more "correctly" now. I find that 75% of print contrast problems for beginners stems from underexposed negatives.

This make a lot of sense to me now

However, if underexposure is a concern, then basing exposure on a highlight value in a scene is equally good, provided that a similar exposure compensation is made for high-contrast situations. Metering a Zone VII or VIII value and placing it correctly will result in usable exposures and prevent underexposure in all but the most contrasty situations. For these, you can just add more exposure with the exposure compensation. It's recognizing when and how much to add that's the trick here. For scenes with a low-contrast range, however, you'll end up with a slightly overexposed negative, which, however, should still be printable with a higher-contrast-grade paper. This, of course, is dependent upon having a normal development scheme that allows a wide range of contrast situations to be developed on one roll and all fall favorably within the extremes of the printing paper contrast. Judging from what you posted about earlier, you haven't arrived at this yet and are underdeveloping your negatives. This will make low-contrast scenes very difficult to print well.

You kind of lost me here. So let's say I measure a highlight (for example a skin tone), and I see I will lose 1 stop shadow detail, I open one stop.. so I get overexposure, so the skin tone will be over on 1 stop? If I do the normal development scheme. Is that bad or just the way things go? So when I print this negative, I just use a longer exposure time, to place the highlights correctly on the paper and lower grade to get the detail back from the negative?

How can I easily check if I underdevelop or underexpose? That might be a good starting point.

Summary: base your exposure on a value in the scene that best fits your film and meter type as well as the subject you are shooting. Many portrait photographers base exposure on skin tones, but then again, they are controlling lighting and know where the highlights and shadows all will fall from experience. Err on the side of overexposure if the situation is really contrasty if you use average or high-value placement. If you consistently have to use high-contrast grades for "normal" scenes and your negatives have good shadow detail (i.e., are not underexposed), then you need to increase your development time so that they print well at an intermediate grade.

Good luck,

Doremus

What do you mean by this: "Err on the side of overexposure if the situation is really contrasty if you use average or high-value placement"
And

Jessestr,

For me though that's simply the minimum exposure I want and if I'm shooting with HP-5 for example I'm happy with as much as 3-5 stops over what Doremus and ic-racer might call correct exposure.

So you are saying ur overexpose 3-5 stops above the above said correct exposure? Won't you start losing highlight detail doing that?

Also if you are using zone system placement it is sometimes difficult to judge what subject tone should be what print tone. And its no good trying to use zone system if you haven't verified that what you select in subject actually ends up being the print value you expected. This is highly variable without proper testing but will be better if you expose for a highlight. Its much easier to make judgements at either end of the scale than in the middle. And a grey card will invariably underexpose by 1 stop if you are using ISO speed and manufacturers recommended dev, it ain't the middle contrary to popular opinion.

So maybe middle grey turns out zone 4 with my film/dev combo?

 

[RobC]

the length of the curve on modern films is very long and with films like hp5 extends to over 14 stops. Over exposing just shifts everything up the curve. You don't lose it, the negative densities are just increased which results in needing longer print times. Not all films have a very long curve available. I'm thinking of Delta 100 here which won't tolerate large over exposure becasue you hit the film shoulder much sooner than with hp5 or delta 400.
And note that over exposing doesn't increase contrast. i.e. the steepness of the curve remains very similar. Over development on the other hand increases the steepness of the curve which is what we call increasing film contrast. Be careful you understand this. Over exposure just slides everything up the curve without changing contrast which over development increase contrast.
So that means over exposing by a stop or two doesn't do any major harm. Underexposing on the other hand slides everything down the curve and quite possibly of the bottom of the curve which loses you shadow detail.

 

[RobC]

I still don't understand why you are having problems. If you are using box ISO speed and recommended dev temp and time, then you should not be having these problems of thin negs unless you are underexposing (which is same as placing exposure to low on curve). If you expose for a highlight as previously suggested then you won't get thin negs. Well part of it might be but the highliht densities won't be and that is easy to fix in printing.

 

[Jessestr]

the length of the curve on modern films is very long and with films like hp5 extends to over 14 stops. Over exposing just shifts everything up the curve. You don't lose it, the negative densities are just increased which results in needing longer print times. Not all films have a very long curve available. I'm thinking of Delta 100 here which won't tolerate large over exposure becasue you hit the film shoulder much sooner than with hp5 or delta 400.
And not that over exposing doesn't increase contrast. i.e. the steepness of the curve remains very similar. Over development on the other hand increases the steepness of the curve which is what we call increasing film contrast. Be careful you understand this. Over exposure just slides everything up the curve without changing contrast which over development increase contrast.
So that means over exposing by a stop or two doesn't do any major harm. Underexposing on the other hand slides everything down the curve and quite possibly of the bottom of the curve which loses you shadow detail.

I see, I thought it could handle overexpose, but from the first time I saw the Zone system, I thought everything captured above zone 7 will be gone on the negative (texture and detail wise)...So that's only helpful if you can change development for that particular photo so it prints easily on grade 2... ? Like that? (If yes, make so much sense now..)

Anyways, if you say HP5 can handle so much overexposure, is there ANY drawback to that? Apart from contrasty scenes where you might lose a little highlights?

I still don't understand why you are having problems. If you are using box ISO speed and recommended dev temp and time, then you should not be having these problems of thin negs unless you are underexposing (which is same as placing exposure to low on curve). If you expose for a highlight as previously suggested then you won't get thin negs. Well part of it might be but the highliht densities won't be and that is easy to fix in printing.

I haven't been able to shoot yet, only darkroom work. Been out there with my spotmeter and tried to expose correctly, but still have to finish the roll. The things I say are based on my previous negatives.

 

[markbarendt]

How can I easily check if I underdevelop or underexpose? That might be a good starting point.

If shadow detail you want isn't on the negative you have underexposed.

If you have to print with harder grades of paper than you normally prefer, say grade 4 or 5 instead of 2 or 3, then you have probably underdeveloped. I say may because if you are using roll film you may need to compromise; if one frame requires grade 1 and another frame on the same roll needs grade 5 then that roll was developed just fine. If every frame on the roll needs grade 4 or 5 though then more development would be prudent.

What do you mean by this: "Err on the side of overexposure if the situation is really contrasty if you use average or high-value placement"

IMO underexposure is the cardinal sin of photography, any type of photography; it simply can't be fixed. With negatives there is almost no penalty for adding a little more exposure.

So you are saying ur overexpose 3-5 stops above the above said correct exposure? Won't you start losing highlight detail doing that?

No loss, as Rob says there's lots of room for extra exposure. HP5 is great in this respect, Tmax 400 has even more room.

The highlight loss you speak of is a printing "thing", a paper thing, and a choice of how you print; it's not a film problem.

So maybe middle grey turns out zone 4 with my film/dev combo?

As much as it gets talked about around here, it's actually a myth that there are fixed places on a negative that should be labeled as specific zones.

To be able to define zones specifically on a negative, the exact grade of paper that will be used and a perfect camera exposure is absolutely required. No exceptions need apply.

For the portraits you had to print at grade 4 and 5. My bet is that none of the H&D curves with zone labeling you have seen here on APUG show you what's happening with regard to your negatives.

 

[MattKing]

With negative film, you need to differentiate between over-exposure and increased exposure.

For many films, moderately increased exposure just results in a more dense but otherwise eminently printable negative.

You can go too far, and end up with highlights that are compressed, but most films give good results over a useful range.

The only downside to moving your exposure up higher in the straight portion of the curve is that it tends to increase the grain a bit. With modern films and medium or larger formats that isn't nearly as important as in the past with 35mm.

When you read Zone system materials, especially the early ones, it is important to understand that the system was created when the papers had fixed contrast. In addition, some Zone practitioners contact printed. Finally, many of the films had a much shorter straight line portion of the curve. For all those reasons, it was often much more important to use development controls to adjust the negative to the printing paper.

With modern materials it is much less important to match the negative exactly to the paper, because the techniques available to the printer are much more varied.

In particular, it is possible to have different contrast in different parts of the print. As a result, contrast adjustment is no longer used to just adjust the shadows and the highlights. Instead, it is used to adjust the appearance of each part of the print, in the amount that the photographer needs to match his or her vision.

With the exception of scenes that have either extremely low SLRs or extremely high SLRs, I never adjust development because of the SLR. I do, however, sometimes adjust development to take into account the character of the light and the reflective characteristics of my subject.

Note: I have been paying attention, so I am trying to use Subject Luminance Range (SLR) as apparently that has replaced the now outmoded Subject Brightness Range (SBR)

 

[markbarendt]

You can go too far, and end up with highlights that are compressed,

Agreed. One should endeavor to know their limits and understand why they would put up with the extra work extra exposure requires when printing.

To put a practical face on this thought for Jesse I'll use my RB67 as an example.

My artistic preference is to shoot wide open so with this camera roughly f/4. Max shutter speed on the camera is 1/400.

If I am shooting a front lit portrait using HP5 or Portra 400 on a sunny day at the beach I've got 4-stops more exposure than I need with these settings but artistically I get the DOF I want. That's a fair trade in my book. I know that with those films I can even get detail in the clouds with a bit of burning.

The really fun thing about using that setup is that f/4, 1/400, and EI 400 will work even in a backlit situation; so at those settings with those films on a sunny day I can set the camera once and not worry about setting exposure again until it starts getting dark or I go inside. No need for metering, just point, focus, and shoot.

The downside (extra work) is that when printing I have to adjust print exposure for every frame.

 

[RobC]

so at those settings with those films on a sunny day I can set the camera once and not worry about setting exposure again until it starts getting dark or I go inside. No need for metering, just point, focus, and shoot.

You should try that approach in the UK where we can have four seasons in the space of half an hour. Not least at this time of the year.

 

[Ron789]

Don't make it too complex. Zone system only makes sense when working on sheet film and developing every exposure based on subject contrast. With roll film, forget about zone system. Expose at box speed, develop according to manufacturers instructions. Black and white film can cover enormous contrast; when you measure on a medium grey part of the subject you can hardly go wrong.

 

[markbarendt]

Ron the

You should try that approach in the UK where we can have four seasons in the space of half an hour. Not least at this time of the year.

So outside in the space of that half an hour, for a portrait, are you going to end up missing important detail with f/4, 1/400th, and HP5? Could you make a nice print from a negative?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

You kind of lost me here. So let's say I measure a highlight (for example a skin tone), and I see I will lose 1 stop shadow detail, I open one stop.. so I get overexposure, so the skin tone will be over on 1 stop? If I do the normal development scheme. Is that bad or just the way things go? So when I print this negative, I just use a longer exposure time, to place the highlights correctly on the paper and lower grade to get the detail back from the negative?

How can I easily check if I underdevelop or underexpose? That might be a good starting point. ... What do you mean by this: "Err on the side of overexposure if the situation is really contrasty if you use average or high-value placement"

I'll try again: If you measure a highlight and place it and see you're going to lose a shadow value (I'm assuming you're spotmetering here) and then give a stop more exposure to keep the shadow which results in moving the highlight up as well, it is really no different than placing the shadow in the first place and then letting the highlight fall wherever it must. The result is the same and you can deal with it by either reducing development (best for sheet film) or using a lower-than-normal contrast grade when printing (best for roll film). My comment about overexposing for contrasty situations when using a highlight to determine your exposure was simply to keep you from losing that shadow value without having to meter and check. If you're going to be spotmetering shadows and comparing them to highlights, then base your exposure on the shadows! Using an averaging meter means you don't have that option, so you have to base your exposure on an average. Using highlights is similar; you don't measure the shadow, rather place a highlight and let the other values fall where they may, which will be nicely on the film curve except in the case of a high-contrast situation. Then you'll have to give more exposure to keep the shadow which results in an "overexposed" highlight that you deal with later. (FWIW, a skin tone is not really a highlight... unless you're thinking of a bright reflection from a forehead or whatever. Caucasian skin is about Zone VI - a mid tone; most other skin is darker falling in Zones IV-V.)

Doremus

 

[Jessestr]

Thanks for all the help guys. I think I finally now why I got so confused by this zone system. First of all I thought film could handle much more then zone 5 stops of range, but then I heard about the zone system, saying everything above zone 7 won't be visible anymore on your photo. (texture wise) ... So I got confused and thought, if I place a skin tone in a zone, it would come out that way on print... but yes that's not true, unless you print grade 2 and develop for it.

So I just make sure I don't underexpose and keep my highlights densities good. Let's say I can keep my highlight density's quite consistent over my roll, will all my exposure in print be around the same time?
Also, how much stops can paper handle of greys? Those 5 zones? (Zone III - VII ). (I'm wrong probably) Trying to get a feel of this. How you can get all the zones you captured on the negative in the print as much as you can?

I will now just try to capture my shadow detail and make sure that I do not underexpose and make sure I have decent highlighty density on low contrast scenes. If I still have to print at higher grades, I will look into longer developing.

Also, my main goal in photography is now aimed more towards documentary and photojournalism, where spotmetering isn't really available for quick actions... Any advice here on metering?

Edit: I got confused again by thinking about it. So, let's say I have metered a skintone and placed it in zone 6. But I had to open up two stops to keep the shadow detail. Now my skintone is in zone 8. I can just increase my enlarger exposure to get the skintone back in place? The actual "zones" on the negative aren't really zones then? More like guidelines, since I can put a zone 5 to zone 10 if I want in printing? Or how does that work?

 

[markbarendt]

The best way I've found to retain consistent easily printed tones is with an incident meter.

As to the paper, don't get too hung up there trying to do the maths. Trust that it works and adjust paper grade as needed.

 

[Jessestr]

The best way I've found to retain consistent easily printed tones is with an incident meter.

As to the paper, don't get too hung up there trying to do the maths. Trust that it works and adjust paper grade as needed.

Last shots indoors were taken with my incident meter, and those negatives are very thin. Either I'm using it wrong (which I don't do , I think) or it's badly calibrated, even though my meter says the same as my digital Sony A7 meter.

 

[RobC]

So I just make sure I don't underexpose and keep my highlights densities good. Let's say I can keep my highlight density's quite consistent over my roll, will all my exposure in print be around the same time?

Also, how much stops can paper handle of greys? Those 5 zones? (Zone III - VII ). (I'm wrong probably) Trying to get a feel of this. How you can get all the zones you captured on the negative in the print as much as you can?

yes if highlight densities are consistent then print times will be fairly consistent too.

Paper can reflect 7 stops in good lighting so in theory if your subject is 7 stop range then it should print directly to paper at G2 if your film development was normal. In less than optimal lighting paper will reflect round 5 stops of light. Test this yourself by metering a print you have with a spot meter. In poor lighting a print with a deep black and pure white may on show 2 or 3 stops range. In average lighting around 5 stops and under a spot light upto 7 stops of range.

 

[markbarendt]

yes if highlight densities are consistent then print times will be fairly consistent too.

Paper can reflect 7 stops in good lighting so in theory if your subject is 7 stop range then it should print directly to paper at G2 if your film development was normal. In less than optimal lighting paper will reflect round 5 stops of light. Test this yourself by metering a print you have with a spot meter. In poor lighting a print with a deep black and pure white may on show 2 or 3 stops range. In average lighting around 5 stops and under a spot light upto 7 stops of range.

Yes about 7-stops but 11 zones.

 

[Jessestr]

yes if highlight densities are consistent then print times will be fairly consistent too.

Paper can reflect 7 stops in good lighting so in theory if your subject is 7 stop range then it should print directly to paper at G2 if your film development was normal. In less than optimal lighting paper will reflect round 5 stops of light. Test this yourself by metering a print you have with a spot meter. In poor lighting a print with a deep black and pure white may on show 2 or 3 stops range. In average lighting around 5 stops and under a spot light upto 7 stops of range.

Yes about 7-stops but 11 zones.

Mhm, I've seen you post it earlier that 1 EV stop is not equal to a zone? How is that so?
I always read this everywhere: "a change of one EV is equal to a change of one zone.". So when you meter an EV of 7 (Now Zone 5) and you put that part in Zone 3 ... That would be going to EV 9 (underexposing two stops). How can you know where to put the shadows then if EV is not equal to a zone.

 

[RobC]

instead of using EV you just say 1 zone change is a change of 0.7 stops. So closing down two zones would be 0.7 x 2 = 1 1/2 stops. This when you are using ISO speed and manufacturers recommended dev.

 

[Jessestr]

instead of using EV you just say 1 zone change is a change of 0.7 stops. So closing down two zones would be 0.7 x 2 = 1 1/2 stops. This when you are using ISO speed and manufacturers recommended dev.

Then, how does that work? So when you get to known your effective film speed with your developer it changes to 1 stop = 1 zone? And why is it 0.7 in my case? I'd like to know the theory behind it.

Edit: And what's the point of putting something in an actual zone (like a skintone) if you then might have to overexpose anyways, to keep a shadow detail... And in the print the zone you metered on, got changed.. so it isn't the same zone anymore...

So if the effective speed from the film is known. And you place something in zone 3, it's always going to be the lowest textured density available on the film?