Film tonal/dynamic range

[shutterboy]

First of all, I am trying to relate my digital shooting knowledge to understand film behaviour. So my question might sound a bit strange. I shoot with a Canon 1Ds Mark III and use a Sekonic L-758DR light meter. Sekonic has a feature of building a profile for the camera which it is measuring for looking at shots of a Macbeth (like) colour chart at different exposures (-3,-2,....,+2,+3) and figuring out the point at which details are lost. Once such profile is created, on subsequent measurements it indicates if the total "range" is outside the capabilities of the camera.

Now for film, I know that it captures much more dynamic range than a digital sensor, but is there a way to figure out how much of wiggle room I have? I guess, I am probably asking, how can I profile a film (say Portra 400) with a L-758DR. I did find a similar question at http://www.largeformatphotography.i...lilng-film-with-the-Sekonic-L-758-light-meter but I did not quite understand the answer.

Could someone please explain this to me?

Thanks

 

[Xmas]

Without a step wedge all you can do is shoot the same sceane with static lighting over a large number of stops/shutter speeds.

Having metered shadows and highlights first.

Clear film (or fog) to just detectable silver is zone 1.

The highlight the film just captures is more subjective but you should be able to derive an approximate zone for highlights.

Trix and HP5+ both high dynamic range PanF less so. Note I still use PanF.

The dynamic range is also dependent on the developer to a smaller degree as is the base fog level.

 

[MartinP]

May I enquire what you think you will gain from your exercise and why do you think it is necessary for your use of film?

 

[Bill Burk]

I started with a simple premise...

The Zone System, Normal.

Zones I through IX encompass 8 stops of range.

So I set my clipping points at those marks instead of the stock 7 2/3 stops.

I made a sticker that helps visualize which clipping points correspond to which Zones, when in Shutter Speed priority mode.

http://beefalobill.com/images/zone.pdf

 

[Bill Burk]

So to clarify, 8 stops is a reasonable base for clipping points with black and white negative film - based on the "fact" that there is so much available information about how to calibrate black and white film to 8 stops... if you understand Zone System calibration techniques. So many people are familiar with how to calibrate for Zone System that you can get a lot of help. It's well understood and easy to get your head around.

Color negative, like Kodak Portra 400 would require a different set of clipping points. I "think" that 7 2/3 stop is a good starting point. Negative film, in general, does not clip highlights - that's where you have your latitude. So I think the default is suited for that. But if I were shooting color slide film, I would seriously consider calibrating because slide film doesn't have as much latitude, and you really want to get exposure correct for slides.

 

[markbarendt]

The technical problem with getting a profile directly into your fancy meter is that to profile a film using Sekonic's system you have to use a scanner, so in essence you are profiling the scanning system's sensor as much as the film. This also seems to be about nailing the "perfect" exposure in camera.

If that's your normal process it should work fine for you. When/if you change scanners though you'll need to recalibrate.

I'll assume though that your target is a print from an enlarger in a darkroom.

First thing to understand about metering for negative film is that finding the perfect answer is fully dependent on your choices in shooting style, subject matter, tools, and artistic preferences for the print.

For example, Bill's preferences and mine are different. I don't think Bill's f64 membership has been revoked (at least not yet, but I've seen hints that he's worried ) and by holding that membership it means Bill still cares about detail in the shadows and highlights. On the other hand I have more of a pictorial, even soft focus sensibility, I'm generally only looking for hints of detail in the highs and lows to support the main subject in the middle.

For Bill metering the whole composition, the whole range he wants to print, is important because it's probably all going to be sharp.

For me metering the background is typically meaningless because the background is going to be blurred and my blurring turns what Bill get as sharp deep blacks and sharp brilliant whites into a bunch of messy shades-of-gray regardless of how either of us meters.

The practical difference is that I can be less fussy about nailing perfect camera exposure than Bill, even with the same film, because the range of detail I want to print from the scene is typically narrower.

Second thing to understand about negative film, shadow detail is the hard limit.

I like to think of the low exposure limit as the place I can get my "first excellent print". For me with Portra 400 this about EI 800 but I prefer shooting it at EI 400 to build in a safety factor and reduce grain. Here you simply need to experiment to see how low you can go without screwing up the print.

Third thing to understand about negative films is that a)only the important detail range matters, b)the high limit is typically really high, and c)that adjusting the enlarger exposure allows you to adjust for variances in camera exposure. (I put these all as one point because they are interdependent and as a group they are why film exposure is so flexible.)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf on page 5 the straight line portion of the curve shows roughly a 10 f-stop range (3-stops per log unit) and no hint of shouldering.

What that means for me is that within my subject matter preferences, which typically has a 5-6 stop important detail range, if I shoot Portra 400 at 800 I will have 4-5 stops of extra highlight detail on the negative that I probably won't use in the print. (IME it's actually even more than that and if I do decide I want that detail I just need to burn it in.)

That extra "dynamic range", to use your lingo, means that I could shoot the same scene/shot at EI 800, EI 400 or EI 25 or anywhere in between, and then by just adjusting enlarger exposure, I could make essentially equal print copies from any of any of those negatives and you would be hard pressed to tell which print came from which negative. This demonstrates film's "latitude".

Film's latitude is why disposable cameras, Holgas, and many other simple cameras can produce good results. I love the simplicity of throwing Portra 800 in my Holga and shooting all day without any worry about setting exposure or if I got it. Just set the focus distance, shoot, advance the film, and I know I got it.

There are lots of creative ways to use this. When using my RB67 I can surely get a perfect exposure for Portra 400 at EI 400 but I'll still use the EI float, the latitude. Floating the EI gives me more creative control over DOF and motion blur. For example I'm happy as a clam shooting Portra 400 at EI 25, or even EI 12, if I want to use an f4 aperture when it's sunny 16 out or I want to blur a waterfall.

 

[Bill Burk]

markbarendt,

It was fun to read your post because I think you represented my approach and needs accurately...

While latitude allows overexposure to a greater extent and underexposure to a lesser extent... That's variation in the exposure placement. The subject range of brightness (in areas that are important for the shot) gives best color when you hold it to a certain limited range.

I've been reading some interesting old booklets since my sister came to visit. The Camera, Pocket Photo Guide - interesting because it covers everything there was to know about photography in 1942... in 128 tiny pages...

It recommends for Kodacolor... "the maximum exposure variation which will produce properly colored results should not exceed two diaphragm stops."

Lots of early color photography was supplemented with flash or great pains were taken to adjust lighting to keep the brightness range in check. And some (many?) people still do that.

I think my simple approach to setting clipping points in the Sekonic meter for black and white would work for color too. I don't think you have to go wild with calibration and scanning to get effective points.

A densitometer could be used to read the negatives that you shoot in a carefully conducted test. Example, from the spec sheet there is a density target for the bright forehead of a person... You could take close-up portraits of a subject, adjust the exposure in third-stops if your camera allows (or just do the best you can in full stops)... Then put the negative on a densitometer and read the densities... That number of third-stops from the metered point that gave you the right density on the negative (for your subject's forehead) can become the "inner-upper" clipping point. You would do a similar experiment for shadows. Since it was derived by an experiment, I believe the result would be as valid as a shot of the "official Sekonic exposure target".

 

[MartinP]

May I enquire what you think you will gain from your exercise and why do you think it is necessary for your use of film?

Probably my question is stupid, and certainly badly phrased. Just to confirm that the OP understands that exposed film does not have hard, neat points at which it begins and ends recording printable detail. Film isn't like a straight-line digital sensor, so using a meter with a digital-exposure aid built in isn't so useful surely?

Pegging exposure to some value for a particular piece of subject-surface is fairly standard, while specifically considering the rest of the tones in the scene might tend towards the Zone idea, but neither are based on values for totally dark black and totally blown white - as used for limits in the digital-exposure aid, in the meter.

 

[markbarendt]

Lots of early color photography was supplemented with flash or great pains were taken to adjust lighting to keep the brightness range in check. And some (many?) people still do that.

I think my simple approach to setting clipping points in the Sekonic meter for black and white would work for color too. I don't think you have to go wild with calibration and scanning to get effective points.

Glad you enjoyed.

Flash is an incredibly useful tool still and yet as is adjusting lighting. Helps avoid bunches of burn and dodge.

 

[Nuff]

First of all, I am trying to relate my digital shooting knowledge to understand film behaviour. So my question might sound a bit strange. I shoot with a Canon 1Ds Mark III and use a Sekonic L-758DR light meter. Sekonic has a feature of building a profile for the camera which it is measuring for looking at shots of a Macbeth (like) colour chart at different exposures (-3,-2,....,+2,+3) and figuring out the point at which details are lost. Once such profile is created, on subsequent measurements it indicates if the total "range" is outside the capabilities of the camera.

Now for film, I know that it captures much more dynamic range than a digital sensor, but is there a way to figure out how much of wiggle room I have? I guess, I am probably asking, how can I profile a film (say Portra 400) with a L-758DR. I did find a similar question at http://www.largeformatphotography.i...lilng-film-with-the-Sekonic-L-758-light-meter but I did not quite understand the answer.

Could someone please explain this to me?

Thanks

I have the same meter and the whole exercise is pointless, I call it "nerdgasim" and it's very prevalent on digital forums. The time to do it can be much better invested. I didn't even bother doing it with my DSLR.

Learn the zone system and use it accordingly. -3 is black, +3 is white. That's the simplest way to look at it. Don't go below -3 or you will not have detail, everything that will overexpose will be ok. For that reason I shoot Portra 400 and Pro400H at EI200.

I shoot meter the same with slide film, except that I know that if it's +3, it will be white and above that there will be no detail.

Stick to the KISS principle and have fun instead of spending lots of time doing 1000s of photos which will be also affected by your scanners built in auto adjustments etc...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

"tilting at windmills" as mentioned by the LFP OP would be the best description. But then he also sounds like a beginner walking into a fog. I don't recommend beginners launch into the fray with an L758D until they have the basic principals of exposure in their head, and for LF, that would mean the Zone System. It is a significant and very accurate piece of equipment but it really is only as good as the person using it.

Now, the Canon 1Ds Mark III is one of the most advanced digital cameras of them all (there are others in the same league, but this does not interest me) and it does not need, nor will you benefit from, profiling — itself widely discredited for the imprecision it introduces into photography as a supposed 'benchmark'. It has always been frowned upon as geeky. Neither camera nor computer, where images will be viewed, will be 100% like-for-like no matter how much you strive for. Nor is profiling particularly useful for film. Why is Sekonic pushing it? Or, why are other manufacturers not following suit? Do you want to be tied to a digital camera in turn tethered to a computer instead of learning and actively practising the foundation principles of exposure of film? What a digital camera tells you doesn't necessarily hold true for exposures on film (one factor being that digital sensors do have more dynamic range than film). Same applies to a Sekonic. The meter's response is not gospel (certainly not to me for any exposure). Once you know the dynamic range of a specific film and how it responds in different situations, whatever profiling says will at best be arbitrary and at worst, misleading. The L758D and DR are very, very advanced meters and certain custom functions and combinations will introduce considerable ambiguity into readings even after the number crunching of profiling, be they spot, incident or a combinatioin of those. Do you understand additive vs subtractive compensation? Last, middle or first reading averaging? Mean average of weighted average metering? This would be critical on the list of things to actively observe and learn (whether using spot or incident) with film, not digital. It's probably best to leave this profiling — more specific for those with entrenched computer-camera displacement to a forum where the geeks will have a field day (along with the Bokey Blues Blokes). Pick up a LF camera, knuckle down with the Zone System and let rip for the L758D. And throw the Canon away.

 

[Bill Burk]

I used to dislike the OM-4 spot shadow and spot highlight features since the adjustments were fixed in firmware, so the Sekonic's adjustability makes me happier that I can dial in what I believe shadows and highlights should be.

It really only takes a few minutes to change the setup from a standard seven-and-two-thirds stops to eight stops. And that is all it takes to align the meter exactly to Zone System.

Sure, seven and two-thirds is close. "Spot-shadow" of the OM-4 is close. But the Sekonic lets you change the clipping points. You don't have to run a full profile to do that.

If you know the boundaries of great color, then those boundaries would make sensible clipping points. I don't think it's "two diaphragm stops" as it was in 1942, but whatever the clipping points are, it really only takes a few minutes to set them. Then, with realistic clipping points, you might scan the scene with spotmeter readings and be able to decide whether you want to modify the light. You don't have to geek out to get some practical information from the meter.

 

[Xmas]

May I enquire what you think you will gain from your exercise and why do you think it is necessary for your use of film?

Suggest you read 1st sentence of OP?

 

[MartinP]

The OP stated what he was trying to do, but not what he hoped to gain by this. As the "what" referred to a metering application for digital cameras I think my question is reasonable. In my mind the "what" suggested a misunderstanding coupled with the desire to use a bit of kit because one has it. Starting from the other end, the problem to be solved, might have been a clearer starting point?

 

[shutterboy]

Thank you everyone so much who had taken the time out to explain to me. I will try to answer a few questions raised:

May I enquire what you think you will gain from your exercise and why do you think it is necessary for your use of film?

You might agree that it is always simple to understand a new concept if some prior knowledge/experience is useful in kickstarting the understanding process. All I was trying to do is find out at what point of time, I will have to bother about losing highlights. Let's say a very high contrast image, like a beach with stones at sunset is being shot. When I am shooting digital, I will use an appropriate graduated neutral density filter to pull down the exposure of the sky within the "dynamic range" of the camera. I now understand, that I probably have to bother much less for film because of its latitude. But I did not know that when I asked the question and was trying to understand how I could get such a shot done on film. Does that answer your question?

But if I were shooting color slide film, I would seriously consider calibrating because slide film doesn't have as much latitude, and you really want to get exposure correct for slides.

I am not shooting slides yet. Primarily because they are too costly for a student budget. But I do plan to shoot slides at some point of time. So, knowing the limitation of slides vs negatives is useful. So, other than a trial and error, is there a way to determine the latitude (if I may use that term) of slides?

This also seems to be about nailing the "perfect" exposure in camera.

I'll assume though that your target is a print from an enlarger in a darkroom.

You got this right. I was indeed aiming to get the right exposure in camera, since I do not have a darkroom and (I believe) limited to scanning. I wish I can set up a colour darkroom some day.

For me metering the background is typically meaningless because the background is going to be blurred and my blurring turns what Bill get as sharp deep blacks and sharp brilliant whites into a bunch of messy shades-of-gray regardless of how either of us meters.

I am probably going to ask another stupid question. Please don't yell at me if it is too stupid. Just ignore it. If, as you say, you are not "that" interested in background, if you actually manage to "blow out" (again, I now understand this is very unlikely, but my digital experience kicks in here) parts of the background, will it not look very weird with white patches with almost no detail? I realise, in a darkroom you will probably be able to get back detail with burning, but again, you *need* something to be recorded on the negative, right?

To cite an experience, I shot a photo of my sister having fallen asleep on the table while reading (on a FP4+ at box speed, ID-11 at manufacturer recommended temp, concentration, etc). The table lamp was glowing at 12 'o clock. Her face was in the shadow. I printed that one in a darkroom. I was able to burn detail of her face, but even after dodging a lot, the lamp completely went white and the bulb was not visible. I was trying to understand, if there is anything I can do to get a little bit of that bulb in the photo.

Second thing to understand about negative film, shadow detail is the hard limit.

I got it this time. Thanks so much for explaining.

I have the same meter and the whole exercise is pointless, I call it "nerdgasim" and it's very prevalent on digital forums. The time to do it can be much better invested. I didn't even bother doing it with my DSLR.

Normally, I would have just said "nuff said" and move on to the next most interesting thing . But I would like to respectfully disagree a bit to your statement. I believe in understanding both the strengths and weaknesses of a process before calling it "nerdgasim" which is precisely the reason for this question. But as others have taken the time to explain, I now more logically understand why my proposed exercise has little value. Please do not interpret this as I am saying you did not do your due diligence. I am sure you have. All I was trying to do is understand how this thing works.

"tilting at windmills" as mentioned by the LFP OP would be the best description. But then he also sounds like a beginner walking into a fog. I don't recommend beginners launch into the fray with an L758D until they have the basic principals of exposure in their head, and for LF, that would mean the Zone System. It is a significant and very accurate piece of equipment but it really is only as good as the person using it.

First of all, I would like to thank you for answering. You have answered almost all my questions, most of which turned out to be very stupid once things have been explained to me. And you have never shown any shortage of enthusiasm or patience in explaining. I thank you for that. Now to get back to the point, you have got it right. I am indeed a beginner in film photography. However, I almost think that I know a bit of how the meter works. But yes, I do agree, that L-758DR is probably the most advanced meter in the market but only as good as the user. You nailed it there.

Now, the Canon 1Ds Mark III is one of the most advanced digital cameras of them all (there are others in the same league, but this does not interest me) and it does not need, nor will you benefit from, profiling — itself widely discredited for the imprecision it introduces into photography as a supposed 'benchmark'.

I will not argue about how good or bad that particular Canon camera is because that is not the point. But that is definitely not a benchmark in the film world. On second thoughts, I think that very information about what camera I use is redundant and not required. Just mentioning the meter I use should have been enough to explain the context of the question. I would also respectfully disagree about the camera not benefiting from a hand held meter. I think I have benefitted from using the meter for mixed light situations, backlit scenes, insanely high contrast scenes, studio photography and number of places. It had allowed me not to guess the settings and get it right the first time with that very camera. But again, that is irrelevant for this forum (or I think so).

Do you want to be tied to a digital camera in turn tethered to a computer instead of learning and actively practising the foundation principles of exposure of film? What a digital camera tells you doesn't necessarily hold true for exposures on film (one factor being that digital sensors do have more dynamic range than film).

Not at all. I want to keep my digital skills for very specific scenarios (burst shooting anyone) and want to use film. That is the reason, I bug so many people with my utterly stupid questions. But people like yourself have been very nice to enable me and not feel like a prized idiot.

Do you understand additive vs subtractive compensation? Last, middle or first reading averaging? Mean average of weighted average metering? This would be critical on the list of things to actively observe and learn (whether using spot or incident) with film, not digital.

I think I know at least conceptually about what the different types of compensation are and the different metering mode. Actually, I am a computer science graduate student and love to crunch numbers. I have done some little work on MagicLantern (an open source firmware for Canon cameras) and know a bit about metering. I understand film and digital works differently. I was just trying to create the knowledge "delta" vs flushing everything digital down the drain and start from scratch. But I think starting from scratch has its own appeal as well. But you are inviting more trouble for yourself. I will ask more stupid questions and you will have to answer them. If you are okay with that, be my guest.

Pick up a LF camera, knuckle down with the Zone System and let rip for the L758D. And throw the Canon away.

I wish I had the money for buying a good LF camera and also feeding it. One day, I promise.

I used to dislike the OM-4 spot shadow and spot highlight features since the adjustments were fixed in firmware, so the Sekonic's adjustability makes me happier that I can dial in what I believe shadows and highlights should be.

It really only takes a few minutes to change the setup from a standard seven-and-two-thirds stops to eight stops. And that is all it takes to align the meter exactly to Zone System.

Sure, seven and two-thirds is close. "Spot-shadow" of the OM-4 is close. But the Sekonic lets you change the clipping points. You don't have to run a full profile to do that.

If you know the boundaries of great color, then those boundaries would make sensible clipping points. I don't think it's "two diaphragm stops" as it was in 1942, but whatever the clipping points are, it really only takes a few minutes to set them. Then, with realistic clipping points, you might scan the scene with spotmeter readings and be able to decide whether you want to modify the light. You don't have to geek out to get some practical information from the meter.

Thank you so much for your answer. This makes a lot of sense.

 

[Nuff]

It's cool, I didn't mean offence and none taken. But since couple of people already explained it in detail why, I didn't see the need to repeat what has been said.

But yes, forget about digital and starting from scratch is better. Less hoops to jump through and the process is simplified.

 

[Xmas]

Simplistically you only need to meter for the shadows, yes I have a spot meter and OM4s but normally just close up to and point a antique Weston at a shadow or representative shadow for a zone1 cause the Weston has a zone1 reference datum...

Simplifying things is good.

Then you need to know the films response curve and the presentation method.

And the lens character!

The mono films have different dynamic range, even at the same ISO and a different toe and shoulder response.

To a degree you can change the films dynamic range eg the star spectra people had difficulty with weak lines - google POTA.

The toe allows some underexposure recovery.

The shoulder some over exposure.

If you use a single coated lens on your DSLR the inherent flare reduces the dynamic range at the sensor. If the sceane is high dynamic range the reduction is greater.

The colours will be 'pastellised' as well.

The same is true with film but in addition the flare flashes into the shadows increasing the effective ISO! It is a normal technique to preflash film...

So on bright days I meter zone1, use a single coated lens use the highest dynamic range film, with soft toe, a low contrast developer and I still expect to need a split grade print with burn and dodge. The street shots are wide dynamic range.

Slide film is more like digital you need to get the highlights within a third of a stop. Spot meter or incident on girls nose.

Donno if any of the old Canon single coated lenses will adopt to your DSLR, sorry.

The single coated lenses will show bleed and highlight artifice but that makes it look like a real photo.

 

[markbarendt]

I am probably going to ask another stupid question. Please don't yell at me if it is too stupid. Just ignore it. If, as you say, you are not "that" interested in background, if you actually manage to "blow out" (again, I now understand this is very unlikely, but my digital experience kicks in here) parts of the background, will it not look very weird with white patches with almost no detail? I realise, in a darkroom you will probably be able to get back detail with burning, but again, you *need* something to be recorded on the negative, right?

To cite an experience, I shot a photo of my sister having fallen asleep on the table while reading (on a FP4+ at box speed, ID-11 at manufacturer recommended temp, concentration, etc). The table lamp was glowing at 12 'o clock. Her face was in the shadow. I printed that one in a darkroom. I was able to burn detail of her face, but even after dodging a lot, the lamp completely went white and the bulb was not visible. I was trying to understand, if there is anything I can do to get a little bit of that bulb in the photo.

I think you may be thinking about burn and dodge backwards, burn darkens (would provide more detail in the light bulb), dodge lightens (makes a face in the shadows brighter).

You may be running into the limits of the scanner rather than the limits of the film.

A while back my daughter and I went to Chaco canyon to enjoy a full solar eclipse. In this particular case I was interested in getting both foreground and back ground sharp. I wanted to be able to see the moon sharply defined against the sun as well as having some detail in the walls of the ruins and people's clothing.

Obviously took pictures pointed straight at the sun, with people and ruins in the foreground in shadow. The difference between a normal camera exposure setting for getting detail of the eclipse and a normal camera exposure setting for the people/ruins was in the neighborhood of 12-15 stops as I remember.

I have several frames from that outing that succeeded in that task technically. Printable detail on the negative from people in shade all the way to being able to see a flare on the sun, all in a single negative frame. And yes it has been hard as hell to make a decent looking print of this because of the subjects being so far apart. It was on Portra 400 as I remember.

The point here is that the density of the negative image of the sun is probably higher than the density of the negative image of your light bulb, yet it's still printable. It's is entirely possible that the info is there on your negative and your scanning system just can't see it. You simply may have reached a clipping point on the scanner and as I said above Sekonic's system will help you define that.

 

[Alan Johnson]

To cite an experience, I shot a photo of my sister having fallen asleep on the table while reading (on a FP4+ at box speed, ID-11 at manufacturer recommended temp, concentration, etc). The table lamp was glowing at 12 'o clock. Her face was in the shadow. I printed that one in a darkroom. I was able to burn detail of her face, but even after dodging a lot, the lamp completely went white and the bulb was not visible. I was trying to understand, if there is anything I can do to get a little bit of that bulb in the photo.

The "dynamic range" can be extended by using a special developer.
PMK Pyro or Pyrocat do this.Still greater range is the subject of experiment,it may be difficult to print:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[shutterboy]

I think you may be thinking about burn and dodge backwards, burn darkens (would provide more detail in the light bulb), dodge lightens (makes a face in the shadows brighter).

Holy smokes. I indeed mentioned it wrong. Although I know what a burn and dodge is, somehow 1 'o clock in the night reversed everything.

You may be running into the limits of the scanner rather than the limits of the film.

For my example, I actually printed it in the darkroom.

The point here is that the density of the negative image of the sun is probably higher than the density of the negative image of your light bulb, yet it's still printable. It's is entirely possible that the info is there on your negative and your scanning system just can't see it. You simply may have reached a clipping point on the scanner and as I said above Sekonic's system will help you define that.

You did do it, which proves it can be done. But of course, I am in no way half as skilled as you are, so there is a very very very good chance that I screwed up.

 

[markbarendt]

You did do it, which proves it can be done. But of course, I am in no way half as skilled as you are, so there is a very very very good chance that I screwed up.

It's not that you messed up, maybe just didn't go far enough to see it.

The foreground enlarger exposure on the eclipse shot was 5-6 seconds, the sun was in the 1-2 minute range as I remember. While technically doable the result is very odd looking. The only point that I was really making was that the high limit is higher than most people imagine not that that much contrast between subjects in a common scene is practical.

Also FP4 has a very good latitude range but IME it is dwarfed by Portra 400's or TMax 400's, XP2's, there are limits.