"Fine Art" style of exposure

Pandysloo said:

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a "toe?"

Click to expand...

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

The area where the low end of the curve turns upward, by the #1, is the toe; this is the dark end of the photo. At the top of the curve where it flattens, about 3.5-4, is the shoulder; the highlight end of the scale.

Compare that to Kodak TXP. Page 14.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

TXP has a much longer toe and little if any shoulder. This is called an upswept curve.

The shape of the curve changes how the photo prints. Each film has a unique curve and different developers and other changes can also change the shape of the curve as can time and other changes.

(One is not "better" than the other, they are simply different tools. Both of these films are truly special and beloved by many.)

markbarendt said:

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

The area where the low end of the curve turns upward, by the #1, is the toe; this is the dark end of the photo. At the top of the curve where it flattens, about 3.5-4, is the shoulder; the highlight end of the scale.

Compare that to Kodak TXP. Page 14.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

TXP has a much longer toe and little if any shoulder. This is called an upswept curve.

The shape of the curve changes how the photo prints. Each film has a unique curve and different developers and other changes can also change the shape of the curve as can time and other changes.

(One is not "better" than the other, they are simply different tools. Both of these films are truly special and beloved by many.)

Click to expand...

Pandysloo,

The actual real world curve is a result of the combination of exposure and developing, and changing these curves is something accomplished photographers do all the time. You are changing the curve of your film when you under expose it. The charts are very good ways to compare the exposure performance of one emulsion to another. A place to start. Pick one emulsion and learn how it performs under many combinations of exposure and developing. Even if you aren't developing your own film yet you can tell them to pull it or push it one or more stops. Once that is mastered you will be amazed how much you can do with just that one film.

JBrunner said:

Pandysloo,

The actual real world curve is a result of the combination of exposure and developing, and changing these curves is something accomplished photographers do all the time. You are changing the curve of your film when you under expose it. The charts are very good ways to compare the exposure performance of one emulsion to another. A place to start. Pick one emulsion and learn how it performs under many combinations of exposure and developing. Once that is done you will be amazed how much you can do with just that one film.

Click to expand...

Which is pretty much what I was leading to in post 46.

JBrunner said:

Pandysloo,

The actual real world curve is a result of the combination of exposure and developing, and changing these curves is something accomplished photographers do all the time. You are changing the curve of your film when you under expose it. The charts are very good ways to compare the exposure performance of one emulsion to another. A place to start. Pick one emulsion and learn how it performs under many combinations of exposure and developing. Once that is done you will be amazed how much you can do with just that one film.

Click to expand...

I have to say that's one thing I've never agreed on (the bit about it being a good representation) I find them all very confusing and I know others see them so simply but my brain and charts never seem to be friends. All the cannon lenses have a chart too but I don't understand those either, nor these ones, to me a better example would be some kind of standardized grey scale "zone system" style from light to dark, it's visual and obvious to anyone, oh this ones grey is better here compared to this where it becomes black sooner in this one.




~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Do NOT get wrapped up in all that stuff (unless you want to.) Before you know it, you're photography will be a science project. You can easily start down that path but it's a very slippery slope. The next thing you know, you will spend all your time evaluating the characteristic curves of film, reading up on densitometry, testing film and paper combinations, etc, etc.

To start, just learn how to expose an average negative. Prolly over expose 1/2 to 1/3 of a stop and develop normally. If your highlights (where you want detail) are getting blown out, reduce your development time in 10% increments.

Then, you can take that negative and post process (photoshop or in the darkroom) until your hearts content; make multiple versions, using different paper types, printing methods, etc. I don't recommend trying to get a negative to match a certain paper and printing style. Today you may want to Lith print the negative and five years from now, you may want to make a digital negative from your original and make a Kallitype print.

The key is to get as much information in your negative TODAY.

markbarendt said:

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

The area where the low end of the curve turns upward, by the #1, is the toe; this is the dark end of the photo. At the top of the curve where it flattens, about 3.5-4, is the shoulder; the highlight end of the scale.

Compare that to Kodak TXP. Page 14.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

TXP has a much longer toe and little if any shoulder. This is called an upswept curve.

The shape of the curve changes how the photo prints. Each film has a unique curve and different developers and other changes can also change the shape of the curve as can time and other changes.

(One is not "better" than the other, they are simply different tools. Both of these films are truly special and beloved by many.)

Click to expand...

pawlowski6132 said:

Do NOT get wrapped up in all that stuff (unless you want to.) Before you know it, you're photography will be a science project. You can easily start down that path but it's a very slippery slope. The next thing you know, you will spend all your time evaluating the characteristic curves of film, reading up on densitometry, testing film and paper combinations, etc, etc.

To start, just learn how to expose an average negative. Prolly over expose 1/2 to 1/3 of a stop and develop normally. If your highlights (where you want detail) are getting blown out, reduce your development time in 10% increments.

Then, you can take that negative and post process (photoshop or in the darkroom) until your hearts content; make multiple versions, using different paper types, printing methods, etc. I don't recommend trying to get a negative to match a certain paper and printing style. Today you may want to Lith print the negative and five years from now, you may want to make a digital negative from your original and make a Kallitype print.

The key is to get as much information in your negative TODAY.

Click to expand...

Extra exposure isn't a magic bullet, its just one way to do things.

If exposure is accurate, there is no real need and minimizing exposure has its pluses. Faster shutter speed, smaller aperture, minimizing grain; all good things are they not?

markbarendt said:

See page 4, the "characteristic curve" for FP4 is low and right. The shape of this curve is called an "S" shape.

Click to expand...

Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.

markbarendt said:

Extra exposure isn't a magic bullet, its just one way to do things.

If exposure is accurate, there is no real need and minimizing exposure has its pluses. Faster shutter speed, smaller aperture, minimizing grain; all good things are they not?

Click to expand...

there is no absolute accurate exposure. The best exposure is the one that gives you what you want in the negative. I would trade having all the details I can get in a negative for slower shutter speed and larger apertures all day. I think most people would. Not sure what grain size has to do with anything.

Pandysloo said:

Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.

Click to expand...

You would control the highlights in the development process.

Pandysloo said:

Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.

Click to expand...

If your coming from video you are worrying about the highlights too much. Compared to video its almost impossible blow the highlights on film.

JBrunner said:

If your coming from video you are worrying about the highlights too much. Compared to video its almost impossible blow the highlights on film.

Click to expand...

Slide film excepted, of course.

Pandysloo said:

Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.

Click to expand...

Correct, on the toe and shoulder it does not follow a straight logarithmic line.

Negative films are famous for their ability to hold highlight detail, you have little to worry about when compared to video.

MattKing said:

Slide film excepted, of course.

Click to expand...

Quite right, an entirely different animal.

Also, in regard to negative film there is no "clipping". If something blows it does so in a much more graduated and usually pleasing fashion than the hard cut off offered by electronics.

pawlowski6132 said:

there is no absolute accurate exposure. The best exposure is the one that gives you what you want in the negative. I would trade having all the details I can get in a negative for slower shutter speed and larger apertures all day. I think most people would. Not sure what grain size has to do with anything.

Click to expand...

Graininess increases with either more exposure or more development.

I do agree that a negative that "gives you what you want" is the best. This was part and parcel of Ansel Adams' teachings, the zone system was designed to make printing easier and improve quality.

An important part of that system is pegging the shadow point to a very specific point on the film curve, essentially as low as possible where you can still get the detail needed.

Adams wasn't looking for a buffer, he had fully tested and found his own EI's. He knew exactly how to meter for and get what he wanted. This minimum exposure method is also taught, with caveats, by Dunn & Wakefield in "Exposure Manual".

I do also agree that there is no one best exposure method or placement regime that suits everybody. Each of us need to figure out what works best for ourselves.

My aversion to simply adding extra exposure as a buffer is purely practical.

My metering practices are well practiced, when I miss its normally a doozy, like thinking I'm shooting Delta 400 at 3200 and having fP4 in the camera, 1-2 stops of buffer isn't going to fix the shadow detail there.

I also don't think most people will give up speed for extra shadow detail. Personally I like photographing people, boats, and other non-fixed stuff in low light, or in motion, and on MF and LF film. My subject matter and smaller relative apertures that come with the larger formats pose a time problem for me and many others. Even where I can hold the camera still with a tripod my subjects are still prone to wiggle. I'm not real happy when shutter speeds get real long.

Given my situation, I won't give up any shutter speed just to have a little extra shadow detail I'm not planning to use.

Just remember, exposing less (a stop or two, or three) will provide better highlight separation and leave shadows either black or very, very underexposed. That is what you want on pictures like you posted. Of course, with underexposure, development must increase in order to get what you want. What you DO NOT WANT is to give normal exposure and then cook the film in the developer. You will then achieve a nighmare of density and distress. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

Just remember, exposing less (a stop or two, or three) will provide better highlight separation and leave shadows either black or very, very underexposed. That is what you want on pictures like you posted. Of course, with underexposure, development must increase in order to get what you want. What you DO NOT WANT is to give normal exposure and then cook the film in the developer. You will then achieve a nighmare of density and distress. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Less than what?

If the OP is picking, then placing, his or her chosen shadow point specifically for the print expected, as any zone system adherent might, then the OP is correctly exposing. That is not to say that that placement choice is even remotely close to the placement choice we might make.

Underexposure only "happens" when shadow detail wanted isn't caught.

Following on that line of thought, adjusting contrast isn't indicated just because a lower exposure level is chosen. Raising film contrast won't necessarily help the OP print the delicate highlights wanted. Measuring or judging SBR is a better way to make that choice.