flat atmosphere4 + flat photos?

[fralexis]

Yesterday I took out my monorail and shot several photos. As is frequent for upstate NY we had very overcast skies. The resulting negatives were thin and the prints had to be printed with a grade 4 filter to get any contrast, but of course lost some definition. Is it just a fact of life that dreary days are going to result in muddy photos?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

No. Contrast of the scene you photograph is important to note when you expose your film, so that you know how to process your film to get normal contrast.

When the light is flat, you can get away with less exposure (higher film speed), but then you have to develop the film longer than normal in order to get normal contrast.
This is a very basic function in understanding the relationship between what kind of light you're shooting in and what your final print is going to look like.
Next time you are out in such kind of weather, pay particular attention to how you meter. Bracket a few sheets, say -2, -1, 0, or so. Develop normal. See where you like your shadows best.
Next shoot a couple sheets at the speed you like, and now focus on the rest of the tone scale. If you don't have enough contrast for normal print, say Grade 2 or Grade 3, develop the film longer. Try again. Repeat until you're happy.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's also useful to learn how to make the most of flat lighting, you can get mazing images. Can't get much flatter than fog, or sea mist.

Cornwall in the fog.

Ian

 

[fralexis]

Thomas, let me clarify for myself your instructions. In the first case, I should take perhaps three shots, perhaps one at box speed of, for example, 400, then one at 800 and one at 1600. Then I develop all three as normal, that is box speed for all three and see which shadow detail is most pleasing. Correct?

Then, in the second instruction I could shoot a few sheets at whatever speed looked best in the first experiment and develop them at various development times to see which looks best. Is that right?

Thanks for the answers!

Alexis

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, let me clarify for myself your instructions. In the first case, I should take perhaps three shots, perhaps one at box speed of, for example, 400, then one at 800 and one at 1600. Then I develop all three as normal, that is box speed for all three and see which shadow detail is most pleasing. Correct?

Then, in the second instruction I could shoot a few sheets at whatever speed looked best in the first experiment and develop them at various development times to see which looks best. Is that right?

Thanks for the answers!

Alexis

Exactly correct.

And please bear in mind that whatever is 'best' is entirely up to you! But you owe it to yourself to do this form of experimentation to get what you want out of your materials. It takes a lot of guess work out of the process, and I find it gives me more negatives that I can successfully print, just the way I like them.

For example, in Ian's shot above, he could have given less exposure to achieve deeper shadows, and then developed longer to achieve similar highlights. That would have created a different mood in the photograph however, and that may or may not be what you are after.
Picture in your mind what you want your prints to look like, and then do what you can to achieve that in the darkroom. Playing with film exposure and film development is a major piece of the puzzle that can help you get to a really good spot to start interpreting your negatives.

 

[fralexis]

I see! Thanks. So, one can catalogue in one's mind what procedure is good for a given light condition? If so, I suppose we could end up with dozens of experiments and then need a way to remember all the combinations.....well. And those folks snap photos with an iPhone and call it photography

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I see! Thanks. So, one can catalogue in one's mind what procedure is good for a given light condition? If so, I suppose we could end up with dozens of experiments and then need a way to remember all the combinations.....well. And those folks snap photos with an iPhone and call it photography

Take notes. I carry a little note book with me when I am out photographing. And a pencil. I number my rolls, and then I note where I was, what the light was like, etc. It really helps.

 

[gone]

I do the same thing w/ the notes. It really helps later on.

 

[ic-racer]

If you are maxed out on printing contrast, try increasing negative development time 20% on the next overcast day.

 

[andreios]

Yes, take notes. And if you don't have time for it (little time, kids around,...) then use a voice recorder and transcribe your notes later.

 

[fralexis]

Results. I followed Thomas' instructions. I took three shots with film rated at 100 asa. I shot one at box speed, one at 200 and one at 400. After processing per manufacturer's time recommendations, the 400 looked best and showed the greatest amount of shadow detail. Then I took three identical shots all at 400 and processed one at recommended time, one at 1.5 more time and then one at 2.5 more time. The longer processing gave better detail. So I am going to assume that one very overcast days I should shoot two stops under and develop longer. Does this sound about right?

Also, I tend to have problems remembering that an underexposed negative is similar to an overexposed print. Is that correct also?

So, in simple terms, can I say that this is the same as push processing when encountering low light situations .....which I frequently do with 35mm film. Is this a "duh" moment?

 

[baachitraka]

Why guessing?

Meter the available light and decide how long to develop. Overcast days are bliss...

 

[Vaughn]

Underexposure does not increase contrast.

Correct. Reduced exposure coupled with increased development does boost contrast over that of normal exposure and development.

I do not know how the OP could gain shadow detail by reducing the exposure. Something went wrong in his/her testing, I believe. The neg shot at 400 ISO (125 ISO film, I believe) should not have more shadow detail than a negative shot at 125 ISO.

 

[fralexis]

OK, I am a little confused. When I took the three shots, one at box speed (100 Arista) one at 200 and one at 400. The one at 400 did have a lot more detail. I don't know what the reason is. I had originally metered with a spot meter the darkest area and put that on Zone 3. That gave me a base exposure. The only thing I changed was asa. Perhaps my metering was off?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

OK, I am a little confused. When I took the three shots, one at box speed (100 Arista) one at 200 and one at 400. The one at 400 did have a lot more detail. I don't know what the reason is. I had originally metered with a spot meter the darkest area and put that on Zone 3. That gave me a base exposure. The only thing I changed was asa. Perhaps my metering was off?

When you do this test, you take one meter reading, and you use that for all three exposures.

Say you meter f/16 at 1/60th second at EI 100. Then for the EI 200 exposure you can either stop down to f/22 or use a 1/125th second exposure, and for the EI 400 f/32 or 1/250th second.

That's what bracketing is, and it's the only way you can get a perfectly relative comparison. Don't meter each time, because that would introduce an unwanted variable. I apologize this wasn't clear.

 

[MattKing]

I understand why there is confusion here.

Part of the problem comes from using "EI" when discussing relative exposure.

It is much more useful to describe the results of your metering first, and then your exposure decisions afterwards.

Example (borrowing from Thomas): You take a meter reading using an EI of 100, and the reading suggests an exposure of f/16 at 1/60th second. That is your base exposure.

You take one shot at your base exposure, and then additional bracketing exposures such as two stops less light, one stop less light, one stop more light and two stops more light.

Your exposure sequence is (all at f/16):

+2 stop - 1/15
+1 stop - 1/30
base - 1/60
-1 stop - 1/125
-2 stop - 1/250

You then look at the results to determine your revised EI for future use.

If the best result is the base exposure, continue to use EI 100 in the future.
If the best result is the base exposure - 2 stops, revise your EI for future use to EI 400.
If the best result is the base exposure - 1 stops revise your EI for future use to EI 200.
If the best result is the base exposure + 1 stop, revise your EI for future use to EI 50.
If the best result is the base exposure + 2 stops, revise your EI for future use to EI 25.

 

[Vaughn]

What I mean is to increase contrast, increase development but do not reduce exposure.

Again I agree, but reducing exposure and increasing development can give one more contrast than increasing development alone. One just has to be willing to give up some shadow detail for the extra contrast...but most of the time, one does not want to give up that detail.

 

[Ian Grant]

Are you sure?

It's an intregal part of the Zone System, it's only a very slight reduction in exposure.

Ian

 

[fralexis]

Matt, thanks a lot. I basically understand the general concept of bracketing and you answer helps. But my original concern was flat photos on a very overcast day. Should I get the very best negative as you have described and then, after I have a good exposure, experiment with development times to get more detail in a flat negative? Also, since I am using sheet film (4 X 5), is there a good trick to identify each sheet as to what speed it was shot so I can make an educated determination of which is best? Perhaps a little sign? I will end up with about 5 sheets and no way to know which is which. The more I read, the less I know

Alexis

 

[Vaughn]

Are you sure?

Yeah...and 'over-exposing' and 'under-developing' will provide less contrast than normal exposure and under-development.

As I see it, exposure determines the lower end of the range and development will determine the upper end...so if one develops out to the same usable negative density in the highlights, where the shadows start will determine the contrast range. Less exposure = darker shadows = more contrast. More exposure = lighter shadows = less contrast.

Probably we are thinking along the same lines -- just my way of thinking about it might be a bit different.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Matt, thanks a lot. I basically understand the general concept of bracketing and you answer helps. But my original concern was flat photos on a very overcast day. Should I get the very best negative as you have described and then, after I have a good exposure, experiment with development times to get more detail in a flat negative? Also, since I am using sheet film (4 X 5), is there a good trick to identify each sheet as to what speed it was shot so I can make an educated determination of which is best? Perhaps a little sign? I will end up with about 5 sheets and no way to know which is which. The more I read, the less I know

Alexis

Numbering your sheet film holders, with different numbers on each side, like 1A and 1B for the other side, 2A and 2B, etc. helps.
Keeping good notes referencing the holder and side number is also good practice.

Figuring out what your film does in normal contrast, high contrast, and low contrast is good to know. You will, with time, understand how you must expose and develop your film to get the most out of it, in each type of lighting.

In flat lighting you have low contrast. You may choose to keep the negative low contrast and just expose as you normally would, and then develop as you normally would too, and you end up with low contrast negatives that make pretty low contrast prints. Or you can develop the negatives longer to increase the contrast by boosting highlight density. Or you can underexpose a little bit to stretch the existing shadows farther down to being darker than they actually are, and then compensate for lost exposure by developing longer. Or you can do both. Then you end up with a negative with contrast similar to what you would see in normal contrast lighting.

Think of the light in the scene and how it is recorded on film, and subsequently developed, as a rubber band that is elastic. Medium normal contrast lighting means you are recording a certain amount of light with a span from darkest shadow to brightest highlight that is, let's say 10. Bear with me.
That normal contrast is recorded with normal exposure, and developed with normal developing time, which translates to contrast in your negative of 10.

But if the light is lower contrast, say 6, then what's recorded on the film is only 6. If you expose and develop as if it was 10, you will only have 6 in your negative. That will be a flat negative that makes flat looking prints. Sometimes that's desired, other times it's not. When it isn't desired, you have to use the elastic properties of your process, and stretch that rubber band from a 6 to a 10. To get the shadows deeper than they are in the scene, you give less exposure. To get highlights brighter than they are in the scene, you have to develop longer, maybe a lot longer since you also underexposed. This way you can stretch that contrast of 6 to a 10.

Does that make sense? I'm just using arbitrary numbers. They don't mean anything other than giving a relative comparison.

Similarly, if you have a really high contrast scene, you may want to reduce the contrast you record, as it may be 14 or 15. Then you can take the deep deep shadows and give more exposure to the film to lift those shadows up from the abyss, and then you shorten your developing time to bring those overly bright highlights down to printable levels, so that you contract the contrast 14 down to the normal 10.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, thanks a lot. I basically understand the general concept of bracketing and you answer helps. But my original concern was flat photos on a very overcast day. Should I get the very best negative as you have described and then, after I have a good exposure, experiment with development times to get more detail in a flat negative? Also, since I am using sheet film (4 X 5), is there a good trick to identify each sheet as to what speed it was shot so I can make an educated determination of which is best? Perhaps a little sign? I will end up with about 5 sheets and no way to know which is which. The more I read, the less I know

Alexis

What thomas said above.

But in addition ...

I think I see another source of confusion.

When you refer to getting "more detail in a negative" we are thinking in terms of getting enough exposure to ensure that detail is there, while I think you may be thinking of getting the detail that is in the negative to stand out more in the print. My post on bracketing is concerned more with the former, while you are more concerned with the latter.

You are correct in assuming that you need to increase the contrast in order to make the detail stand out more in the print. You can do that by increasing development. When you do, you want to make sure you don't increase it too much, because that can have the effect of blocking out detail in the highlights.

And with respect to keeping track of tests, you can always include in your scene something like a chalk board or handwritten sign or a tablet computer with information on the screen - each of which can have that data.

Development tests can be tracked by physically marking the developed sheets themselves with some sort of code - pin pricks or corners clipped or ....

 

[fralexis]

Thomas,

Thank you so much for your patience. I am beginning to get a grip on it. I am very, very bad at math This time around I got what I think are a couple of good negatives, but when I print them I am having problems. I use a Bessler 45 with a diffusion head. I exposed with a 135mm Rodenstock on f22. Even so, my exposure time was something like 6 seconds for a 8X10. I would prefer a much longer exposure time for burning etc. I suffer from too much information and too many variables....not at all like 35mm.

I keep my holders numbered like you suggest, but with each scene being the same and developing the sheets in a tank it is nearly impossible to keep them all straight. I'll have to work on a method of keeping them straight. I suppose for the sake of experimentation I should tray develop one sheet at a time. Tomorrow I'll try again.

Alexis

 

[Vaughn]

If you use variable contrast paper, that will take that 6 seconds to 12 or 24 seconds when using the filters.

Try a lower wattage bulb. I believe the 150W PH212 is standard for that enlarger, but no reason the 75W PH211 would not work exactly the same, but with less light. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/74800-REG/Wiko_PH211_Lamp_75.html

Or try a neutral density filter somewhere in the light path would help to increase printing times.
But you could just make bigger prints...

Edited to add: Whoops -- you said diffusion head! I am only familiar with the Omega diffusion (color) head. It had a lever to reduce the light (using a neutral density filter near the color filters, I believe). If your diffusion head is also a color head, you can just put in some color filtration to mimic a neutral density filter.

 

[fralexis]

Vaughn,

Thanks. I have the color head. I use the filters to increase contrast (magenta) but is there a combination that will imitate neutral density? Good idea about the bulb. Stupid question......since I am only exposing black and white, could I use a standard halogen bulb rather than a special photo enlarger bulb that will cost four times as much? No color correction needed.....

Alexis