How do you approach the problem of the white house with black windows?

[cuthbert]

Once upon a time a old photographer told me that one of the most difficult subject is a freemason because they are men dressed with white shirts and black ties and suits.

I'm experiencing the equivalent problem in architecture. What do you think of this shot?

Is this a good exposure for you guys? And how do you resolve this problem?

Regarding the pics, it's taken with a Praktica MTL50, Prakticar 50 mm f1.8 stepped down at f16, Y2 Pentax filter and Xp2.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would use a good averaging reflection light meter or better yet an incident light meter [something I learned from APUG].

 

[NedL]

I'll let other people who know better than me answer your question, I think it looks fine. But I am facing a similar problem... It is an old Grange Hall that has been whitewashed, and all the detail that matters is painted white. There are deep shadows under surrounding oak trees. I'm planning to go back on a cloudy or overcast day....

 

[Fixcinater]

What's important to you? Do the shadows lost carry any important information? Do the blown whites distract from your viewing of the subject?

Same question for Ned...do the shadowed areas under the trees actually need to show any detail?

I don't think I'd change a thing in the image shown, aside from maybe global contrast to show a bit more mid-tone grays versus pushing things towards black/white. But that's just me.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Expose your negative to make sure you put some detail in the shadows. Then print at reduced contrast and burn-in if needed to get the highlights down from blown out. There's not much other choice.

 

[NedL]

...
Same question for Ned...do the shadowed areas under the trees actually need to show any detail?
...

In my case, no. However afternoon sun was very harsh and the shadows on the building distracted from the more subtle details. I was also thinking evening sun ( maybe through the trees ) might cast softer light...

 

[Fixcinater]

Good point, not much you can do with architecture besides wait for the right day/time of day/cloud cover.

The Bechers waited for similarly cloudy days to get their work done:

 

[Doc W]

On my monitor, some of the shadow areas, such as the lower part of the wall on the side of the building, and some parts of the doors, are completely black which means you did not give enough exposure to capture detail there, or you have printed it with no detail in those shadow areas. If it is the former, then you need to open up a little more to capture the shadow detail and develop the film to make sure you don't lose the highlights. It's the same old same old: expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

I just noticed (after posting the above) that you are using XP2. I have never developed C41, so I may well be dead wrong. In any case, you still need to open up for the shadows.

 

[cuthbert]

Thanks evereybody for your input, I see you guy know what you're doing well.

IMO this shot is not too bad, it's my last attempt and the best of a long series of failures and semi-failures: the problem of the white and black house is indeed a spiky one for me because both parts of the subject (white walls and black windows/doors) are equally important (otherwise I would choose one side) and the traditional solution of "meter the white parts if they are more important or the black ones" doesn't apply.

Unfortunately I can't develop B&W at the moment so I rely a lot of B&W C41 and any darkroom possibility of out of the table: for this one I metered separately the black parts and the black parts, then I averaged: I wanted to see the details of the brick (being at sunrise the shadows helped) but I didn't want the black painted parts to look like black pools...perhaps I failed on that.

Ned feel free to add your pics because I opened this thread not to show how good/bad I am but I am curious to hear what other people do and obtain in similar cases.

 

[NedL]

After I make another attempt, I will come by and put both versions here.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would use a good averaging reflection light meter or better yet an incident light meter [something I learned from APUG].

The reason is that the incident light reading will provide the proper exposure for the full range from highlights to shadow detail. Consider the other extreme of light, a dark gray cat on a black background or a man in a black suit in front of a dark wall will come out with a gray print with a reflective reading but will properly print if an incident light reading is used.

 

[cowanw]

Perhaps the owner will turn on all the lights. Also, if you leave your camera in situ, you can do a second exposure at night with the lights on and combine the twp.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like twps too.

 

[ic-racer]

Once upon a time a old photographer told me that one of the most difficult subject is a freemason because they are men dressed with white shirts and black ties and suits.

I'm experiencing the equivalent problem in architecture. What do you think of this shot?

Is this a good exposure for you guys? And how do you resolve this problem?

Regarding the pics, it's taken with a Praktica MTL50, Prakticar 50 mm f1.8 stepped down at f16, Y2 Pentax filter and Xp2.

No different than any other image. Exposure sets the shadow (expose for the black window in shadow to be the threshold of density) and development and printing contrast sets the white (print it with appropriate contrast paper so the white is just slightly denser than paper white). There are five stops between black and white paint. There are about two or three stops less light from the sky when the sun is not visible, so the range from the black paint in the shadow to the white paint in the sun is about seven or eight stops. Most modern films will reproduce that range.

What does your negative look like?

 

[removed account4]

Good point, not much you can do with architecture besides wait for the right day/time of day/cloud cover.

The Bechers waited for similarly cloudy days to get their work done:

View attachment 109557

ME TOO !

i hate photographing in sun ..
in overcast light there is a softness to everything
color is more subtle if shooting color film ( or tri chromes )
and black and white seems to glow ... give me a sunny day
i'll do something else, maybe try to absorb vitamin d
certainly not shoot film

 

[smieglitz]

I used to shoot XP1 decades ago and after running some film tests with it, always shot it at ISO 125. I would print the negatives on Ilford Multigrade paper using a #3 1/2 contrast filter. It was a great combination, especially when highlight detail was important. I suspect XP2+ should be handled in similar fashion.

FWIW, my film tests using a local c-41 lab showed only a very slight increase in film speed with push-processing. Maybe 1/3-stop IIRC. However, the increase in base fog was enormous. So, i ended up shooting at ISO 125 and developing for the normal c-41 process time. In terms of 35-mm film, I always considered that combo to be the best I ever used (although I also loved the other end of the grain spectrum and used EK 2475 recording film in HC-110 quite a bit as well.) The only thing I didn't like about XP-1 was the fact I usually had it processed by a lab and then I was at their mercy. I had a couple rolls come back with physical damage and at that point, my use of it decreased and I would buy a c-41 kit to do it myself.

 

[Drew B.]

In my case, no. However afternoon sun was very harsh and the shadows on the building distracted from the more subtle details. I was also thinking evening sun ( maybe through the trees ) might cast softer light...

IF the bldg is in your general area...go by the place under all kinds of weather/lighting conditions and find the best. Using the zone system and best lighting conditions...you'll come out with what you saw in the first place. I happen to like this image...or certainly not too bothered by it.

 

[Terry Christian]

The shot looks fine to me, except that it may be a little too contrasty overall as Fixcinater said.