How do YOU "Expose for the Shadows" (without a spot meter)

[CMoore]

Reflected metering off a mid tone, such as grass, then open 1 or 2 stops?

Hhhmmmm................... i would think that you would treat the grass as a "gray card" and leave it right there.

 

[eli griggs]

Reflected metering off a mid tone, such as grass, then open 1 or 2 stops?

That's basically what I suggested with the palm of a hand and it does work well, with filters in place.

Here is a good conversation on site.

Can someone make this live, please?

Metering the palm for shadows?​

• A
• Thread starterOscar Carlsson
• Start dateApr 8, 2012

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's basically what I suggested with the palm of a hand and it does work well, with filters in place.

Here is a good conversation on site.

Can someone make this live, please?

Metering the palm for shadows?​

• A
• Thread starterOscar Carlsson
• Start dateApr 8, 2012

Just put your hand so that there is a shadow across it.

 

[eli griggs]

Just put your hand so that there is a shadow across it.

The article mentioned, strongly recommended that the palm be read in full sunlight for a zone VI, regardless of race of person's palm.

I've used this method for about five decades and it does work in the field so shoot a roll or two of your favorite films and process them regularly, to see the difference and remember to do it with your filtration in place.

Cheers

 

[Sirius Glass]

The article mentioned, strongly recommended that the palm be read in full sunlight for a zone VI, regardless of race of person's palm.

I've used this method for about five decades and it does work in the field so shoot a roll or two of your favorite films and process them regularly, to see the difference and remember to do it with your filtration in place.

Cheers

Interestingly, race does not matter in this case.

 

[Bill Burk]

That's basically what I suggested with the palm of a hand and it does work well, with filters in place.

Here is a good conversation on site.

Can someone make this live, please?

Metering the palm for shadows?​

• A
• Thread starterOscar Carlsson
• Start dateApr 8, 2012

eli griggs, I think you asked for a clickable link to the thread. Here you go:

Metering the palm for shadows?​

 

[eli griggs]

eli griggs, I think you asked for a clickable link to the thread. Here you go:

Metering the palm for shadows?​

Yes, thank you very much!

For some reason I could no get this phone to do it for me.


Seasons Best!

 

[Craig]

I don't nominally use a spotmeter, but I was out recently and the Pentax spotmeter was all that was in my camera backpack. I was taking a photo of a small stream in a forest with dappled shade and a tree trunk that was in sun.

I spot metered the shadow, and the sunlight highlights and the difference between them was 4 stops. I split the difference and set the camera to the middle, i.e the shadows should have been 2 stops underexposed. The negatives came out quite thin, but it was also a new-to-me batch of 4x5 FP4+ of unknown date. It did print well on grade 3 paper though.

Did I meter that correctly, or should I have done something differently?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

To my very personal opinion, exposing for the shadows and developing (and printing?) for the highlights is so seldomly doable (on roll film), so I don't mind that much anymore...
In the attached image, I didn't brought my spotmeter, just an incident meter. And measured the side part of the window's opening pointing towards the camera just to have an indication of the higher lights (not the highlights) and then the light hitting the boarded floor for the lower lights. It was needles to measure from the wall between two windows as there was almost no light there.
Then I trusted on my fingerspitzengefühl, set the exposure, and fired away...

BTW: I have read all the 3 books by AA, and particularly about the Zone System, over again and again, and in all honesty I have to admit not to fully understand and never be able to fully apply that system.
On a certain moment it began to haunt me in my dreams!
Then I decided tho read it just once again and leave it for what it was and do some trial and error, more error than trial, to find my way of dealing with shadows and highlights...

Anyway, I really do like a lot of shadows (3/4 to black tones) in my photos, and sometimes I compose so to include them dominantly, hence the vertical shift in the bellow photo so to include more sealing which adds more darkness (3/4 tones).

Silvestri SLV 6x9 + Super-Angulon 47mm + center filter (EI -3) and vertical shift on tripod, Gossen Digipro F, F1:22 t2sec, on Hp5+ 400ASA in X-Tol 1+1 14min 20°C, dry scanned on Epson V 750 and some minimal (Photo-)Shopping.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't nominally use a spotmeter, but I was out recently and the Pentax spotmeter was all that was in my camera backpack. I was taking a photo of a small stream in a forest with dappled shade and a tree trunk that was in sun.

I spot metered the shadow, and the sunlight highlights and the difference between them was 4 stops. I split the difference and set the camera to the middle, i.e the shadows should have been 2 stops underexposed. The negatives came out quite thin, but it was also a new-to-me batch of 4x5 FP4+ of unknown date. It did print well on grade 3 paper though.

Did I meter that correctly, or should I have done something differently?

Funny. Before I learned better that was my best approach with a spotmeter: spot the darkest and brightest important parts of the picture and split the difference. It works. A lot of the time.

Now my spotmeter has a Zone System sticker and the approach is to read “something” important and “place it” on a Zone that matches the intended tone for the spot.

Then explore the scene and see if other readings “would work” if they were to come out the way they “fall”.

If they do the negative is “N” and the meter reading is taken.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

FWIW I use an incident (Sekonic Studio Deluxe) light meter; expose for an EI about half of the box speed; and stand process in 1:150 Rodinal. The films I use (Tri-X, Kentmere 100, Fomapan 200, Ilford Ortho Plus) all respond well to this workflow.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't nominally use a spotmeter, but I was out recently and the Pentax spotmeter was all that was in my camera backpack. I was taking a photo of a small stream in a forest with dappled shade and a tree trunk that was in sun.

I spot metered the shadow, and the sunlight highlights and the difference between them was 4 stops. I split the difference and set the camera to the middle, i.e the shadows should have been 2 stops underexposed. The negatives came out quite thin, but it was also a new-to-me batch of 4x5 FP4+ of unknown date. It did print well on grade 3 paper though.

Did I meter that correctly, or should I have done something differently?

With only a 4-stop range, you had a lot of flexibility. Averaging is one reasonable option. Compared to a general coverage meter, the recommended exposure probably would have been quite similar.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't nominally use a spotmeter, but I was out recently and the Pentax spotmeter was all that was in my camera backpack. I was taking a photo of a small stream in a forest with dappled shade and a tree trunk that was in sun.

I spot metered the shadow, and the sunlight highlights and the difference between them was 4 stops. I split the difference and set the camera to the middle, i.e the shadows should have been 2 stops underexposed. The negatives came out quite thin, but it was also a new-to-me batch of 4x5 FP4+ of unknown date. It did print well on grade 3 paper though.

Did I meter that correctly, or should I have done something differently?

Your averaging metering in that SBR is fine, but since it was 4 stops, I would have extended development time (N+1). That would have given the negative a bit more density, and increased the contrast...then you could have printed on grade 2. Personally, I prefer to base my readings on the shadow, and then place it wherever I fancy. I would even have considered placing it on zone 4 (one stop less than metre reading), and given normal development.

 

[Craig]

Thanks everyone, I'll have to make another trip out and try again.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Basing your exposure on a shadow value means just that: meter a shadow and expose for the density (Zone) you want it to be rendered in. The rule of thumb for the Zone System is Zone III, i.e., two stops closed down from the meter reading.* That's a textured black. If you want a darker shadow rendering, Zone II (or even Zone I) could be chosen. For lighter, more luminous shadows, use Zone IV. I place open shadows on snow in Zone V.

This means, you expose for the shadow only; no averaging, splitting the difference, etc.

Highlights get dealt with by (in the classic Zone System) development time changes, different contrast grades of paper or settings for VC paper.

Usually with roll film, one deals with the highlights with the flexibility in contrast controls when printing. The trick is to find a standard development time that allows one to print both very flat and very contrasty scenes well. To long a development time and the contrasty scenes are too contrasty for a #00 filter; to short and the flat scenes will still render muddy with a #5 filter.

Note that the whole idea of exposing for a shadow value presupposes that you know what you want your chosen shadow to look like in the final print. Hence the "visualization" part of the Zone System.

Splitting the difference between high and low meter readings will not work for scenes with a greater than average contrast range; it will underexpose shadows severely. For flat scenes it will overexpose, but that's not such a problem.

Oh, one more thing: the easiest way to expose for the shadows is to use a spot meter. If you don't maybe other metering strategies would be more practical. When I use a camera with an in-camera meter (rare these days), I just use the suggested meter reading and then use exposure compensation for contrastier than normal scenes, adding one or two stops of exposure depending on how contrasty I deem the lighting to be.


*Caveat: this presupposes you've done the Zone System E.I. determination, which is usually ~2/3-stop slower than box speed.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Since the OP is using an incident exposure meter, I'd recommend checking out Phil Davis' incident meter technique in Beyond the Zone System. He makes a few assumptions, but his approach appears to be solid.

The International System of Units (SI) began being used with photometry sometime in the 70s. This included the nomenclature. The change with the nomenclature has caused me no end of headaches. I'm most familiar with the pervious nomenclature as most of the key papers on exposure, film speed, and exposure meters were written before the adoption of the international system. I have problems recognizing the equations when the SI nomenclature is used.

Brightness is now considered a psychological term. Luminance is psychophysical. The term Brightness meant same as the current term Luminance before the change. Phil Davis is most often considered the one responsible for the continued use of Brightness. He kept Brightness in his book partly because of the acronym question (although LSRL for log subject luminance range is effective), and partly because of the confusion and difficulty of changing his plotting programs. There is a note in this book acknowledging the terminology change and his continued use of the older term.

The use of Brightness is commonly understood as meaning Luminance, much like ASA instead of ISO or camera meter setting.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We have all often heard the advice to "expose for the shadows" when shooting negative film. But I expect there may be some variation in the exact methods we use. Please include the following: Do you use box ISO or do you set your meter to some other EI? What kind of meter do you use? Where exactly do you aim the meter? After you take your meter reading, how do you set the camera?

My usual metering method is to take an incident reading following the instructions provided by Gossen or Sekonic - so I don't have much experience with metering for the shadows.
But if I wanted to meter for the shadows, I would do it something like this:

1. I usually set my meter to some EI slightly less than box speed: for most ISO 400 film from Kodak or Ilford, I would set my meter to EI 320 or 250. I usually develop in XTOL, which is said to be speed preserving.

2. I would choose something in my scene which I think should be in Zone 3 - say a shaded tree trunk that has some bark texture I want to preserve.

3. Using either my camera's built in meter (simple center weighted TTL), or one of my hand-held meters, I would take a reflected reading from the shaded tree trunk.

4. I would reduce the meter reading by two stops, and set the camera to that value.

I shoot 35mm film, so I don't mess with any kind of notes about contrast range or plus/minus developing - the whole roll unavoidably gets the same development.

It is Step 3 that I am particularly wondering about. I have heard some photographers would either take an incident reading in the shade - or take a reflected reading from a gray card in the same light (shade) as the zone 3 shadow. Pros and Cons?

Take your light reading and then open up:

1 f/stop for Zone 4 shadows​

2 f/stop for Zone 3 shadows​

3 f/stop for Zone 2 shadows​

Keep it simple.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, the BTZS approach is very different. It uses incident metering of the highlight illumination and incident metering of the shadow illumination.
So if you lack a spot meter ...

 

[chuckroast]

Take your light reading and then open up:

1 f/stop for Zone 4 shadows​

2 f/stop for Zone 3 shadows​

3 f/stop for Zone 2 shadows​

Keep it simple.

Errrr ... don't you mean, take the reading (which gives you Zone 5) and stop down according to your table?

 

[Mike Lopez]

Take your light reading and then open up:

1 f/stop for Zone 4 shadows​

2 f/stop for Zone 3 shadows​

3 f/stop for Zone 2 shadows​

Keep it simple.

Seriously? You’re still dispensing this advice?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Take your light reading and then open up:

1 f/stop for Zone 4 shadows​

2 f/stop for Zone 3 shadows​

3 f/stop for Zone 2 shadows​

Keep it simple.

First of all, as has been already observed, you need to stop down from an average meter reading to get the proper exposure for shadows.

Secondly, and most importantly, this approach only works if your meter is giving you exposure information for Zone V (18% grey) and that's where you want that value to be in the final print. In scenes with more or less contrast than normal, the meter could easily be giving you exposure for an intermediate value between the highest and lowest luminances that you don't want in Zone V. The most problematic scenario is when a very contrasty or a very high-key scene fools the meter into thinking that a value you'd like rendered lighter than Zone V should be placed in the middle of the scale. If you just close down according to the rule-of-thumb for normal situations, you'll underexpose.

Phil Davis' system for incident metering is good because it takes the illumination of both the highlights and the shadows into consideration. Still, it does not read the shadows directly; it simply extrapolates rather well where they will be based on the lighting ratio.

Average meters which are intended to place the mean luminance in Zone V (18% grey) are fine except when the luminance range exceeds the normal. Then you need to compensate by giving extra exposure. Learning to recognize these situations and how much you should compensate is key here (as is bracketing when in doubt). Still, with experience, this method can be quite good.

Spot metering a shadow and placing it where you want it is simple and direct, regardless of whether you use Zone System development controls or not. There are things that affect the readings you get from spot meters too, however, such as flare and different spectral responses between meter and film (notably when deep shadows are lit with predominantly blue light from and open sky and you decide to use a yellow or red filter).

Meters are good, but rather blunt tools that need to be used intelligently. Knowing the pitfalls helps immensely.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

First of all, as has been already observed, you need to stop down from an average meter reading to get the proper exposure for shadows.

Secondly, and most importantly, this approach only works if your meter is giving you exposure information for Zone V (18% grey) and that's where you want that value to be in the final print. In scenes with more or less contrast than normal, the meter could easily be giving you exposure for an intermediate value between the highest and lowest luminances that you don't want in Zone V. The most problematic scenario is when a very contrasty or a very high-key scene fools the meter into thinking that a value you'd like rendered lighter than Zone V should be placed in the middle of the scale. If you just close down according to the rule-of-thumb for normal situations, you'll underexpose.

Phil Davis' system for incident metering is good because it takes the illumination of both the highlights and the shadows into consideration. Still, it does not read the shadows directly; it simply extrapolates rather well where they will be based on the lighting ratio.

Average meters which are intended to place the mean luminance in Zone V (18% grey) are fine except when the luminance range exceeds the normal. Then you need to compensate by giving extra exposure. Learning to recognize these situations and how much you should compensate is key here (as is bracketing when in doubt). Still, with experience, this method can be quite good.

Spot metering a shadow and placing it where you want it is simple and direct, regardless of whether you use Zone System development controls or not. There are things that affect the readings you get from spot meters too, however, such as flare and different spectral responses between meter and film (notably when deep shadows are lit with predominantly blue light from and open sky and you decide to use a yellow or red filter).

Meters are good, but rather blunt tools that need to be used intelligently. Knowing the pitfalls helps immensely.

Best,

Doremus

Don;t you have the same problem when reading shadow areas with a spot meter? If the luminance range exceeds normal range of the film, you have to compensate as well. So it's not just simple and direct. You have to check other things. No?

 

[Vaughn]

One of the first things I do when I decide to set the camera up to make an image is to take a quick reading of the scene with the spot meter.

I note areas of shadow that I would like to keep detail in the scene, the brightest areas I want detail in and where the areas of pure white will be. I will also note any other areas of interest. This information (SBR and light intensity) is needed (by me, YMMD) to help construct the image on the ground glass...along with wind, possible moving objects (water, people), shifting light, and other such factors. The information allows me to accurately consider aperture (depth of field) and shutter speed needs in the construction of the image.

It can be disappointing to work with an image on the ground glass to find out that it can't be made because one can't use the shutter speed and aperture combo that will allow the image to be made. But this is an issue for me because I generally work in lighting conditions that are widely variable, even on the same day, right after each other in the same general area. If one is working where the light is fairly constant, perhaps not such a big deal.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use the camera's light meter for most of my work and the spot meter for when I want to use the Zone System metering for shadow details.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Don't you have the same problem when reading shadow areas with a spot meter? If the luminance range exceeds normal range of the film, you have to compensate as well. So it's not just simple and direct. You have to check other things. No?

Not at all. One viable approach is to simply place a shadow value and let the highlights fall where they may. You'll get contrasty negatives with contrasty scenes and flat negatives with flat scenes, but that gets taken care of by using the contrast controls available when printing (or in post).

The only dialing-in you have to do with this approach is to find a developing time that lets you print the contrastiest negs you have with a #00 filter or higher and the flattest negs you have with a #5 filter or lower. Once you've done that, this approach will work for all but the most extreme situations. It would be my preferred approach to using roll film, where scenes of many different subject luminance ranges are on one roll.

Modern films are really great at holding detail well into the "overexposure" range. Of course, if you use a retro film that shoulders out quickly, you might want to switch approaches.

However, this approach eliminates the whole visualization feature of the Zone System, which I find its most-useful attribute. Checking separation between different values (with and without filters) helps plan an expressive image. However, that really doesn't have much to do with deciding the actual exposure; a shadow value will suffice.

With the full-blown Zone System, one strives for negatives that all have a similar contrast range. That was more important in the days of graded papers and when one wanted to print on a single grade of paper. Still, there were, in the heyday of graded papers, five or sometimes six different contrast grades available. Many felt, however, that the middle grades of 2 and 3 yielded the best prints. With today's VC papers, you can get good prints with the full range of contrasts available.

Keep in mind, that the contrast control in the ZS is largely done with changing the development time, not by changing exposure; that was determined by placing the shadow value where you wanted it. If we no longer need to worry so much about getting the negative contrast tailored exactly for a particular grade of paper, then we are more free to just develop normally and deal with contrast in other ways. Of course, there are extreme situations where this approach won't work well and changing development time would yield a better image, but those instances are more rare. Experienced photographers will recognize these situations and deal with them accordingly. Otherwise, the more-simple expose fully, develop so that your negs will be printable approach works well.

Best,

Doremus