How to develop exposed film for shadows ?

[Rosssiiii]

Hi

I’m using this film (AGFAPHOTO APX 400) and I’ll be developing it with ARS Imago FD at 1+39.

What development time should I use?

My friends usually shoot by averaging the exposure using the light meter reading, and I’ve done the same with my previous rolls.

This time I wanted to try exposing for the shadows and adjusting the development time to preserve the highlights. Since I’ve read that FD is quite a strong developer, and because I’m exposing for the shadows and don’t want to overdevelop the highlights, what development time should I use?

Maybe it’s not a good idea to develop my negative together with the others, who usually do 9 minutes.

I think I should probably do around 4:30m or 5 minutes at most or 6.30 ?

Looking forward to your advices

 

[retina_restoration]

The MDC says 6.5 minutes at 1:39

 

[cliveh]

In terms of picture aesthetics, I would suggest that lack of shadow detail is preferable to lack of highlight detail.

 

[runswithsizzers]

How, exactly, did you expose for the shadows?
That is, what did you do differently this time, compared to the way you usually meter b&w negative film?

 

[Paul Howell]

The standard line is to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlight. Using the Zone System as a ruler using a spot meter meter the shadows for zone 2 or 3, then meter for a highlight for Zone VII, bright area with texture, then develop for Zone VII, The problem unless you have tested your film and developer combo in advance you don't know what time you need for Zone VII. So as the roll has been already shot, use box speed and recommend development time and hope for the best.

 

[koraks]

or 6.30 ?

I'd start there, see how it goes.

 

[Ardpatrick]

I’m assuming you’re starting out with film development? Excuse me if I’m wrong.

For me - understanding the simple principle that you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights is the key starting point. Many many film shooters don’t get that, mostly because they don’t develop their own films.

If you have access to a spot meter, or a 35mm slr with a spot meter mode in the camera, you can start to break down the scene you’re shooting into different tonal values. You can firstly identify the shadow values that are important - measure them, and give 2 stops less exposure than what the shadows read in the meter. Provided your rating the film at box speed or slightly less, your exposure will be okay.

For development it’s a good idea to have the spot meter to also measure the brightness range between that shadow detail and the brightest significant highlight texture / detail you want to preserve. Make notes as you shoot. A brightness range of about 5 stops should be easy to manage. Wider range is possible but that’s where it starts to get more precise.

I think it makes sense to shoot a ‘test roll’ - shoot a typical scene(s) using the above described approach, and then in the dark room just cut the film into ‘clips’ that you then process individually at different development times. See which time gives the best highlights result (shadows have been determined in exposure). Look back at your notes on exposure. All of that gives you a solid working knowledge of your materials (film). It won’t make you Ansel Adams but you should be able to make better photos.

Phone lightmeter apps often have a spot meter function. So that’s also a way to go. But be aware that these apps need to be ‘calibrated’ against a known good meter. I’ve found them consistent in reading, but sometimes quite far off in terms of the exposure settings they convert their measurements into.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This time I wanted to try exposing for the shadows and adjusting the development time to preserve the highlights.

This is what has been recommended when working with negative film forever. Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. If you don't have a development time worked out, then use the one that retina_restoration suggested.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

This time I wanted to try exposing for the shadows

If by this you mean that you went into the shadows (the darkest area you want detail in), took a lightmeter reading, and used that lightmeter reading to set your aperture and speed, then, unfortunately, your film will be overexposed by one, two or even three stops. Your highlights will be blown out, the more so if you use the normal development time.

For example, meter in the shadows says f/5.6 @ 1/125 and you set your camera at f/5.6 @ 1/125, you are overexposing. You should develop less time if you want to get something out of it.

If by this you mean that you went into the shadows (the darkest area you want detail in), took a lightmeter reading, and set your aperture and/or speed by closing down two stops from that reading, then you will be fine and you can use the normal development time.

For example, meter in the shadows says f/5.6 @ 1/125 and you set your camera at f/11 @ 1/125, you are OK.

don’t want to overdevelop the highlights

I'm taking a lot of shortcuts here. There are many other factors involved that influence how your highlights come out, such as the EI at which you set your meter, the actual brightness range of the scene, how much agitation you use when developing, etc.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

"Exposing for the shadows" means choosing a shadow value, metering that and then deciding how much underexposed from the meter reading you want it. You would then choose your exposure settings based on that.

If that's what you're doing, then how you develop should be based on the contrast of the scene. A "normal contrast" scene needs normal development time. Very contrasty = reduced development, flat contrast = increased development. This, according to the traditional use of the Zone System. In practice these days, many just develop everything normally and use the contrast control available in printing (VC paper), or post-processing to deal with getting print contrast right.

If, however, you just metered a shadow and exposed based on that, you've likely overexposed your negatives a bit. If that's the case, just develop normally (manufacturer's recommendation) and print through the added density.

Best,

Doremus

 

[koraks]

Your highlights will be blown out

Not necessarily; there's quite a bit of room at the top end of the curve. Moreover, we don't know how he metered the scene, so I personally wouldn't draw any conclusions on this to begin with. Hence my recommendation: cut back development a little, but not much, and then see how it goes.

For the rest, I'd stick to what @Ardpatrick explains above, but I'd also allow for the possibility that no spot meter is available.

@Rosssiiii what kind of camera and/or light meter do you have, and when you said that you exposed for the shadows, what did you do exactly?

 

[Rosssiiii]

The MDC says 6.5 minutes at 1:39

what is MDC ?

How, exactly, did you expose for the shadows?
That is, what did you do differently this time, compared to the way you usually meter b&w negative film?

i generally I measured the light in the shadows with an external light meter, Depending on the scene I chose whether to shoot more for the shadows or not, if there were few shadows I shot giving little importance, generally the built-in exposure meter of the Canon 300v indicated between +1.5 and 2 stops of overexposure

I'd start there, see how it goes.

How many times do I have to shake? I don't know these things

"Exposing for the shadows" means choosing a shadow value, metering that and then deciding how much underexposed from the meter reading you want it. You would then choose your exposure settings based on that.

If that's what you're doing, then how you develop should be based on the contrast of the scene. A "normal contrast" scene needs normal development time. Very contrasty = reduced development, flat contrast = increased development. This, according to the traditional use of the Zone System. In practice these days, many just develop everything normally and use the contrast control available in printing (VC paper), or post-processing to deal with getting print contrast right.

If, however, you just metered a shadow and exposed based on that, you've likely overexposed your negatives a bit. If that's the case, just develop normally (manufacturer's recommendation) and print through the added density.

Best,

Doremus

Not necessarily; there's quite a bit of room at the top end of the curve. Moreover, we don't know how he metered the scene, so I personally wouldn't draw any conclusions on this to begin with. Hence my recommendation: cut back development a little, but not much, and then see how it goes.

For the rest, I'd stick to what @Ardpatrick explains above, but I'd also allow for the possibility that no spot meter is available.

@Rosssiiii what kind of camera and/or light meter do you have, and when you said that you exposed for the shadows, what did you do exactly?

i generally I measured the light in the shadows with an external light meter.

in the past i have exposed to 0 in the metering of the 300v or exposed for lights using external metering usinga a zenza bronica and In both cases I had the film developed by others and the photos came out well.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

what is MDC ?

Massive Dev Chart Film Development, Film Developing Database

www.digitaltruth.com

 

[MattKing]

How many times do I have to shake? I don't know these things

If you are asking about inversion agitation while developing film, there are a number of approaches. The important thing is to pick one and be consistent with it.
I use a method based on the old Kodak recommendation - continuous inversion agitation for 5 seconds every thirty seconds.
The Ilford recommendation is another very common one - 10 seconds every minute.
Each agitation session should involve a few (say 2-4 in each 5 seconds) inversions, with the tank being turned over (bottom moving to the top and top moving to the bottom) and then back while imparting some twisting movement as well. If you can hear the liquid tumbling and gurgling inside that is good.
A good way of combining the inversion and twisting is to hold the top with one hand and the bottom with the other and then rotate your forearms - the movement of your wrists will impart the rotation naturally.
Some other alternatives include continuous, reversing rotary agitation. Others use much less agitation than normal - be very cautious about recommendations for that, because that approach is tricky and, in my opinion, should be considered a special purpose technique used only in very narrow circumstances.

 

[runswithsizzers]

i generally I measured the light in the shadows with an external light meter, Depending on the scene I chose whether to shoot more for the shadows or not, if there were few shadows I shot giving little importance, generally the built-in exposure meter of the Canon 300v indicated between +1.5 and 2 stops of overexposure

IF the meter of your Canon 300v was set to ISO 400 when it was showing 1.5-2 stops of over exposure, and IF your scene was normal or low contrast such as a cloudy day, then you can probably just use the normal recommended development time for your film. Many photographers set their meters to ISO 200 for ISO 400 film, and then use the normal developing time as if exposed at ISO 400. Metering this way results in the film getting one-stop of additional exposure compared to the box speed, and usually no adjustment to the development time is required.

But if you gave the film two stops of extra exposure, then it might benefit from adjusting the development time, especially if the light was contrasty when you exposed the film -- such as bright midday sun and puffy white clouds in the sky. You might want to reduce the recommended development time by some moderate amount, say maybe 20-25% less time (just guessing).

I assume you have downloaded the Data Sheet from the ARS-IMAGO FD FILM DEVELOPER website, right? The ARS-IMAGO Data Sheet does not give a recommended developing time for AGFAPHOTO APX 400, but it does give a time for Kentmere 400 -- which some people say is the same film. For Kentmere 400, when exposed at ISO 400 and developed in ARS-IMAGO FD diluted to 1+39, the recommended time is 6'30". This matches the time given by the Massive Development Chart for your film, so that's probably a good place to start as the normal recommended time. (As mentioned above, you may want to use a shorter time.)

Notice the MDC has [notes] for your film; if you click on the notes, it says "Agitation: continuous first 30 secs, then 5 secs every 30 secs" -- which answers your question about "How many times do I have to shake?"

The The ARS-IMAGO Data Sheet also tells you what kind of agitation they recommend, which is similar to what is said in the MDC notes.

 

[GregY]

Rosssiii, MDC is the Massive Development Chart... https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
Part of getting the negative you want is measuring both the shadow value and highlight values. This information gives you the subject brightness range...& indicates how you may want to process the film. If you are just using the light meter to measure shadow value, & then a commercial lab processes your film for 'normal' time, your results will be hit or miss. In general if you increase exposure (shadow value) you need to decrease the development time.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you are asking about inversion agitation while developing film, there are a number of approaches. The important thing is to pick one and be consistent with it.
I use a method based on the old Kodak recommendation - continuous inversion agitation for 5 seconds every thirty seconds.
The Ilford recommendation is another very common one - 10 seconds every minute.
Each agitation session should involve a few (say 2-4 in each 5 seconds) inversions, with the tank being turned over (bottom moving to the top and top moving to the bottom) and then back while imparting some twisting movement as well. If you can hear the liquid tumbling and gurgling inside that is good.
A good way of combining the inversion and twisting is to hold the top with one hand and the bottom with the other and then rotate your forearms - the movement of your wrists will impart the rotation naturally.
Some other alternatives include continuous, reversing rotary agitation. Others use much less agitation than normal - be very cautious about recommendations for that, because that approach is tricky and, in my opinion, should be considered a special purpose technique used only in very narrow circumstances.

A comprehensive reply, Matt but it might depend on circumstances. For instance, I'd be surprised if Andrew doesn't shake more frequently when he comes across those bears by his favourite tree where his tumbling and gurgling might be a sign of real danger

OP just ignore my reply after the first three words

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

"Expose for the shadows" is something that is really easy to say and takes considerable judgement and experience to actually do in practice to get it correct.

 

[GregY]

"Expose for the shadows" is something that is really easy to say and takes considerable judgement and experience to actually do in practice to get it correct.

& it doesn't exist in isolation...... your results can vary plenty by failure to develop the film accordingly

 

[bernard_L]

This time I wanted to try exposing for the shadows and adjusting the development time to preserve the highlights.

Although you do not state it explicitly, it seems that you are metering for shadows (which ones?) and applying that at face value. As already stated in several responses, you are basically overexposing. Possible actions in that context:

• Following measurement, close diaphragm by 2 stops (or equivalent action on the shutter speed). That is a standard recommendation, usually under the heading "expose for shadows". In old-bearded-speak, this is also called "placing shadows on ZIII".
• Or, if you use this "shadow measurement" consistently, set your meter for a film speed 4x nominal.

Summary: a change in exposure is properly addressed by a counter-change in exposure. Not a change in development --see recommendation by @Doremus Scudder.

Then there are shadows and shadows. Only you can judge on the scene what you want to place on ZIII. I once attended a photography course where the instructor explained that, if a spotmeter was not available, one could measure shadows from a portable device consisting of a box, lined inside with black felt, metering through a small hole. I dropped out of the course.

 

[Ardpatrick]

"Expose for the shadows" is something that is really easy to say and takes considerable judgement and experience to actually do in practice to get it correct.

I don’t agree. I think it’s disarmingly simple most of the time, sandstorms and blizzards excepted.

This isn’t about perfection. It’s just about getting a good enough negative. It’s hard to pick the ‘wrong’ shadow in that regard. Any shadow will be close-ish. You may not choose the perfect-est darkest shadow, but you may pick one 1/4 stop brighter. It’s hardly a tragedy in reality. Your Hasselblad planar’s leaf shutter might be off more than that, and you end up with ‘perfect’ exposure nonetheless. Or you’ve rated the film a 1/4 stop too slow for your system, meaning that 1/4 stop mistaken zone 3 shadow placement turns out to be perfect anyway.

For me at least, exposing for the shadows is easy. Developing for the highlights is much more of a challenge.

 

[Craig]

I don’t agree. I think it’s disarmingly simple most of the time, sandstorms and blizzards excepted.

This isn’t about perfection. It’s just about getting a good enough negative. It’s hard to pick the ‘wrong’ shadow in that regard. Any shadow will be close-ish. You may not choose the perfect-est darkest shadow, but you may pick one 1/4 stop brighter. It’s hardly a tragedy in reality. Your Hasselblad planar’s leaf shutter might be off more than that, and you end up with ‘perfect’ exposure nonetheless. Or you’ve rated the film a 1/4 stop too slow for your system, meaning that 1/4 stop mistaken zone 3 shadow placement turns out to be perfect anyway.

For me at least, exposing for the shadows is easy. Developing for the highlights is much more of a challenge.

What is a shadow? In Phil Davis's book "Beyond the Zone System" he goes through a number of examples of using the "wrong" shadow and how it results in an incorrect exposure. A shadow isn't just a shadow.

If all you are concerned about is "Good enough", then stick your Nikon on P and matrix metering and you'll get perfect negatives.

 

[Ardpatrick]

What is a shadow? In Phil Davis's book "Beyond the Zone System" he goes through a number of examples of using the "wrong" shadow and how it results in an incorrect exposure. A shadow isn't just a shadow.

If all you are concerned about is "Good enough", then stick your Nikon on P and matrix metering and you'll get perfect negatives.

My comment is made within the context of the OP’s enquiry. Not every photographer wants to learn the Zone system, read Phil Davis’ book, nor dwell on the science of the perfect exposure. Such interests might appeal to you and I, but they are not a pre-requisite to making good photographs.

 

[koraks]

If all you are concerned about is "Good enough", then stick your Nikon on P and matrix metering and you'll get perfect negatives.

In many cases, that's true. The instances where this doesn't work is when there's a lack of matrix metering on the camera used...Lots of 'film folks' prefer to use fairly archaic cameras with either no meter at all, or something very basic like a single incident cell at the front of the camera or a center-weighted pattern.

I did see @Rosssiiii mention using a '300v' which I assume is a Canon EOS 300v. In this case I would not hesitate to just set the program dial to either P or 'green' and focus on composition.

 

[Craig]

My comment is made within the context of the OP’s enquiry. Not every photographer wants to learn the Zone system, read Phil Davis’ book, nor dwell on the science of the perfect exposure. Such interests might appeal to you and I, but they are not a pre-requisite to making good photographs.

Mine too. The example wasn't applying the zone system it was directly answering the question of how to "expose for the shadows". Is the darkest shadow you can find the in the scene? Is it a mid tone shadow? Is it a shadow created by your body against the ground?

What shadow do you choose and why? There can be a difference of 2 stops between shadows, so choosing the right shadow is important. Choosing the wrong shadow also affects the highlights, so choosing the right shadow to meter from is important.

Using an incident meter vs an in-camera reflective meter make a difference too. Black dirt in the shade isn't going to give the same reading as new concrete in the shade. Which "shadow" value do you use?