Information about current TX400 in direct sunlight?

In my last test (this week) I exposed Tri-X under direct sunlight with orange filter (it takes 1 1/3 stops of light) and then I developed three identical strips of 3 frames at three development times in D-76 1+2 at 22C. I did for every strip 1/125 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 (a broad range, no thirds, no halves), and my plan was to contact print using filter 2, to see what looks more decent... I was trying -precisely- to start a new way of treating direct sunlight... These strips were going to be the start of that...
I'll go into the darkroom now, happily trying to start thinking things for direct sunlight in a totally new way.
With HP5+ I use 1/125 f/11 with orange filter: that ends up being EI80 for incident metering in direct sunlight, the wrong way I've been metering...
What are common speeds and f-stops for Tri-X with orange filter in the sun?

BradS said:

Are you over thinking it?
I mean, in school we used nothing but Tri-X at box speed and developed D76. It’s what we were directed to do by the teacher...ostensibly because the combination worked well and was very forgiving. We didn’t have hand held light meters. We just used the built in meter or even followed the little exposure guide that came with the film. I don’t think I used anything else for fifteen or twenty years and would still be if I hadn’t switched to Ilford when Kodak went belly up a few years back.

Click to expand...

I don't think so: I think direct sunlight for wet printing isn't that simple...
Of course at box speed in auto for every scene, "an image appears".

The orange filter complicates matters significantly. In harsh direct sun with deep shadows, the orange filter will have a very strong effect on the shadows because they are lit by mostly blue-ish light.

without the filter, and at altitude below 3000 feet ASL, in strong sun, I’d rate Tri-X at 250, use the built in meter and expect f/11 at 1/250.

but the orange filter is going to clobber the shadows. I wouldn’t use it in this situation.

Juan Valdenebro said:

I don't think so: I think direct sunlight for wet printing isn't that simple...
Of course at box speed in auto for every scene, "an image appears".

Click to expand...

Don’t know what you mean by ‘wet printing’ but like I said, it has worked fine for me and many others...for many decades.

Juan Valdenebro said:

Hello Finn, I agree about HP5+ having richer shadows...
How did you meter at 400 while doing that photograph?
Anyway, that's not a real direct sunlight scene where we can check ample zones of shadow detail, and also, the bounced light is filling the scene's shadows to some degree...
And the cat's blown whites seem to indicate exposure was done using an EI well below 400... That's why I asked you why do you consider the scene was exposed at 400...
Thanks!

Click to expand...

The only light source was the sun coming in through the window, it was perhaps 1-1.5 stops or so less well lit than outdoor direct sunlight. I metered this shot with a spotmatic, putting the cat into the metered circle. The ASA indicator was set to 400, so I did indeed expose it at EI 400. I do not understand why that is a difficult concept.
Also, Brad makes an excellent point. In deep shade I sometimes give a 4x compensation with orange filters to make up for the light temperature difference. That became quite blatant shooting with daylight balanced color slide film.

Juan Valdenebro said:

.....orange filter (it takes 1 1/3 stops of light)....

Click to expand...

note that in daylight, the nominal filter factor for an orange filter is 4x = 2stops but this is still going to leave the deep shadows without any detail.

Juan Valdenebro said:

Hi Lachlan, first, thanks a lot for that detailed explanation... It's really interesting...
I started using incident metering for slide film in the 90's: as you know, for slides we meter direct sunlight... That was my bad turn... That metering system comes from that type of film, with prudence in its metering because of slides' easily blown highlights... I've noticed many years ago, just as you said, in the case of black and white film, incident metering under direct sunlight just doesn't work at box speed... So I've been trying to set my own system for direct sun, but I've never been happy with it, and as you see and said, unless I work with my meter at +3, shadow detail is lost, so I'm feeling I'm going to change to what you say...
And of course "metering shadows to make them zone III" is common, but I'm just truly surprised: I had never considered that metering -during direct sunlight days- could be better if thought as a system that should be based more in the shadows than in sunlight... And all you said makes sense... If I meter sunlight only, there's also as grain elevator said the problem of shadows variations, as they can be 3, 4 or 5 stops away from direct sunlight, depending on clouds and surroundings...
So, how's that done? Do you average meter -at box speed- middle reflectance zones in shadows, and place them in III, and also meter how far those shadows are from direct sunlight to decide development time? Or do you just meter the shadows at box speed (as metering overcast), without placing them in III?
I'm feeling I missed that class long ago! I'm sure with direct sunlight I've been doing things the wrong way...
Thanks again, Lachlan.

Click to expand...

Easiest way to key to the shadows is to use a spot meter, box speed (initially), take a reading of the darkest shadow you want good detail in, then place that reading on the index for IRE 10 ('1' on a Pentax spot meter - most handheld spot meters allow indexing to the IRE scale as it comes from cinema/ broadcast) - which equates to -2 2/3 stops under the exposure that would place those shadows on middle grey - something like zone 2.333! You can also key to shadows with an incident meter, as per Phil Davis' BTZS techniques - either way, done correctly, should end up with the same results. Shadow values tend to stay remarkably constant, relative to highlights. Add your filter factor on to the shadow keyed metering and everything should land correctly.

BradS said:

note that in daylight, the nominal filter factor for an orange filter is 4x = 2stops but this is still going to leave the deep shadows without any detail.

Click to expand...

First meter the shadow with detail that you want in Zone 2, Zone 3, or Zone 4 and choose your f/stop and shutter speed, then correct for the filter. Many darker filters cannot be metered will because of the wave length sensitivity of the meter.

Lachlan Young said:

Easiest way to key to the shadows is to use a spot meter, box speed (initially), take a reading of the darkest shadow you want good detail in, then place that reading on the index for IRE 10 ('1' on a Pentax spot meter - most handheld spot meters allow indexing to the IRE scale as it comes from cinema/ broadcast) - which equates to -2 2/3 stops under the exposure that would place those shadows on middle grey - something like zone 2.333! You can also key to shadows with an incident meter, as per Phil Davis' BTZS techniques - either way, done correctly, should end up with the same results. Shadow values tend to stay remarkably constant, relative to highlights. Add your filter factor on to the shadow keyed metering and everything should land correctly.

Click to expand...

So I understand I should place the shadows around zone 2.5... Then work in development times...

Juan Valdenebro said:

So I understand I should place the shadows around zone 2.5... Then work in development times...

Click to expand...

Essentially yes - though I'd definitely suggest bracketing each side of that until you land the shadows where you want relative to highlights etc.

BradS said:

The orange filter complicates matters significantly. In harsh direct sun with deep shadows, the orange filter will have a very strong effect on the shadows because they are lit by mostly blue-ish light.

without the filter, and at altitude below 3000 feet ASL, in strong sun, I’d rate Tri-X at 250, use the built in meter and expect f/11 at 1/250.

but the orange filter is going to clobber the shadows. I wouldn’t use it in this situation.

Click to expand...

Well, both yellow and orange block blue light, that's true... Maybe they're common and recommended for sunlight (contrast between blue sky and clouds) but you can be right too: my weak shadows have come from orange filtering often...
I'll see if without filtering, shadows get cleaner...
Thank you!

OK... So the mystery's been solved: it seems I don't get enough shadow detail, in part because of trying to meter from direct sunlight, and because the orange filter's killing some of my shadows' already scarce blue light... Makes sense!
Thanks everyone. I'll make those two changes.

If you photograph scenes in direct sunlight, the illumination that reaches the shadowed areas in the scene will vary considerably between scenes.
Some shadows are much deeper than others. The nature and quality of the sunlight affects this. The amount of natural reflector "fill" affects this. Your use of filters affects this.
If you are going to base your evaluation of the success of your metering, developing and printing of a scene based on the shadows, you need to take a reading based on the shadows. You can either take a reflective reading of the shadowed areas themselves (and "place" them appropriately), or you need to take an incident reading of the light incident on the shadowed areas. Otherwise you are just guessing.
But before you do that - and I recommend that you do - you need to first realize something. In the real world, there are shadows that we don't need to see into. Our perceptions of the quality of a photograph reside almost entirely in the range between slightly dark mid-tones to brilliant highlights. Most people only notice thyat there are shadows.

I totally agree, Matt...
For some time I've been telling myself I should start considering -on sunny days- the shadows (ambient soft light) as the relevant light, and not direct sunlight: I was starting to migrate to the shadows for metering and for exposure decisions... I was starting to set a new system for that...
I guess I was just ready for Lachlan's words: nobody had told it to me that clearly, ever.
Metering direct sunlight for slide film got me lost for a long time about sunny b&w: I'm happy now.
I`m just waiting for the night to pass, so I can expose a few strips again under sunlight, this time metering the shadows at box speed, and placing them from zone II to zone IV in half stops, to see that on paper, using three development times...
And, very important, without the orange filter: I don't do landscapes so I don't really need darker skies, and I include no clouds in my images in general... All I want is a camera for sunny scenes of people in the street, that's all.
I'll report back...
Another thing:
Has someone found a good option for sunny scenes diluting D-76 beyond 1+1? And minimal agitation perhaps? Sun is supposed to be the place for it... Maybe a little compensation can help me make my shadows tonally closer -just a bit more- to the areas under direct sun...

Juan Valdenebro said:

I totally agree, Matt...
For some time I've been telling myself I should start considering -on sunny days- the shadows (ambient soft light) as the relevant light, and not direct sunlight: I was starting to migrate to the shadows for metering and for exposure decisions... I was starting to set a new system for that...
I guess I was just ready for Lachlan's words: nobody had told it to me that clearly, ever.
Metering direct sunlight for slide film got me lost for a long time about sunny b&w: I'm happy now.
I`m just waiting for the night to pass, so I can expose a few strips again under sunlight, this time metering the shadows at box speed, and placing them from zone II to zone IV in half stops, to see that on paper, using three development times...
And, very important, without the orange filter: I don't do landscapes so I don't really need darker skies, and I include no clouds in my images in general... All I want is a camera for sunny scenes of people in the street, that's all.
I'll report back...
Another thing:
Has someone found a good option for sunny scenes diluting D-76 beyond 1+1? And minimal agitation perhaps? Sun is supposed to be the place for it... Maybe a little compensation can help me make my shadows tonally closer -just a bit more- to the areas under direct sun...

Click to expand...

I ask about dilution because even knowing some experts swear by 1+3 for high contrast scenes, a part of me wonders if stock solution could be able to get the most out of the shadows...

Juan Valdenebro said:

Has someone found a good option for sunny scenes diluting D-76 beyond 1+1? And minimal agitation perhaps? Sun is supposed to be the place for it... Maybe a little compensation can help me make my shadows tonally closer -just a bit more- to the areas under direct sun...

Click to expand...

The 1+1 dilution of D-76 will essentially increase the grain size, with noticeable effect at perhaps x6 enlargement. As you dilute the solvent effect decreases because sulphite is less concentrated in the liquid.

D-76 is said to be a semi-compensating developer, highlights reach lower densities than with other choices (with equal Contrast Index), reduced agitation will also help compensation, more from the bromide by-product not being evacuated from emulsion than because of developer agent local exhaustion. The effect or the bromide by-product is seen when we have a Bromide Drags event, the bromide by-product is more produced locally in the highlights and it works as a development restrainer.

It is a bit controversial if a more diluted developer will provide a higher compensation in low agitation conditions, IMO it depends on developer.

As an starting point, for very contrasty situations, you may overexpose 1 stop and underdevelop acordingly for the EI, probably you will get a more printable with also less grain, a shorter development allows grains to grow less.

Also exposure may modify the grain structure... TX structure is a bit different than the HP5 one, beyond the particular developer, digital film simulations trying to reproduce the grain nature of each place more grain in the TX shadows and more in the HP5 mids:


See how the true grain emulation software displaces the peak granularity to the mids for the beautiful HP5, being TX more dramatic (see below), this reproduces my experince, you can find many examples in flicker to see in washed areas of different exposure how the structure is...

IMO the TX challenge is not "exposure", but aesthetic grain exploitation. Regarding sensitometry you will find nuances compared to HP5, but the grain nature is totally different. TX is not better or worse than HP5, both are powerful classics with amazing aesthetic possibilities, but let me insist that while you soon will get correct exposures the grain is a complex matter, depending on the format/processing/taste you may find a deep ocean filled with opportunities.

I would you suggest to start trying different developers (concerning to grain) to find the grain capability, depending on the photograhy kind you practice. For example out offocus areas tend to show grain much better than "microcontrasty" areas, see the grain nature in the washed sky compared to HP5, or in the out of focus areas...

Also the grain evolves with shading in round volumes... helping a 3D depiction.






IMO

Juan Valdenebro said:

I ask about dilution because even knowing some experts swear by 1+3 for high contrast scenes, a part of me wonders if stock solution could be able to get the most out of the shadows...

Click to expand...

It very well may, if 1 + 3 results in developer exhaustion.

MattKing said:

It very well may, if 1 + 3 results in developer exhaustion.

Click to expand...

This would seem easily cleared up for us by Juan We just need to know the developer and amount of stock solution to know what if any effect 1+3 might have had in terms of exhaustion, don't we?

pentaxuser

Juan Valdenebro said:

OK... So the mystery's been solved: it seems I don't get enough shadow detail, in part because of trying to meter from direct sunlight, and because the orange filter's killing some of my shadows' already scarce blue light... Makes sense!
Thanks everyone. I'll make those two changes.

Click to expand...

Do not meter the sky, let the exposure fall out naturally. This is meter the area or the subject without the Sun or the sky. Life will be much better.

Sirius Glass said:

Do not meter the sky, let the exposure fall out naturally. This is meter the area or the subject without the Sun or the sky. Life will be much better.

Click to expand...

I've never metered the sky, just my scenes, never including skies... Common reflected and incident metering only.

pentaxuser said:

This would seem easily cleared up for us by Juan We just need to know the developer and amount of stock solution to know what if any effect 1+3 might have had in terms of exhaustion, don't we?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I'm starting my tests with D-76 1+1.5 using 240ml stock + 360ml H2O: just to do the same mix for small and medium format.
Not worried about compensation right now: I want to make materials work well for me first.
My three identical strips (exposed this afternoon) were five frames each: placing shadows (incident metering at box speed) from zone IV to zone II (half stops).
At 22C, tomorrow I'll do 12, 10 and 8 minutes. A single contact print for those three strips together with filter 2, and life's a pleasure as always.
Best wishes,
J.