Is film good in contrasty light?

[Donald Qualls]

The OP wants to get the feel of using film and see if it meets his needs.

For a hybrid workflow, it may be possible to depend on latitude in place of contrast control. This is the analog forum, however; we tend to assume that the endpoint of film photography is a silver gelatin print, and contrast control is a key factor in ensuring you can make a good print from the negative you exposed.

I would argue that the OP is likely to conclude that film doesn't do what's wanted without at least the awareness (claimed to be present in another post) that these additional controls are available. Even negative film has limited dynamic range -- wider than reversal films or digital without HDR, but still limited to about 7-8 stops from "darkest with detail" to "brightest with detail" -- and in harsh light, which was the OP's main issue, it's quite easy for this range to be exceeded. Without either contrast control or HDR (potentially available via bracketing and digital frame combination), higher contrast scenes can't be fully represented.

No, a photographer needn't (and probably shouldn't) try to go full Zone right out of the gate. I didn't say that. But when OP is inevitably disappointed by the inability of film to preserve detail with very large scene brightness ratios, they're less likely to give up on film entirely if they know about development controls.

 

[nmp]

May be I am missing something, but why is HDR not an option for OP?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm a landscape photographer doing a lot of work in woodlands. Currently I shoot with a medium format Hasselblad (digital).

I've been contemplating reshooting some of my images in analog to see if I can improve on the look. Specifically there are some that I (intentionally) want to shoot in full daylight that I haven't been satisfied with even after multiple attempts. I'm thinking of renting a 503CW and spend a couple days on this. I already have the exact shots I want to shoot so I'm thinking I'll pick up the camera, get to location at the right time, bracket a ton, process at a lab and see if I want to invest more time. Is this a good idea at all?

I have very little experience with film other than a bunch of years back when I first got started. From the research I've done online I've got the impression that film handles highlights much better than digital so for a very contrasty scene with deep shadow and strong backlight I'll have an easier time getting a pleasing look. Is this so? I don't see a lot of examples online because most everyone shoots woodlands in foggy or overcast light.

Is there any specific type of film I should look into? Ideally I want minimal grain to better match up with the rest of my portfolio. Appreciate any ideas you can share. Thanks!

good film for contrasty scenes is HP5+ but grainy; perfect film for even the most vcontrasty light is XP2, virtually without grain especially in 6x6.

 

[Mr Bill]

Even negative film has limited dynamic range -- wider than reversal films or digital without HDR, but still limited to about 7-8 stops from "darkest with detail" to "brightest with detail" -- and in harsh light, which was the OP's main issue, it's quite easy for this range to be exceeded.

Wait a minute... hang on there. If you're talking about what can be straight-printed to paper then I'd probably agree, more or less. Assuming more or less normal development and printing.

But as a general rule a negative film has a greater recording range than the film. Typically the printer (using an enlarger) selects a limited range of what the film has to "fit" on the printing paper. In some cases techniques known as "dodging" and "burning" can get more of the negatives range onto paper.

If you want to know what is the maximum light-to-dark range a particular film can record (even if it's mostly useless) take a look at the linked post. Fwiw this first generation Tmax 100, developed in D-76, went way, way beyond 8 stops.

Now, one can't use this range by normal means. The researchers suggested that it could be useful for studying explosions, or rocket engine tests, etc. Link below...

Where would film technology be now?

I don't think Moore's Law even applies to computers any more. In the beginning, processor and memory capabilities increased at a neck-break pace. But for many years it has just been creeping up in small steps each year. Reportedly it's still going, though barely. At some point the original...

www.photrio.com

 

[pentaxuser]

OP it might be helpful if you were to tell us how much of the various b&w film techniques that have been mentioned makes sense to you and what you know of things like pre-flashing, zone system etc

On the simplest level the pics you have shown us may well be the result of the silhouetting effect when shooting against the light as others have said, so on a simple level and if you have a camera meter, try metering very close to the bark of the lower part of the tree trunks so,it only sees the bark and from that reading alter the meter's exposure by closing down the exposure by the equivalent of 2 stops so for instance if the meter says 50th of a second try 200th and 100th respectively. The camera meter assumes that it is being pointed at a middle grey so tells you what exposure is needed to get the bark to middle grey but in fact the bark needs to show less detail than this in order to show you some detail so you need less light than the meter says hence a faster (so less light) exposure is needed. If you possess a spot meter then do as above but simply aim the spot of the meter at the darkest area in the shot e.g. the tree bark that you want to see detail and use the next 2 higher shutter speeds as above

Develop the film and see which exposure, the 200th or 100th of a second is better from your visualisation of the detail you want in the bark

As other have said taking such pictures with film will require experimentation to get it right or close to right and if you goal is to use film to produce prints that exceed the quality of your digital Hasselblad very quickly such that you are able to sell the pictures then the learning process may take some time.

Do you in fact sell prints of forest landscapes as has been assumed?

Let us know what you think of the above suggestion Without knowing exactly what "little experience of film " means I have tried to keep it as simple as possible

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Mr Bill I scan my negatives as much as the next guy (spent $1200 last year on a brand new V850), for image sharing (never tried digital printing for artistic purposes) -- but in this analog-only section of Photrio, I'm speaking to silver gelatin. And yes, it's possible to include an SBR of up to about 11 stops or so in a print, with a combination of negative development controls, paper contrast selection/filtration, paper developer choice (good for up or down about a half grade for "normal" developers) and dodging and burning -- as long as the extremes of brightness are large enough areas to respond to burning and dodging (rim light on twigs won't go). But as you note, film that's linear H&D over 9 or 10 stops will give images that are almost impossible to print in full range.

I've seen an image of the filament in a clear glass light bulb in which background details and the glass envelope were visible with detail, while the lit filament was also detailed. Development controls (in this case, a highly compensating developer) can get this into a range that's printable. A film that carries 9-10 stops on a straight line curve can't.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

perfect film for even the most contrasty light is XP2

@khrisrino : This and this is practically the easiest thing you can try.

try metering very close to the bark of the lower part of the tree trunks so,it only sees the bark and from that reading alter the meter's exposure by closing down the exposure by the equivalent of 2 stops

You might want to give it a try and see if it gives the results you desire. You can get the XP2 Super rolls lab developed (for about ~$10 per roll) and get high resolution scans (for about ~$20 per roll). As XP2 Super is developed by labs using an industry standard process, there is no need for extensive testing that other film-developer combinations typically need.

 

[grain elevator]

The photos the OP showed us had lighting that lent itself for silhouettes. Trying to capture all those mid tones and other tones he wanted is nearly impossible under those lighting conditions. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. He should wait for better light.

I almost agree. In the sample pictures the OP posted, the trees are more than just silhouettes, there's some tone and I like them the way they are. But if the OP wants more midtones, the question to the OP becomes: Do you really need any detail in what's essentially the sky plus probably some sunlit leaves? I don't think so. Then the part of the scene you want isn't so terribly high in contrast. Just expose more and accept some parts will be blown out. So the issue is just the transition to blown out areas looking ugly. IMHO, film does help here a little, just because a bit of grain helps mask that ugly transition.

 

[Mr Bill]

Development controls (in this case, a highly compensating developer) can get this into a range that's printable. A film that carries 9-10 stops on a straight line curve can't.

Hi, I dunno if you looked at the graph I linked to. The Tmax 100 shown should have no problem RECORDING the range. (The graph showing the response goes out to about 20 f-stops - the million to one range.)

Certainly a conventional enlargement can't put this range (film density up to about 3.5) onto photo paper. But a strong "unsharp mask" (positive, a result of contact printing from the negative) can get it into a printable range. This is the main reason I mentioned astronomer David Malin. He used these techniques to make color prints of nebulae that had pretty extreme brightness ranges. I've had the advantage of seeing some of his articles showing before and after astronomical images.

The downside is the very long printing exposures (going from a film density of 2.0 up to 3.0 means 10x exposure is needed).

Anyway these are probably moot points to the OP, as he probably won't find a lab to do this sort of thing anymore, cost aside.

 

[4season]

I was not sure if its ok to post pics. This is one of the examples I gave up on. This is pretty much straight from the camera so its quite dark. What I don't like about this one is that the transitions from light to dark are too extreme to recover in post (see crop)

I'd try shooting that as a multi-image HDR. If you use Adobe's Lightroom, you can accomplish this very easily.

There's much you can accomplish with black and white film too, but mastering the techniques is no trivial undertaking. Phil Davis's Beyond The Zone System is an excellent if rather technical guide to really understanding how film behaves, and how it can be manipulated.

 

[Donald Qualls]

he probably won't find a lab to do this sort of thing anymore, cost aside.

Whereas I'd expect most labs that process sheet film, at least, will be capable of applying "N+1" to one box and "N-1" to another. Not sure you can get to N-3 (to compress that 10-stop range of a harsh-sun scene into something you have some chance of printing) with any modern film, but at least a lab that does sheet film should still know what that is.

 

[Mr Bill]

Whereas I'd expect most labs that process sheet film, at least, will be capable of applying "N+1" to one box and "N-1" to another. Not sure you can get to N-3 (to compress that 10-stop range of a harsh-sun scene into something you have some chance of printing) with any modern film, but at least a lab that does sheet film should still know what that is.

Yeah... I just don't see that as adequate for this situation. I don't see it as doing anything his existing digital back can't already do.

Fwiw I used to make the tonal response curves used for a large outfit. In my experience one really doesn't have a lot of leeway to change contrast, at least on a recognizable subject. If the contrast gets too low, the prints just lose all their "snap." Just not a good tradeoff in my view.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If the contrast gets too low, the prints just lose all their "snap."

And this was one of Ansel's complaints in the last edition of The Negative, that modern film emulsions had limited ability to expand and contract without losing the character of the image. Generally, I'd agree that if you need to go further than N-1 or N+2 there's going to be a challenge somewhere -- and there are some scenes that just can't be managed without some custom handling (like the water bath development, followed by several rounds of partial-sheet bleach and redevelop intensification on the lower part of the frame that Ansel gave for his Moonrise: Hernandez, New Mexico).

 

[Paul Howell]

There's much you can accomplish with black and white film too, but mastering the techniques is no trivial undertaking. Phil Davis's Beyond The Zone System is an excellent if rather technical guide to really understanding how film behaves, and how it can be manipulated.

While Beyond the Zone System is more advanced than the traditional Zone System in terms of understanding of sensitometry, Phil Davis was very clear it is designed to work with sheet film. For roll films I favor The Zone System for 35mm Photogpghers as a starting place. Hint starting place, like all approaches, it needs to be customized for individual needs and tastes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan - I have no means of telling over the web what a specific neg or print looks like in any nuanced sense, or even what the real lighting was like. All I can comment is that if you want silhouettes, expose and develop for that effect. If you want to have perceptible shadows gradation, expose and develop for that instead. Or if you don't really know which you want, go with the latter strategy for sake of a versatile negative. One can always print bolder or more contrasty; but you can't add detail or texture that isn't captured on the negative to begin with. Yes, this also requires sensitivity to the quality of light on hand, and a distinct amount of experience in shooting and printing too. But I find this cat and mouse game with high contras lighting a lot of fun, and get some very nice prints too.

Sheet film is the most versatile because you can easily segregate different sheets for sake of separate levels of development. With roll film, one either needs an extra back or two (if your camera even used detachable backs), or else you develop for the preponderance of images on that particular roll. Still, with practice and the right film, long contrast scale scenes are no problem for me with either kind of equipment. But a real handheld spotmeter does help, For those who say, "simply bracket", OK; but light can shift quickly, and if one has looked at the price of 8x10 sheet film these days, or the weight of a lot of extra holders, they might think twice. If one has a machine-gunner mentality, a big view camera can be an excellent cure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Donald - I've seen an awful lot of AA's prints; and his technique did work very well for him and numerous others too. But numerous times on this forum, I've argued why I don't personally gravitate toward the "stomp onto the peanut butter and jelly sandwich to get it flatter" Zone System mantra involving minus, minus, minus development to tame the overall scene range. I certainly do know how to use that method, and think that learning aspects of the Zone System can be quite helpful to beginners. But that approach comes with a real penalty if overdone.

I like to keep a lot of tools in my toolbox. Some I use frequently, some rarely. But they're there. For example, Adams never seriously explored the potential of masking, even though he had friends and neighbors who were dye transfer printers and highly skilled at it. It was also routine in graphics work. We have the advantage of very high quality VC papers. Back in his day, what little there were could be rather anemic. Many of us have learned the ropes of VC "split printing", another highly useful skill.

And as per the quote in the Negative, there are indeed modern films with quite a bit of expansion potential without going excessively grainy like the old ones did. We're right back to TMax, which was engineered in the first place to be highly versatile and replace Super XX in many of its applications.

 

[DREW WILEY]

HDR ... yeah, that was a brief fad... talk about awful overboard fake-looking scenes. Exactly the kind of dead, smashed, lifeless look that ruins black and white imagery too. Just how much extra water do you want to add to day-old coffee before it's tasteless? And relying on alleged film "latitude"? - that's called guessing, and is the worst thing you can do in a high contrast situation. Real light meters were invented for a reason. Acquire one and learn how to properly use it.

But just like any other tool, HDR can be either used or abused. It seems like a valuable technique in certain scientific photography applications. But it's inherently digital. And why go down that digital rabbit hole when real film and real printing paper can do it so much better anyway, for the majority of our own esthetic purposes? It really ain't all that hard to do. You just need to trust in the appropriate film to do what it's engineered to do, and in a light meter to do its own job.
Sure, there will be some bellyflops during the learning curve, just like anything else. No big deal. Just take it a step at a time, and you'll get there.

 

[nmp]

But just like any other tool, HDR can be either used or abused.

So I meant the former kind. None of the kitchy early stuff that people were into. Simple tone-mapping or blending can be used to seamlessly incorporate the whole dynamic range of the scene without any of the artifacts - for still subjects that is. I used the word HDR as a generic term.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I assumed that is what you meant, Niranjan, but commented on the stereotype anyway. And the reason is that it can end up in an awfully flat lifeless look, just like excessive development compensation, or "minus" development (Zone talk), or "pulling" film (common misplaced APUG jargon). But it's best here to stick with film options themselves, otherwise things stray.

There are of course a few specialty developers for extreme contrast situations. But I'm trying to explain how certain films are perfectly competent to handle a full range of values likely to be encountered in nature without resorting to exotic development options which otherwise have no routine application.

Back in the day of thick emulsion sheet films, Adams sometimes resorted to water bath development. But what came out were negatives which could be hell to print due to unevenness. Quite a few of his most famous images were a lot of work to print and retouch due to various negative flaws. It can be fun to gamble with exotic developer options even today; but if you want predictable consistency, that's a different story.

 

[Sirius Glass]

May be I am missing something, but why is HDR not an option for OP?

HDR is just a crutch for digital because digital still cannot keep up with film. Besides this is an analog thread.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, why does one need a special"cobweb and fungus on lens" app when real spiders and mildew are around?

 

[MattKing]

HDR in talented and experienced hands is just as useful as complex darkroom printing techniques such as masking techniques or composite printing techniques in (usually) different talented and experienced hands.
On the subject of this thread, I would say to the OP that film does offer great capabilities in high contrast situations, as long as the right techniques are used with it.

 

[nmp]

HDR is just a crutch for digital because digital still cannot keep up with film. Besides this is an analog thread.

I didn't bring it up earlier for that reason, but then others did talk about it, hence my question. And the jest of most of the posts here in response has been that film will not be a panacea for what the OP is looking for - not without significant effort. It seemed to me that the whole premise of the OP about using film was to be able to deal with the high contrast subject like silhouetted forest scene. However, It wasn't clear to me if all available digital tools were applied before thinking out loud whether film can do a better job.

I am not going to debate about film vs digital, with a crutch or not. That would really make this thread go astray.

:Niranjan.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unless you're talking about astronomical budgets for real astronomers who have access to the Kepler space telescope controls, and things like that, actual black and white film is capable of handling brightness ranges at this point in time much better than ordinary digital options. People have been doing it well with film for almost a century at least. No need to get caught up in the "new toy" syndrome. But films themselves do differ, and it certainly helps to choose one with as long a straight line as possible in order to get good gradation way down there. Those of us who remember what Super XX and even Bergger 200 could do for 8x10 imagery can now achieve nearly as good results with even small cameras due to later film innovations like TMax.

I guess he debate itself can legitimately transpire on the hybrid forum for those so inclined, which does not include me. I already have what I want.

 

[pentaxuser]

I hope we can give him something positive to try that may help before he reaches for the bitter almond pills I fear the way this thread is going he may be giving up on film as a bad idea

Would it make sense to wait until he has responded before he feels sucked into the vortex of doom

pentaxuser