Metering/Exposure question

[CMoore]

What/How do you think the photographer (i think it was Metzker) metered this photo.?
I guess what i am really wondering is how did he get this look.?
Did he push this to get underexposure but high contrast in the small area where there IS sun-light.?
The bulk of the frame, that is dark and low contrast, did he burn that area a lot with a soft(er) filter, or did he Dodge the bus-stop to get that area lighter and then burn with a harder filter.
Did he do all this with camera exposure or was there a lot of darkroom work involved.?
Thank You

 

[tedr1]

There seems to be little mid-tone detail and this permits much leeway in both film processing and print manipulation because the look of natural mid-tones can be ignored and the top priority given to getting the graphic shapes to appear as the photographer wants them.

Regarding exposure, and presuming this is sunlit and not some weird artificial light situation, I don't believe a meter was needed, the sunny sixteen rule can be applied with some compensation for the low sun angle. I'm guessing but this compensation might have been an increase of exposure a stop or two, and in this situation I would make multiple exposures and bracket. There is detail in the dark background and a small amount in the sunlit ground, preserving these two extremes might have required some dodging and burning.

 

[jvo]

i would have made 2 exposures... the first to "get something" before figures moved, light changed, etc.

i would meter one of the figures (spot), and place them on zone 2 or 3, and expose.

the next shot would be more considerate with multiple light readings and see how the "picture evolved" and expose.

if i used an incident reading, or reflected light it would get more involved so the calculations would be different with the same 2 to 3 shot practice.

develop as normally, then print on 3 or 4 paper. i shoot 120 so i'd be lucky if it didn't require and dodging or burning - maybe that's just me...

i hope if i came across this i would be lucky enough to get the exposures, and the result. thanks for the "exercise."

 

[tedr1]

PS if the use of "sunny 16" seems too simple then a meter reading using a spot meter could be used. The spot would be located on the bright ground only and an aperture and shutter speed combination is chosen. Then some mental arithmetic is used. The spot reading assumes mid-gray tone however the subject (the bright ground) is not a mid gray but brighter, and is probably about two stops brighter than mid-gray. This calls for an increase of exposure by two stops from the meter indication. So for example say the spot meter reading the bright ground indicated ISO100 f8 1/125 then a two stop increase would be f4 1/125.

 

[CMoore]

PS if the use of "sunny 16" seems too simple then a meter reading using a spot meter could be used. The spot would be located on the bright ground only and an aperture and shutter speed combination is chosen. Then some mental arithmetic is used. The spot reading assumes mid-gray tone however the subject (the bright ground) is not a mid gray but brighter, and is probably about two stops brighter than mid-gray. This calls for an increase of exposure by two stops from the meter indication. So for example say the spot meter reading the bright ground indicated ISO100 f8 1/125 then a two stop increase would be f4 1/125.

Thanks for ALL of the responses so far.
I guess what seems complicated to me, is how he got the High Contrast/Silhouette of the people at the bus stop, and the the Dark/Low Contrast scene of the building that makes up the bulk of the composition.
I was thinking Zone-3 for the building and Zone-7/8 for the (brightest) sunlight on the ground.?
Maybe it was just an Average for the while scene, like with a reflected or 60/40 meter, and then he did whatever was necessary to get the final look.?

Anyway.....thanks again

 

[MattKing]

I bet that the photographer snapped a shot, went to print it, did a test that ended up being too long and liked how it turned out .
On a slightly more serious tone, this looks like the sort of result one might come upon in the darkroom as a result of experimentation and good fortune.

 

[awty]

Under exposed trix...maybe.
Basically exposing and printing for the highlights.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... I guess what seems complicated to me, is how he got the High Contrast/Silhouette of the people at the bus stop, and the the Dark/Low Contrast scene of the building that makes up the bulk of the composition.
I was thinking Zone-3 for the building and Zone-7/8 for the (brightest) sunlight on the ground.?
Maybe it was just an Average for the while scene, like with a reflected or 60/40 meter, and then he did whatever was necessary to get the final look.?
Anyway.....thanks again

Or maybe the lighting was exactly right to yield this result with normal metering and processing. Good photographers watch the light and take advantage of fortuitous situations. There is often no more magic to it than that: A practiced eye finding something exceptional to photograph. That's my guess about what happened here.

Best,

Doremus

 

[David Allen]

Core to Metzker’s photography was a particular quality of light. He successfully went from deeply shadowed urban street photography to sunlight filled landscapes and then back again when he returned to Philadelphia. I very much admire his work. Despite having his work in many important museum collections, his many books and also being a great teacher, he is not very well known outside of the US.

He was known for his technical prowess and for his many experiments in the darkroom. The picture you chose (which, incidentally, is not so dark in the versions that I have seen in books and magazines) is typical for his urban work and he would have been well versed in what exposure would deliver the prints that he envisioned.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[CMoore]

I bet that the photographer snapped a shot, went to print it, did a test that ended up being too long and liked how it turned out .
On a slightly more serious tone, this looks like the sort of result one might come upon in the darkroom as a result of experimentation and good fortune.

Or maybe the lighting was exactly right to yield this result with normal metering and processing. Good photographers watch the light and take advantage of fortuitous situations. There is often no more magic to it than that: A practiced eye finding something exceptional to photograph. That's my guess about what happened here.

Best,

Doremus

Brilliant Minds Think Alike.......

Core to Metzker’s photography was a particular quality of light. He successfully went from deeply shadowed urban street photography to sunlight filled landscapes and then back again when he returned to Philadelphia. I very much admire his work. Despite having his work in many important museum collections, his many books and also being a great teacher, he is not very well known outside of the US.

He was known for his technical prowess and for his many experiments in the darkroom. The picture you chose (which, incidentally, is not so dark in the versions that I have seen in books and magazines) is typical for his urban work and he would have been well versed in what exposure would deliver the prints that he envisioned.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Thank You........ From what i have seen, he shot some very stunning photos.