metering in the snow / the digital is debilitating !!

[Mike1234]

bowzart is right. And as alluded earlier, if you compensate the Zone V placement of the snow with +1 or +1.5 development, sparkles and textures will sing... perhaps even a bit TOO loudly especially if you print the now Zone VI or VI.5 down to V or V.5. I know it sounds strange but SOMETIMES that's the way to print snow. You can also compensate with selenium toner in lieu of the overdevelopment for a smilar effect plus the added benefit of archival treatment of the negs... all else done properly.

 

[Larry Bullis]

... And as alluded earlier, if you compensate the Zone V placement of the snow with +1 or +1.5 development, sparkles and textures will sing... perhaps even a bit TOO loudly ...

It's not just the sparkles and textures, although that is certainly an important element.

Snow covers things that together may constitute a very complex surface creating a new surface that modulates light in a very subtle way. Placing the whites at mid value and increasing development or printing on higher grade of paper exaggerates these subtle differences and makes them scream when singing a lullaby would be more appropriate.

If the snow isn't represented by the part of the curve where it belongs, the tonal relationships can never be correct no matter what you do in developing the film or in printing. Also, the absence of shadow densities and the attempt to represent mid values by densities that more appropriately belong to shadows will give a strange, and generally unattractive appearance to the image as a whole. The net effect would be similar to "pushing film," which relies on a simplistic assumption that exposure and development are interchangeable. They aren't. It may be possible to help the shadows (see dfcardwell's thread on shaping the curve with Rodinal) by using minimized agitation, but that requires some background experience. The last thing one would normally do with a snow scene would be to "push", but that is exactly what would be done if placing the snow at mid value.

 

[Andy K]

My rule of thumb for shooting in snow: Meter with the camera and open up a couple of stops.

 

[Mike1234]

The last thing one would normally do with a snow scene would be to "push", but that is exactly what would be done if placing the snow at mid value.

Everything you stated is correct. This is why I said you might "sometimes" want to use that method. It depends on the condition of the snow, lighting, compositional elements, and what you want to achieve. It was only one of many options I listed.

I only did that a couple of times:
1. When shooting a frozen snow covered lake and all I need to show (enhance) were very subtle tones.
2. When the lighting was a bit soft so shadows and textures were softened.

It just depends on the particular situation.

 

[Prest_400]

I'm curious.
I did take a quick photo of a snowed path, overcast white sky, and trees (dark) in the middle of the composition. Snow doesn't have much texture, but it's white (at least to my eye). I can remember that all I did was follow the meter reading, maybe just 1/2 stop over.
It has come out well to the trees, that affected the reading (center weighted metering), so I overexposed; Negatives look quite dense. Or the drugstore lab corrected it magically?

With slide film, do you recommend to expose 2 stops over the meter reading? Negatives holds this extra light well, but slide...

 

[Steve Smith]

With slide film, do you recommend to expose 2 stops over the meter reading? Negatives holds this extra light well, but slide...

No. The idea is that you give it the right amount of light, not extra light.

All this talk of two stops extra isn't to actually over expose by two stops but to compensate for the meter thinking there is more light than there really is and telling you to under expose by two stops.


Steve.

 

[Mike1234]

1. Dense black charcoal
2. Brilliant white snow
3. 18 calibrated (middle gray) gray card

Meter tries to make everything look like the 18 percent gray card because it doesn't know what it's looking at... because the meter is a brainless TOOL. It's just calibrated to make everything look 18 percent gray... because it has to be calibrated for SOMETHING. YOU know that snow is white... meter doesn't. YOU know that charcoal is black... meter doesn't. YOU know an 18 percent gray card is 18 percent gray... meter just got lucky. YOU must determine WHERE to place a given scene value. Two f/stops is just a rule-of-thumb to give you a better exposure for an average snow scene than the middle gray the meter is CALIBRATED to. Now if the snow you're metering is contaminated with really dark road grime... that's a different story because it's no longer white.

 

[Galah]

1. Dense black charcoal
2. Brilliant white snow
3. 18 calibrated (middle gray) gray card

Meter tries to make everything look like the 18 percent gray card because it doesn't know what it's looking at... Now if the snow you're metering is contaminated with really dark road grime... that's a different story because it's no longer white.

Well said, Mike!

 

[Larry Bullis]

1. Dense black charcoal
2. Brilliant white snow
3. 18 calibrated (middle gray) gray card

Meter tries to make everything look like the 18 percent gray card because it doesn't know what it's looking at... because the meter is a brainless TOOL. It's just calibrated to make everything look 18 percent gray... because it has to be calibrated for SOMETHING. YOU know that snow is white... meter doesn't. YOU know that charcoal is black... meter doesn't....

This is why an incident light meter is most useful in such situations.

 

[Mike1234]

This is why an incident light meter is most useful in such situations.

An incident meter will take "guess work" out the equation but it isn't more "accurate". If you want "charcoal" to be placed at Zone III or III.5 to retail a little more textural detail then meter off of it directly and underexpose what that direct meter reading indicates 1.5 or 2 steps. If you want snow to have a lot of textural detail then meter directly and don't overexpose more than a couple steps for negs or one step for slides. More "precise" exposure control is learned by trial and error or rather trial and "success" according to film, processing, and personal taste. If the snow or charcoal are the only things in the frame or there is less "overall contrast" in the scene then even more liberties can be take with exposure and development to adjust textural detail and tonality as desired. An incident reading just doesn't give you this kind of precision.

 

[Galah]

An incident meter will take "guess work" out the equation but it isn't more "accurate". If you want "charcoal" to be placed at Zone III or III.5 to retail a little more textural detail then meter off of it directly and underexpose what that direct meter reading indicates 1.5 or 2 steps. If you want snow to have a lot of textural detail then meter directly and don't overexpose more than a couple steps for negs or one step for slides. More "precise" exposure control is learned by trial and error or rather trial and "success" according to film, processing, and personal taste. If the snow or charcoal are the only things in the frame or there is less "overall contrast" in the scene then even more liberties can be take with exposure and development to adjust textural detail and tonality as desired. An incident reading just doesn't give you this kind of precision.

Again, well put Mike!

 

[Sirius Glass]

An incident meter will take "guess work" out the equation but it isn't more "accurate". If you want "charcoal" to be placed at Zone III or III.5 to retail a little more textural detail then meter off of it directly and underexpose what that direct meter reading indicates 1.5 or 2 steps. If you want snow to have a lot of textural detail then meter directly and don't overexpose more than a couple steps for negs or one step for slides. More "precise" exposure control is learned by trial and error or rather trial and "success" according to film, processing, and personal taste. If the snow or charcoal are the only things in the frame or there is less "overall contrast" in the scene then even more liberties can be take with exposure and development to adjust textural detail and tonality as desired. An incident reading just doesn't give you this kind of precision.

Well said.

Do not both chimpin' because it will not help you.

Steve

 

[Mike1234]

When I'm shooting that evil digital thingy I chimp. But then I'm just snap-shooting with a cheapo Nikon Coolpix... an old one. I guess the LF way to chimp is carry one's darkoom along and shoot... process... reshoot... process... reshoot...

BTW, I quit using an incident meters eons ago... was probably 14 years old or so. I just prefer relective and, even better, spot.

 

[Q.G.]

[...] An incident reading just doesn't give you this kind of precision.

It does.
Or rather, don't look at the metering mode.

"If you want "charcoal" to be placed at Zone III or III.5 to retail a little more textural detail then meter off of it directly and underexpose what that direct meter reading indicates 1.5 or 2 steps." , is correct, of course.
But shows how you have to know what to do to arrive at the same result an incident meter would produce immediately.
The fact that an incident light meter produces that result immediately is, of course, no excuse for not knowing what you are doing and what to do next.
The kind of precision both metering methods deliver depends for a large part on you, the one holding the meter, understanding what is going on.

You're quite right that "An incident meter will take "guess work" out the equation but it isn't more "accurate"."
The fact that incident light metering takes one uncertainty (the reflective properties of your subjects) out of the actual metered result makes it the method more likely to produce the desired results.

But neither method makes thinking about what you are doing unnecessary.
And neither method is less precise than the other.

 

[Colin Corneau]

One of the more useful things in a digital camera-as-meter is using the histograms when checking the exposure. I've shot the scene I want to record on film, chimp it and have histograms turned on...a big help.

Then again, I've also just read off a grey card with my trusty 20 year old Nikon F90x and never gone wrong.

 

[Larry Bullis]

...I guess the LF way to chimp is carry one's darkoom along and shoot... process... reshoot... process... reshoot...

We called it "Polaroid".

 

[Mike1234]

Polaroid is too inconsistent in widely varied temperature situations... yes, even with a cold clip. And before anyone mentions it... I qualify my LF Chimping procedure with "everything is temp/time controlled". Now that I think of it... polaroid could be placed in a temperature consistent environment to "bake". Oh well... I just don't like Polaroid.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Most people I know just put it under their arms.

I suppose in South Texas, heat is more of a problem much of the time, except when a norther comes in.

The studios where I worked became really dependent on it.

 

[Mike1234]

Hi bowzart... yeah, I know some use/used the stuff. I just never really liked it. It never helped me one bit regards to exposure. In fact, it steered me wrong more often than not. But I was comparing apples to oranges... I shot B&W and used the Zone System and I had a very good grip on my chosen mediums... Agfapan 25 or 100 in Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 with slight variations in agitation techniques and toned in Selenium. Or... maybe I was just too picky.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Minor White used a lot of it in his ZS workshops to demonstrate. It worked pretty well, actually, limited as it was.

I did like it. I shot a massive job on location in the eastern Washington desert, where there was no darkroom. Archaeological dig - artifacts. As it was very important to show the flaking and wear, needed to see the results right away. All I had was trays and a bathtub, and sodium sulfite. Worked well.

 

[Mike1234]

Minor White used a lot of it in his ZS workshops to demonstrate. It worked pretty well, actually, limited as it was.

I did like it. I shot a massive job on location in the eastern Washington desert, where there was no darkroom. Archaeological dig - artifacts. As it was very important to show the flaking and wear, needed to see the results right away. All I had was trays and a bathtub, and sodium sulfite. Worked well.

Ahh... type 55 with a decent albeit it grainy neg. A bit of a different story as the negs grant you reprieves... second chances for better detail and exposure make "perfection" far less of an issue... get a decent print... get a very decent enlargement. Not really something for Chimping though, is it? As I recall, a slightly overexposed neg (slightly lighter print) offered the best results (better shadow detail) and the chemicals depleted before blocking highlights (like stand or two bath development) ... decent tonal retention but lousy grain, as I recall. Yes, very useful in some conditions such as the archiological digs you mentioned. But, IMO, you were only quasi-Chimping.

 

[Donima]

If youre using youre meter in incident mode you should not have to compensate its reading. Also what film are you using? I develop tri-x 400 in D76 1-1 for 8.5 min at 70*. I feel you may be using youre meter in incident mode and youre proccesing times may be way off. Stop baths usually only require 30 seconds and a rapid fix 3 to 5 minutes. Also are you using D76 straight or 1-1 ? Negs as dense as you say yours are can be caused by over exposure and or over development. Hope this helps you. Don

 

[Deit39]

Donima - That film was 120 pro Tri-X 320 film developed in D76 1:1 @ 68F for 14 mins, 2 rolls in one double tank, 30 seconds initial agitation, 10 secs every minute for the following 13 1/2 mins. NOW..According to the D76 processing chart, there are no suggested times for double tank processing, only single for 120 TriX 320, so my 14 mins of developing was a rough estimate based on the relationships between single and double tank times for other types of film.. Was I wrong in estimating? Was I wrong in processing two rolls at a time if there are no suggested times? I didn't think so.. But maybe I'm being naive.

(Keep in mind, I had only 2 years or so darkroom experience in college, which was over 2 years ago.. and only recently got myself set up in my parents basement now developing negs again. Soon I'll have enough money saved to get full darkroom set up so I can start printing! But as of now, I do not.)

The rest of my processing goes as follows: (in previous post I may have improperly recalled my times..I have the sheet I wrote up in front of me now..)
after dumping developer:
-Sprint stop bath 1:9, agitate for first 30 secs, then 5-10 secs every 30 seconds for 2 mins
-dump stop-
-Ilford rapid fixer 1:4 - agitate first 30 secs then 10 seconds every min for 8-10mins
-return fixer to "2nd round" bottle
-h20 wash, dumping repeatedly for 2-3 mins roughly at 70F
-Hypo clear 1:9 1-2 mins (I made no note of agitations.. DOH!)
-Final h20 wash, 5 mins dumping repeatedly
-30 seconds of kodak photo flo 200 (1:200)
-hang on rope above sink with clothespins on all four corners of film till dry

If anyone sees unnecessary procedure, improper times, etc.. Let me know, it's been a while!!

 

[juanito]

Hi,

Stop bath just 30 sec
Ilford rapid fixer 1:4 just 2 min
HCA not necessary with Ilford rapid fixer
After th fixer 5 min wash

 

[Deit39]

juanito - Hypo clear agent isn't necessary?? but Doesn't it assure the fixer is completely cleared? or is there no hypo in the type of fixer I'm using?