Metering White Churches

[roteague]

I suggest that you just forget about using B&W, get yourself a box of Velvia. Remember, when metering, blue skies, medium tone reds and greens work with Velvia.

 

[lee]

why would he want to use color Robert? He never said anything about color images until you butted in. even with the smiley face it seems pretenious and somewhat rude to try and hijack this thread. Just my 2 cents...

lee\c

 

[Donald Miller]

I suggest that you just forget about using B&W, get yourself a box of Velvia. Remember, when metering, blue skies, medium tone reds and greens work with Velvia.

Hey Robert,

Is that what happens to photographers that can't quite handle the technical side of black and white? Do they drop back to color?

 

[roteague]

Hey Robert,

Is that what happens to photographers that can't quite handle the technical side of black and white? Do they drop back to color?

Shhhhh .... we don't want everyone to know ....

 

[roteague]

why would he want to use color Robert? He never said anything about color images until you butted in. even with the smiley face it seems pretenious and somewhat rude to try and hijack this thread. Just my 2 cents...

Just a light jab Lee. Sorry you took offense.

 

[photomc]

I agree 100% with your comments Pentaxuser, along with the BTZS book you might want to check out Bruce Barnbaum's Art of Photography..another excellent read. More about zone system, but one of the easier, for me, to understand. I have not read the BTZS book, but it is on my list. Donald Miller and Lee, along with Les McLean have been most helpfull in helping me try to get my head around exposure. Not all the way there, but much closer than I was a year ago, would still be trying to figure it all out..as you said, there are some wonderfull people here that not only have the knowledge to help, but are very willing to do so. If we could capture that information and but it into an volume (digital or printed text) it would take up a great deal of room....glad they are all here to help.

Donald. Thanks. Have learned quite a bit more. Must try to get the BTZS book via the U.K. library search initially before deciding on purchase.

Pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I suggest that you just forget about using B&W, get yourself a box of Velvia. Remember, when metering, blue skies, medium tone reds and greens work with Velvia.

I started off in B&W when I went on an evening course, fascinated by being able to take home a few 8x10 prints which were all my own work. I couldn't wait to go home and show my wife what I'd achieved. I now try a bit of colour but negs as opposed to chromes. There's a place for both but strangely enough whenever I take colour I often find myself wondering what it would look like in B&W whereas when I take B&W I seldom wonder what it would look like in colour.

Colour is about journey's end - the arrival - whereas B&W is less about arriving and more about the process of getting there.

Pentaxuser

 

[Ruvy]

Mike,
. If that range is less then six stops then I would increase development to expand contrast. If the range is greater then six stops then I would reduce development to reduce contrast. The filter factor would probably not alter that contrast range materially...the caveat being shadows which would typically be filled with blue light and a yellow or red filter would lower the shadow values because of that consideration.

As always expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

I have a similar problem about the relations between exposure and development time. For instance, I measured 22.7/2 on the shadow, 22.6/125 on highlight and shot at 22/15 to place roughly on zone III-IV. now, What I would like to know is how to figure how much less time I should develope in order to get the highlights in zone VIII

 

[roteague]

Colour is about journey's end - the arrival - whereas B&W is less about arriving and more about the process of getting there.

There is a lot of truth in what you say - part of what we do, is that we do it in a way that most satisfies our inner self. I did post mainly in jest, but also as a way of pointing out a different way to look at what you are attempting - unfortunately, someone was offended.

I hope that you were successful in what you were wanting to shoot.

 

[photomc]

Ruvy, hope that Donald will reply..his help is invaluable. But wanted to pass a little of what I have learned from him and Lee on. The next best aid I have found to their expertise is a little zone calculator from the book Way Beyond Monochrome look Dead Link Removed. You can print this out and carry it around, I do, and get a pretty good idea of where to place your shadows and then take the high light reading and figure out if you need +/- development. So, say you take a reading of the shadows and place them on Zone III - That IS your exposure. Then take a reading of a highlight, that has detail, that you want in the print - that IS your development. Using the Zone dial, if you want to place the highlight on Zone VIII you are done..that is N developement, if your reading is Zone VI and you want Zone VIII you would want to INCREASE developement of N+2. To determine how much to increase the developement really depends on how the film/developer you are using. This is where all that film testing really pays off. If you are using FP4+ or Efke PL100 (these films seem to expand/contract well) you might increase your development by as much as 50%, again it will be base on your testing.

As to testing, Lee taught me a nice little trick, he had me use a white towel (dish, bath, hand, etc). The reason is, that the towel has texture so when testing, meter off of a gray card and process..I like to include the gray card, a black card (ok I use a film holder since it is black) and the white card (towel). This way you can 'SEE' the results of your testing.

Another book that might help with this would be Les McLeans, Creative Black & White Photography . What makes it so good, is Les not only gives you an example of what the final image looks like, but there will be a negative on the opposite page, which for me, was easier to 'see' what the image looks like.

Good Luck.

I have a similar problem about the relations between exposure and development time. For instance, I measured 22.7/2 on the shadow, 22.6/125 on highlight and shot at 22/15 to place roughly on zone III-IV. now, What I would like to know is how to figure how much less time I should develope in order to get the highlights in zone VIII

 

[mikebarger]

This has been one of the better threads in sometime.

Mike

 

[Donald Miller]

I have a similar problem about the relations between exposure and development time. For instance, I measured 22.7/2 on the shadow, 22.6/125 on highlight and shot at 22/15 to place roughly on zone III-IV. now, What I would like to know is how to figure how much less time I should develope in order to get the highlights in zone VIII

Let me begin by saying that I don't understand your exposure readings, as stated. Perhaps they are specific to your meter. I can't know what the SBR (scene brightness ratio or the inherent number of zones) of the scene based on the facts that you have provided.

Additionally, different films and film developers will respond differently to contraction and expansion of contrast.

The only definitive way is to test.

 

[lee]

Don,
It looks like he metered f22.7 @ 1/2 second for the shadow and f22.7 @1/125 of a sec for the highlites. So, if that is the case, then there are 7 stops between the shadow and the highlite. I suspect that the shadow is not really a zone III and that a grievous metering error took place. But were he placed the exposure he probably got an OK negative.

To review the meter secquence one would pick an area where there should be texture in the shadows and then meter this and THEN the photographer would STOP Down 2 stops and that then puts the exposure on ZONE III. From this reading to get the development time I would meter the highlite and make a note of it. I would then count the number of stops BETWEEN the zone III and the Zone VII. If there are 5 then the development is normal and if there are 6 then you need to develop less by the amount of time it takes to move zone VIII to zone VII. If there are only 4 stops then you need to develop more by the amount of time that will move VII to zone VIII. To be able to control these factors one must run a series of tests to determine what these separate times are and exprience to know when to use them.

 

[Donald Miller]

Thanks Lee

 

[Ruvy]

Thank you Lee and Don

Don,
I am not sure what did you mean that was missing (I am a beginner at that). Does Lee's understanding covers the missing info or more is needed - could you expand on it?, I understand measuring light and reading aperture and shutter speed but numerical values of brightness and contrast are pretty much abstract terms which I meet from time to time in my reading but have no idea why are they what they are (read somewhere that a contrast of 0.5-0.6 is normal but what are these numbers?, what are EVs EIs etc and how they translate to f stops and shutter speed? (I assume its a big one and not expectingto have you start teaching basics but if you have references/links it will be a good start.

Lee,
much of what you have written broaden my horizon but is generally speaking in the direction I was heading. Here are some more specific questions:

Don,
It looks like he metered f22.7 @ 1/2 second for the shadow and f22.7 @1/125 of a sec for the highlites. So, if that is the case, then there are 7 stops between the shadow and the highlite. I suspect that the shadow is not really a zone III and that a grievous metering error took place. But were he placed the exposure he probably got an OK negative.


Yes, there is a mathematical error (well I was never good with numbers) - did you mean that in order to be on zone III I should have been @1/8 sec.? or does your suspition of error refered to something els?

To review the meter secquence one would pick an area where there should be texture in the shadows and then meter this and THEN the photographer would STOP Down 2 stops and that then puts the exposure on ZONE III. From this reading to get the development time I would meter the highlite and make a note of it. I would then count the number of stops BETWEEN the zone III and the Zone VII. If there are 5 then the development is normal and if there are 6 then you need to develop less by the amount of time it takes to move zone VIII to zone VII.

Yes, this is what I have done but got into a problem at a point where I needed to calculate the time deduction. In other words how much less time are two f stops in precentage realtive to manufacturer suggested time of development

If there are only 4 stops the
n you need to develop more by the amount of time that will move VII to zone VIII. To be able to control these factors one must run a series of tests to determine what these separate times are and exprience to know when to use them.
I am not sure what did you mean here. I have done one shot and have a negative ready for development. I am assuming you are suggesting I should have taken some testing of the film to determine its "real" speed assuming that manufacturer rating is wrong? or determine best time length of development. (aren't there tables showing these relationship that are available on the net?) In the few month I am back to film and back to B&W I have developed per manufacturer specs with generally acceptable results but will be glad to improve on it. I am in the midst of reading Les McLean's book, do you have other suggestions on the net?

Thank you guys, all these learning experience with your help means a lot for me and make the whole experience a lot richer

 

[Donald Miller]

Ruvy,

I was not following your expression of Fstops and time initially. Lee's explanation clarified that for me.

Regarding your questions, let me begin by answering your question of EV. EV is an expression of Exposure Value and it will be a numerical expression of any combination of Fstop and shutter speed that will give the same exposure to film. For instance F8 at 1/125 second will be exactly the same exposure as F11 at 1/60 second. The only effect will be an increase in depth of field when exposing at F11.

Regarding you question on EI. EI is an expression of Exposure Index or the rating that one gives a given film to afford proper exposure. In Zone System practice, it is common to rate a film at a fixed EI. In BTZS (Beyond the Zone System) practice EI is not a fixed value but it does in fact deviate based upon development of the film.

For instance if we took Efke PL 100 and determined that the EI for N development (SBR 7) was 50 then if we had a N +1 development (SBR 6) the EI would 64 or 75 and for N+2 (SBR 5) the EI of that same film would be 100.

There is another expression that you will encounter---SBR. SBR is an expression of Subject Brightness Ratio. This is the ratio of the shadow to highlight values in a given exposure. SBR in BTZS is roughly the equivalent of N, N+ and N- in Zone system terminology. SBR is a more precise method. It is from the SBR or the contrast range of the exposure that we arrive at the proper degree of development for the film. It is more common to use incident meters then reflective spot meters in SBR practice.

Now taking your earlier example, that scene would have had an EV of 10.5 on your low reading and an EV of 16.5 on your upper reading. It would have been SBR 11 (in BTZS terminology) and N-4 in Zone System. It would have ideally had a compensation of an increase of 2/3 stop in EI and it would have a reduction of development dependent on your testing of your specific film and your specific developer.

The CI (Contrast Index) is a measure of the contrast that the film is developed to for a given printing process or paper. For silver it is .47 to .52.

By way of information, what you did in determining your exposure was to place your low values at Zone II 2/3 rather then the III-IV that you calculated. F22.6 (22 2/3) at 1/2 sec would have been a Zone V placement...two stops less would have been a Zone III placement. That would have been F 22.6 (22 2/3) at 1/8 second. F22 as opposed to 22.6 (22 2/3) at 1/15 second was a Zone II 2/3

Now getting back to your original question on how much to decrease your development for the increased contrast that you encountered in this exposure, as I said earlier it really needs to be determined by you in testing your film and your developer. Had you given a fuller exposure, I would begin, in this example, of appr. a 25 to 30% decrease in time of development...that would get you into the ball park.

However since you underexposed the film, in this case, I would develop the film normally.

 

[Ruvy]

Ruvy,

Now taking your earlier example, that scene would have had an EV of 10.5 on your low reading and an EV of 16.5 on your upper reading. It would have been SBR 8 (in BTZS terminology) and N-1 in Zone System. It would have ideally had a compensation of an increase of 1/3 stop in EI and it would have a reduction of development dependent on your testing of your specific film and your specific developer.

The CI (Contrast Index) is a measure of the contrast that the film is developed to for a given printing process or paper. For silver it is .47 to .52.

Thank you Don sooo very much. It is most appreciated. This kind of information is basic yet I stumble upon it never knowing how to use it. It seems like there is so much to know that I should have studied photography in an orderly manner where in fact I gather bits and pieces of information as I go about my intuitive path and constantly try to fill holes and gaps and those are so huge its hard to see at times beyond them. Thanks!!!

Couple of more questions if you don't mind:

You have mentioned "It would have ideally had a compensation of an increase of 1/3 stop in EI" - I am not sure why. Could you explain

About CI, EI and SBR, are the numbers a given data someone have set for all to be used or something everyone can figure out? how? Is the SBR the number of f stops between highlights and shadows?

 

[Donald Miller]

You have mentioned "It would have ideally had a compensation of an increase of 1/3 stop in EI" - I am not sure why. Could you explain

About CI, EI and SBR, are the numbers a given data someone have set for all to be used or something everyone can figure out? how? Is the SBR the number of f stops between highlights and shadows?

I am sorry, I made some errors in my earlier post. In the case of contraction (reduced development from normal) the EI should have been decreased by the amount that I indicated. The correct compensation is that as development is decreased (from normal--SBR 7) the EI is decreased and as the development is increased (from normal--SBR 7) then the EI is increased. As I mentioned EI is not a static factor since it does increase and decrease somewhat with altered development...sorry for my earlier errors. I have corrected them.

In BTZS so long as the testing is done consistantly with the same developing regimen, films and developers the EI and CI are consistant from photographer to photographer. That is one of the benefits of that system. For instance if you were to go to the www.Unblinkingeye.comsite and review the information that Sandy King has provided you should be able to get yourself fairly close in your own practice...so long as you utilize the same practice and materials.

SBR is based on the calculations as outlined in the BTZS volume 4. All of the testing procedures are contained in that volume. The SBR is arrived at by subtracting the low EV from the high EV and adding that result to 5. SBR 7 is considered to be the equivalent of N in Zone System terms. As I mentioned in the earlier post, this applies to incident meter readings. For spot meter readings, further calculations are required. It is a common procedure, once understood, and is consistantly used by those who practice that particular discipline.

 

[Ruvy]

SBR is based on the calculations as outlined in the BTZS volume 4. All of the testing procedures are contained in that volume. The SBR is arrived at by subtracting the low EV from the high EV and adding that result to 5. SBR 7 is considered to be the equivalent of N in Zone System terms. As I mentioned in the earlier post, this applies to incident meter readings. For spot meter readings, further calculations are required. It is a common procedure, once understood, and is consistantly used by those who practice that particular discipline.

Its easy for me to be attracted to logic that creates near perfectly executed beauty. The BTZS seems fascinating at that level and adds another plateau of overwhelming new information and time consuming steps. Just started and still learning to use a 4X5 (making lots of errors) but am most excited for the developing each frame on its own. Likewise got an enlarger and starting to develop and print etc.
I am wondering if its wise right now to get in depth to so many subjects when the capacity of my mind is growing in revers ratio to my age ;-) and if not, would it be sufficient right now to assume a less than perfect procedure that will leave time for photographic experience, growth and real work too. If so, what may be the priorities of learning. Until this thread I was pretty much sure of my way. Use simplified zone system by sooting for shadows and developing for highlight by finding out a percentage contraction for each stop over 5. Now I have to think if slowing down and learning more about film should be the right thing. Desiring relatively fast results in not foreign for me so a path have to be found to meet all those new things with my own capacity and personality too.

 

[Donald Miller]

Its easy for me to be attracted to logic that creates near perfectly executed beauty. The BTZS seems fascinating at that level and adds another plateau of overwhelming new information and time consuming steps. Just started and still learning to use a 4X5 (making lots of errors) but am most excited for the developing each frame on its own. Likewise got an enlarger and starting to develop and print etc.
I am wondering if its wise right now to get in depth to so many subjects when the capacity of my mind is growing in revers ratio to my age ;-) and if not, would it be sufficient right now to assume a less than perfect procedure that will leave time for photographic experience, growth and real work too. If so, what may be the priorities of learning. Until this thread I was pretty much sure of my way. Use simplified zone system by sooting for shadows and developing for highlight by finding out a percentage contraction for each stop over 5. Now I have to think if slowing down and learning more about film should be the right thing. Desiring relatively fast results in not foreign for me so a path have to be found to meet all those new things with my own capacity and personality too.

The late Fred Picker, the founder of Zone VI, once made a recommendation that someone starting out in large format would be well advised to take the first year and photograph only with polaroids. His recommendations were based on the fact that instant feedback was available on both composition and exposure. I understand the reasoning for that recommendation today.

It takes time to learn enough technically to reach a point of becoming satisfied with the results. That has been the experience of a lot of photographers and it has been true for me.

If I were beginning over today, I would probably seek to do what Picker recommended or I would take Michael and Paula's workshop. They will recommend contact printing because that is what they do. There is no need to limit yourself to contacting print only. The vision portion of their workshop is worth the commitment. Their workshop would probably "jump start" your ability to see. In lieu of that, study lots of photographs by other photographers.

Recognize that all of the technique in the world with a poorly "seen" image is going to result in a weak photograph. Conversely, "weak technique" with the ability to "see" will result in a strong image without the means to express it optimally.

Good luck in whatever you choose to do.

 

[Tach]

Under what circumstances would an incident reading not be appropriate for a photo, assuming that the photgrapher could get into a position to point the meter back towards the camera which may not be feasible if the subject cannot be easily reached.

Any light emitting (instead of reflecting ) subject.