Metering with film

[Sirius Glass]

hi all, I've googled this but am even more confused after that.

When I am metering with film I have heard the term "meter for shadows, develop for highlights". Some say rate the film at half box speed, meter for shadow detail and back off negative development time by about 15%, to stop the highlights developing too much.

In practice, this will surely result in a highly over-exposed image?? I would have thought that metering for shadow detail at the box speed, or taking an ambient reading at half the box speed would have similar results, but both together would over expose?

The most common problem is that people meter too much of the sky which underexposes everything else. So I recommend:

• Shoot box speed and take the light reading of the subject without any sky or sky light measurements. This works with both slides and prints. Just skip the testing which will tell you to use about half the box speed which is a lousy way to get around the sky-sky light problem in a haphazard way.
  
• Get a light meter that handles the Zone System such as a Gossen Luna Pro SBC, choose the part of the subject that you want to be Middle Gray and shoot box speed. This works with both slides and prints. Just skip the testing which will tell you to use about half the box speed which is a lousy way to get around the sky-sky light problem in a haphazard way.
• Get a light meter that handles the Zone System such as a Gossen Luna Pro SBC, choose the part of the subject that you want to be a specific Zone, adjust the meter for that Zone and shoot box speed. This works with both slides and prints. Just skip the testing which will tell you to use about half the box speed which is a lousy way to get around the sky-sky light problem in a haphazard way.
• Shoot box speed and use an incident meter set to box speed and aim in the direction of the camera. This works with both slides and prints. Just skip the testing which will tell you to use about half the box speed which is a lousy way to get around the sky-sky light problem in a haphazard way.

I have one of these for every situation.

 

[RobC]

when you say commercially processed what exactly do you mean. Do you mean prints or do you mean negs themselves.
Commercially produced prints will invariably be scanned, sharpened and then printed so you will be comparing apples to oranges so there is no valid comparison. And as pentauser has already pointed out, developer used can make a large difference. And your scanner will make a difference if you are comparing scans. So what exactly are you comparing?

 

[pdeeh]

It is always a source of amusement to me that these exposure threads run out to tens of pages sometimes ... And yet since the dawn of popular photography a hundred years ago, millions of people have cheerfully and consistently made thousands of millions of perfectly good exposures without the sniff of an idea about exposure theory between them.

Doremus' advice is always worth reading though.

 

[RobC]

It is always a source of amusement to me that these exposure threads run out to tens of paper sometimes ... And yet since the dawn of popular photography a hundred years ago, people have cheerfully and consistently made thousands of millions of perfectly good exposures

and they've made trillions of shite photos too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is always a source of amusement to me that these exposure threads run out to tens of pages sometimes ... And yet since the dawn of popular photography a hundred years ago, millions of people have cheerfully and consistently made thousands of millions of perfectly good exposures without the sniff of an idea about exposure theory between them.

Doremus' advice is always worth reading though.

and they've made trillions of shite photos too.

But they were properly exposed.

 

[removed account4]

and they've made trillions of shite photos too.

most of the photographs, even by the greats have been terrible
and the greats allegedly were masters of exposure

It is always a source of amusement to me that these exposure threads run out to tens of pages sometimes ... And yet since the dawn of popular photography a hundred years ago, millions of people have cheerfully and consistently made thousands of millions of perfectly good exposures without the sniff of an idea about exposure theory between them.

Doremus' advice is always worth reading though.

couldn't agree more !
===

unfortunately people are so reliant on their meters and exposure quantification
that they forget to actually look at the light, judge it, use past experience and
be as reliant on themselves as they might be on some sort of device that removes
them from the photography experience as a whole.
i look at some of the exposures made by people like atget,and i am always in awe.

 

[Bill Burk]

... also experiment, using a grey card and also possibly metering off of objects which I might want to be 18% grey in the final image...

You know.... 18% gray is a bad choice for meter target to relate to the final image.

When you get the whites and/or blacks where you want them to be, the grays will move from where you think they should be... to where they make the picture look good and preserve the illusion of reality.

And while I think it happens that 12% might move to 18% in a normal picture in bright daylight, it isn't precisely 12% going to 18%. How much the grays move around will change for every picture.

 

[MattKing]

I did a test film today, using varying metering, and they all came out pretty well but some more defined testing is definitely needed.

One of my main problems in home development is resolving detail. More often than not images look at bit soft, where similar images with the same camera/lens/film but commercially processed appear with much greater detail.

Are you printing optically, or scanning?

Same question about your lab.

 

[Bill Burk]

You know.... 18% gray is a bad choice.

I don't mean to say you can't use gray as a reference, just that there is a lot of confusing information about grays, and you would be better off avoiding it.

 

[RobC]

I see said the blind man

 

[RobC]

But they were properly exposed.

well thats all right then

 

[pdeeh]

i look at some of the exposures made by people like atget,and i am always in awe.

well, quite.

It's not that I am dismissive of understanding exposure, and I've got my copies of The Negative and Dunn & Wakefield on my bookshelves too (though in the case of the latter I have to admit that I struggled through the first third or so before the mathematics defeated me and I gave up).

It's simply that very often, someone comes along to APUG, perhaps new to film photography, perhaps returning to it after a long while, and asks a very simple question about how to expose "properly", or who maybe is dissatisfied with the way their negatives are turning out, and asks for advice.

All too frequently, the thread quickly becomes a deluge of pretty abstruse stuff about curves and lux and lumens and testing regimes and zones and beyond-zones and whatnot. And quite often this stuff is (if the poster is someone who knows their stuff - Bill Burk is one example) solid evidence-based stuff, rooted in experience and thorough understanding. And sometimes, of course, it ends up a battleground for the different branches of the Church of Zone

The problem as I see it is that for a newcomer to film photography, it can suddenly seem as if you can't get going without absorbing, understanding and putting into practice a vast range of highly technical matters using all sorts of expensive equipment (e.g. spot meters, densitometers), doing tests and drawing graphs.

I do wonder how many people who simply want to take beautiful pictures get sidetracked or even put off altogether because they are drowned in information (all of it offered in good faith) that they really don't necessarily need.

Which is why I commended Doremus' straightforward and clear advice.

 

[markbarendt]

hi all, I've googled this but am even more confused after that.

You are in good company. Most people seem to struggle with this.

IMO when people pick up a camera and take a picture they have a natural expectation that the result will have a direct relationship to the exposure they use at the camera. That's true only for "straight to positive" processes such as slides, digital, and instant film fall into this category.

When you shoot with negative film there is no direct connection from camera to print because to make a print you have to use a second exposure to make the positive and that second exposure is adjustable.

If the first (camera) exposure was high or low, no problem, just adjust the second (printing) exposure and a "perfect" print is available.

When I am metering with film I have heard the term "meter for shadows, develop for highlights". Some say rate the film at half box speed, meter for shadow detail and back off negative development time by about 15%, to stop the highlights developing too much.

This is a rule of thumb, there are assumptions being made that aren't necessarily true for your work.

1/2 box speed helps people avoid underexposure and it fits zone system thought, but that's not always practical or necessary for you. With practice you'll find your own limit.

Adjusting development is actually pre-adjusting for printing, again practice will help you find what works best for you.

In practice, this will surely result in a highly over-exposed image?? I would have thought that metering for shadow detail at the box speed, or taking an ambient reading at half the box speed would have similar results, but both together would over expose?

I will happily expose most any negative film from 1-stop under box to 2 to 3-stops over box speed. From any exposure in that range I can typically produce "the same" print.

Instead of adjusting film development I use burn, dodge, and paper grade adjustments.

 

[removed account4]

at least people ar

well, quite.

It's not that I am dismissive of understanding exposure, and I've got my copies of The Negative and Dunn & Wakefield on my bookshelves too (though in the case of the latter I have to admit that I struggled through the first third or so before the mathematics defeated me and I gave up).

It's simply that very often, someone comes along to APUG, perhaps new to film photography, perhaps returning to it after a long while, and asks a very simple question about how to expose "properly", or who maybe is dissatisfied with the way their negatives are turning out, and asks for advice.

All too frequently, the thread quickly becomes a deluge of pretty abstruse stuff about curves and lux and lumens and testing regimes and zones and beyond-zones and whatnot. And quite often this stuff is (if the poster is someone who knows their stuff - Bill Burk is one example) solid evidence-based stuff, rooted in experience and thorough understanding. And sometimes, of course, it ends up a battleground for the different branches of the Church of Zone

The problem as I see it is that for a newcomer to film photography, it can suddenly seem as if you can't get going without absorbing, understanding and putting into practice a vast range of highly technical matters using all sorts of expensive equipment (e.g. spot meters, densitometers), doing tests and drawing graphs.

I do wonder how many people who simply want to take beautiful pictures get sidetracked or even put off altogether because they are drowned in information (all of it offered in good faith) that they really don't necessarily need.

Which is why I commended Doremus' straightforward and clear advice.

yeah it can get deep, like a ph.d dissertation-deep to just expose a roll of film,
but that's ok. there's people of all interests, and who knows, maybe one of
the OPs who opens this can of worms and gets a 10 page zone system argument about
zone 5 really being zone 6.75 with mercury batteries and zone 4.6 with hearing aid batteries
will leave even more confused (even though his/her answer was answered simply by doremus on the 1st or 2nd post ... )
and leave apug for 12 months with 1 or 2 posts ... then after purchasing a close out pro lab for the price of
a used junkyard tow away vw beatle,
and after having bought armloads of denso-senso gagets, got rid of their 35mm dream to a 8x10 camera and will be making an announcement
that their work will be on display at the guggenheim ... all because they became engulfed in exposure perfection ...
i'm always amazed at how complicated people can make a simple process, seeing i have done my best to simplify it as much as i can.
but that's ok, i gave up on perfection decades ago.

 

[Ian Grant]

The people who truly know their stuff don't make it seem that way. It's the surrounding bad information/advice ranging from wrong to absurd, and dumbass comments about good information. This isn't limited to exposure, of course. It's even worse when it comes to processing. Terrible information, and in the absence of good information one can easily get the impression darkroom photography is virtually impossible to do without countless faults occurring. It really isn't difficult at all to make good negatives. In fact it's easy.

Have to agree, if Tom reads through The Negative he'll find Ansel Adams simple and sound advice for working with 35mm and 120 films, it's not about fully understanding the Zone system particularly at this stage. It's about improving confidence and building up experience.

Ian

 

[Luckless]

"Correct" is a rather subjective value when it comes to exposure, and it can be easy to become sidetracked with all the various distractions of different schools of thought and approaches to things.

The important thing is to sit down and look at the results you are getting, identifying elements that you aren't fond of, and then exploring why they're like that, and finally go look for solutions. For some the best and most enjoyable path is trial and error with a minimum of 'science'. For others having a detailed understanding of the chemistry, the physics, and the why of things working will bring the most joy and engagement. Don't let others drag you down a path that you aren't enjoying, and try out elements of the different paths to see what clicks.

When it comes to deciding on the proper exposure for a photo then you really need to decide what you are photographing, and how you want to record this data to work with. If you want to REALLY push things to the limit, then you will either need a lot of luck, or you'll need to find a way to establish a lot of precision. (And the more data you have to work with about the light, the more carefully you can make your decisions in an objective manner.)

However, if you find all that to be really rather boring? Well, take a good sunny-16 sort of estimate of what's in front of you, trip the shutter, and see what you have to work with.

And in my view bracketing shots is a good and useful thing to go with regardless of what your metering style is if your subject matter allows it. Even the greatest master of a craft can flub a number in their head or misread a shutter setting.

 

[JBrunner]

Most of the advice boils down to a common sense approach, if you have control over your printing. The axiom is, "you can't print what isn't there". Because of that, most old curmudgeons like me will lean towards a slight over exposure. There are many methods of going about that, many described here as "rules of thumb" are pretty much designed to create a bit of an over exposure, so yes, the results are a bit over exposed, but you now have the leeway to choose your printing to suit your taste, rather than have no highlight detail to decide about. You can print down a lot, up, not so much.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

No offense here but in touting the almost "don't worry about it" attitude of exposure of the negs IMO people are talking about results of an "acceptable" print rather than a "perfect" print. If only it were so easy....

Good news is you should not push too hard for perfection early. It's subtleties, especially for B&W work, only really come with time and experience if only because you yourself still don't know what you want, or what you're capable of....yet.

 

[Luckless]

No offense here but in touting the almost "don't worry about it" attitude of exposure of the negs IMO people are talking about results of an "acceptable" print rather than a "perfect" print. If only it were so easy....

Good news is you should not push too hard for perfection early. It's subtleties, especially for B&W work, only really come with time and experience if only because you yourself still don't know what you want, or what you're capable of....yet.

Well that would be a rather good example of "Various schools of Thought". Mathematically 'perfect' exposure is in no way directly related to a good image. One can utilize mathematically perfect exposure in a photo to create a good image, but a mathematically perfect exposure is not in and of itself a good image.

There is after all an awful lot of technically 'perfect' photography out there, following all the 'rules' the photographer could throw at the image out of a text book, but which is mind numbingly dull, uninteresting, and to many isn't worth the paper it was printed on, let alone the cost of the silver used in making it.

 

[pdeeh]

The idea that everyone's desired outcome is - and should, or even must be - a "perfect print" is simply another belief or preference. It certainly isn't a universal truth.

Stieglitz casts a long long shadow even now ...

 

[markbarendt]

No offense here but in touting the almost "don't worry about it" attitude of exposure of the negs IMO people are talking about results of an "acceptable" print rather than a "perfect" print. If only it were so easy....

Good news is you should not push too hard for perfection early. It's subtleties, especially for B&W work, only really come with time and experience if only because you yourself still don't know what you want, or what you're capable of....yet.

I believe very accurate camera exposures allow easier, more predictable printing, in short it saves printing work; beyond that, meh.

Anyone who knows the story behind Ansel's moonrise or has read how Weston made and messed up certain exposures should have at least an inkling of just how flexible shooting negatives can be. This idea is also documented in books like The Theory of the Photographic Process.

The examples of negative film latitude are myriad.

 

[RobC]

Have to agree, if Tom reads through The Negative he'll find Ansel Adams simple and sound advice for working with 35mm and 120 films, it's not about fully understanding the Zone system particularly at this stage. It's about improving confidence and building up experience.

Ian

If he reads the Negative I can almost guarantee he'll believe metering a grey card will give the correct exposure for a 10 stop SBR which is wrong but since it was written by AA it must be right. All I have done is try to explain why it not.
Now we'll have the grey is correct gang verses the grey is wrong gang and that'll really confuse him.
He would save himself a lot of wasted time by just metering a zone 3 or a zone 7 and setting exposure for that.

 

[Tis Himself]

When I was teaching a beginning b&w adult ed class, repeatedly students who were novices to printing would bring a print to me and ask "Is this okay?" or "How's this?" Almost inevitably the prints either underexposed or had little, if any, tonal range/contrast. My blanket response was "Are you satisfied with it?" Invariably the response would be no. I would then ask them why they weren't satisfied and what they felt would improve the print. Depending on their answer, I would give them a little advice of a couple of things to try to help them meet their expectations. Each time when they returned the print was closer to what they wanted. Some were satisfied with "mediocre" prints, while others preserved until they were truly pleased. My point is that what is acceptable to one person, may not be to another. Consequently, with many things in photography there are no "carved in stone" right or wrong way of doing things. I could have overloaded them with several things to change their prints, but by only providing one or two tips, they could see how each one impacted their print. I think that we often lose sight of the fact that many of the questions asked here are from beginners or recent returnees, some of who have not asked the right question in the first place.

 

[RobC]

Ok lets have a forum dumbing down policy then

 

[markbarendt]

Ok lets have a forum dumbing down policy then

Giggle. I don't see advocating for things like the use of film's latitude (wild exposure) as a dumbing down, I see it as understanding reality. I see it as license to think about composition and timing instead of worrying the technical bits to death.