Metering with film

[pdeeh]

Yeah, but mark you're only saying that because, as we're all aware, you know nothing about the subject of metering for exposure ...

 

[removed account4]

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.

thank you !

 

[markbarendt]

Yeah, but mark you're only saying that because, as we're all aware, you know nothing about the subject of metering for exposure ...

 

[RobC]

I will continue re-reading "the negative" 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.

It was OPs above quote that dictated what I wrote. He's headed off down the grey card and 18% road which only leads to oblivion so I tried to stop him in his tracks. There are those who have lost all perspective and continue to search for the magic bullet in a grey card which doesn't exist and you can't tell them otherwise becasue they think it can all be calculated mathematically.
So now we're going to have a do what I say and don't question it policy. If I had just said don't use a grey card the next question would have been why not and half the people would say use one and the other half would say don't. And now we have half the people saying ignore all the technical stuff and just go take some photos. Well I say learn the the technical side of the craft if only to know why you shouldn't do it even though so many books tell you to. You just need to know at what point to stop persuing the pointless.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

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.

That's because all the theory has been worked out and incorporated into the equipment and process.

 

[markbarendt]

It was OPs above quote that dictated what I wrote. He's headed off down the grey card and 18% road which only leads to oblivion so I tried to stop him in his tracks.

A worthwhile goal Rob.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I see said the blind man

I see said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up the hammer and saw. ==> You need to quote the complete statement.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

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.

Your post reminds me this:

If you want to write you should learn the alphabet. You write and write and in the end you have a a beautiful, perfect alphabet. But it isn't the alphabet that is important. The important thing is what you are writing, what you are expressing. The same thing goes for photography. Photographs can be technically perfect and even beautiful, but they have no expression.

I'll just leave to the above gents to find out who said that.

 

[removed account4]

Your post reminds me this:
I'll just leave to the above gents to find out who said that.

i think a lot of the old school photographers from his generation would think the same exact thing.

 

[RobC]

I see said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up the hammer and saw. ==> You need to quote the complete statement.

But the etymology is as various as how, why and when to use a grey card (or not as the case may be)

 

[Bill Burk]

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?

Hey Tom Cross,

I'm sure this thread will become a treasure trove for you to look back over fondly someday...

Just wanted to make sure you got this much. It's a great slogan: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

Expose for the shadows: You change the camera settings by stopping down a few stops or choosing faster shutter speeds than the meter recommended. So this isn't over exposure. Now if you choose half box speed after stopping down three stops, you basically stopped down two stops. Still not overexposure. But this is what the slogan means to expose "for the shadows" is to choose an exposure that is going to be good for the shadows.

Develop for the highlights: As you develop longer you create more contrast. This makes your highlights brighter in relation to the shadows. Develop for a half hour when the charts say 10 minutes and you will find out what that means. In special cases it would be perfect. @Jessestr could make those window light portraits sing by developing a lot longer than normal. But for the most part, manufacturer's recommended times are good to start with.

I'm not sure backing off development 15% is good advice for beginners. It is a recipe for excellent negatives. But I would be afraid giving that advice to beginners would lead to underdeveloped, disappointing results in cases where something went wrong like old or cold developer.

 

[pdeeh]

That's because all the theory has been worked out and incorporated into the equipment and process.

exactly

 

[Tom Cross]

Thanks for all your replies. I thought my question was a simple one but obviously not! I don't print from negatives, only because I don't have the room to do it. Therefore I scan the negative. I know some of the church-goers on here wont like that because it involves an element of digital but that is the workflow available to me at the moment. I am not new to film (or photography) and when I used film before (when that's all there was) I had an old incident meter (Weston I think) and a separate sliding exposure calculator - the images normally came out fine. I recently exposed several rolls of film just guessing exposures (I forgot my meter) and they also came out ok, but because these days I have a good Sekonic meter than can do reflected spot, incident, flash, etc I was really just trying to find out how to put it to best use for some more reliable results. Some of the replies have made me feel I shouldn't have asked and put me off asking any other questions so from here on I think I'll just find my own way (as some have suggested there are various books published that idiots like me could read), however some of replies have been most helpful. Hopefully one day I will have room to print as well, at which point I can revisit some of my negatives. I will continue reading The Negative though, as it is interesting and clearly there are things I can learn from it.
Thanks,
Tom.

 

[pdeeh]

Some of the replies have made me feel I shouldn't have asked and put me off asking any other questions so from here on I think I'll just find my own way

That's terribly disappointing, and I sincerely hope it's none of mine that have triggered this feeling - if so do please feel free to send me a PM explaining why and I'll endeavour to learn to respond in a less off-putting way ...

APUG's archives and many of its current members are fantastic resources for learning about photography. If some of us are putting new members off we need to find out why and change our ways.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

i think a lot of the old school photographers from his generation would think the same exact thing.

It was Andre Kertesz that said that. When he moved to America, he found out many American photographers were more obsessed with technique than actually expressing a feeling.
His photographs were deemed too "sentimental".

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Thanks for the pearl of wisdom, but that is obvious to everyone here, and is irrelevant in the context of the thread. Some people like to learn things. That's the way it is. Whether or not someone wants to learn anything about the photographic process has nothing to do with the level and quality of art practiced. The mere fact one knows nothing about the process does not make him an artist.

In other artistic fields, it is quite common to study and learn, and work hard on technique. In photography this is almost frowned upon. People prefer to muddle in myth and random nonsense, thinking they are somehow above those who want to learn. Sad, since learning can sometimes actually lead to simplified approaches.

You didn't understood the quote.
Technique is good to learn, but it is to service the end result, the photograph. It isn't the end in itself.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Some of the replies have made me feel I shouldn't have asked and put me off asking any other questions so from here on I think I'll just find my own way

Hi!
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'll echo what pdeeh said.

 

[baachitraka]

I will continue reading The Negative though, as it is interesting and clearly there are things I can learn from it.
Thanks,
Tom.

Negative and BTZS

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ok Michael, you made your point.

 

[Bill Burk]

What I have highlighted is wrong.
If you meter when your meter is set to 400 speed and then after that change camera ISO setting to 200 you will still have closed down 3 stops. I'm assuming that camera is in manual mode since you are using a hand held meter so changing camera ISO speed after taking at reading with your meter set to another speed will have precisely ZERO effect on your exposure.

And if you change your meter film speed after taking a reading with it then it will adjust the reading by however much you have changed it by. So for example, if meter was giving a reading of 1/30second at f8 then changing from 400 to 200 speed on your meter would alter reading from 1/30 to 1/60. So thats 1 less stop of exposure and if you were already closing 2 stops then the total is 3 stops less exposure than meter reading. So Bill has it arse over tit in his above statement which is typical of what happens on web forums and I do it myself when giving hurried answers.

"Now if you choose half box speed after stopping down three stops, you basically stopped down two stops. Still not overexposure."

Should be

"Now if you choose half box speed and then stop down three stops, you basically stopped down two stops. Still not overexposure.

 

[RobC]

and I got it partly wrong too in post I just deleted.

 

[removed account4]

"Now if you choose half box speed after stopping down three stops, you basically stopped down two stops. Still not overexposure."

Should be

"Now if you choose half box speed and then stop down three stops, you basically stopped down two stops. Still not overexposure.

hi bill

i am a bit confused.
it seems what is being said is even 3 stops of extra light isnt' over exposure
when it clearly is, even if the arbitrary personal film speed is set at 1/2 box speed.
i regularly expose tmy400 at about iso 50 or 25 as my personal film speed.
even though it is 3-4 stops over exposed to begin with, if i add 1 more stop
it is still over exposed by 1 stop, and over exposed 4-5 stops from box speed.

so how is half box speed and then 2 more stops, still not over exposed ?

 

[Diapositivo]

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?

My very simple answer.
When you are in a uniform light, you meter normally and you expose normally. That means you set your ISO at box speed also.

When you are in a mixed light, i.e. part of the subject in bright light, part of the subject in shade, you concentrate on the shade. You "meter for the shade" so that the darkest part of the shade that are of interest to your picture do not get lost in the negative. You can call this "protecting the shades".
The highlight part of your picture will fall where they may on the characteristic curve of the negative.
IMU when printing (or scanning) your aim normally is to give the film the less exposure necessary to give you the detail in the shadow part where you want detail. More exposure than the mere necessary will give you a printable negative but with some more density, i.e. more grain than what was strictly necessary (if grain was your aim, go for it! But normally it isn't). You "expose for the shadows" because in making your exposure you want to avoid blocking the part of the shadow detail where you want detail, texture. If you don't obtain your shadow detail in the negative through correct exposure, you will never get it in print. That detail is lost "forever".

The "develop for highlight" part is only relative to sheet film, to individual development of each frame. That's not something that you would do with medium format so that doesn't apply to you. Ansel Adam's Zone System is for sheet photography, where you can develop each shot separately from the other. You make sure you have your shadow details through appropriate exposure, and you make sure you have the right density, contrast etc. through appropriate development.
Increasing or decreasing the development time has more effect near the shoulder than near the toe of the film curve. By varying the development you can control the overall contrast of the negative. You "develop for the highlights" because through development you obtain a higher or lower contrast on your negative and this will give you a higher or lower contrast on your print if you always print on the same paper.

As far as I understand, variable contrast paper, or the possibility to use papers in different gradations, made all this system somehow obsolete. My entirely theoretical understanding now is that you must in any case expose for the shadows, and when printing you can control contrast and highlights through the choice of paper.

Considering that at the moment your workflow is hybrid and you use roll film, I suggest you concentrate on the "expose for the shadows" part and forget all things related to the Zone System.

 

[MattKing]

"Now if you choose half box speed and then stop down three stops, you basically stopped down two stops. Still not overexposure.

so how is half box speed and then 2 more stops, still not over exposed ?

John:

"half box speed" results in a one stop increase of exposure.

"stop down three stops" results in a three stop decrease of exposure.

+1 - 3 = -2 (i.e. a two stop decrease in exposure)

 

[markbarendt]

hi bill

i am a bit confused.
it seems what is being said is even 3 stops of extra light isnt' over exposure
when it clearly is, even if the arbitrary personal film speed is set at 1/2 box speed.
i regularly expose tmy400 at about iso 50 or 25 as my personal film speed.
even though it is 3-4 stops over exposed to begin with, if i add 1 more stop
it is still over exposed by 1 stop, and over exposed 4-5 stops from box speed.

so how is half box speed and then 2 more stops, still not over exposed ?

Ah the joys of explaining spot metering and film latitude all at once. Giggle.

I think Bill was talking about starting with a shadow measurement and then stopping down 2-3 stops to get the camera setting, so not much extra exposure.

I think the other thing is that the terms over and extra with regard to exposure are getting conflated. The common use of over is typically anything over the normal exposure. I think that over gets mixed up with extra or more than normal exposure. For me a true overexposure occurs when I get the highlights to the right far enough to get them onto the shoulder where they become unprintable.