My rant on shooting box speed. Am I out to lunch?

[MattKing]

I never knew I could under-expose or over-expose, and end up with the same results. Thanks for clarifying that point.

You don't end up with the same result.
Some parts of the scene might match, but the shadows and highlights will render differently, and the mid-tone contrast will vary.

 

[bernard_L]

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, could you explain?

In LF you can développe one sheet N+ and the next one N-

 

[bernard_L]

I have never been able to get a result I like with that range of brightness without a lot of heavy burning and dodging, both back in my darkroom days and now that I scan and edit with Affinity Photo. My usual approach when I encounter a subject like that is to take a quick shot with my iPhone which gives me both a rough cut of the subject and the GPS location and then come back when the sky is overcast to take a proper shot with a film camera.

Top little exposure and the shadows are lost. Place shadows ZIII and with the proper film the highlight information is there. Some work needed possibly to recoverer it; better than total loss.

 

[baachitraka]

It’s a detail in the BTZS instructions that you are to double the film speeds, then take the shadow incident reading.

View attachment 401181

yeah. "we'll trick the meter into underexposing 1 stop..."

I would say that incident metering the shadows (meter facing the camera) needs 1 stop under-exposure and this 1 stop comes from effective film speed, which is typically 1 stop slower than the box speed. Hence, I could justify incident meter the shadows and shoot at the box speed?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

In this case, the photogs at the magazine where I worked said "For Velvia, set your meter at 40," and I, being an impressionable youth, just blindly followed. Sadly, the couple of rolls on which I tried this seem to be lost to time... I mostly shot Fujichrome 100 (at 100).

Having a problem with authority - especially the blind following part - I base my stuff on practical experience. And reading luminous landscape essays written by active photographers who knew their bread and butter - full with tasty information and tips, backed by examples - back in the day when the platform was free. And what a contrast that site is to the shouting/bubbling cesspit of reddit and fecebook where everyone talks, but only handful of talkers know what they're actually talking about. And as usual - the loudest bunch being the most clueless, a strange Dunning-Kruger psychology.

 

[miha]

Is anyone here in Mortensen's 7-D negative camp? Give film as little exposure as needed!

Mortensen Revisited

 

[Milpool]

Is anyone here in Mortensen's 7-D negative camp? Give film as little exposure as needed!

Mortensen Revisited

Film speed is one thing, exposure methods are another.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's a theory. Many pros shot chromes back when with 35mm and built in meters so film and meters were rated a little faster to prevent clipping the highlights. So you can be less conservative when switching to negative film and reduce the film speed.

 

[xkaes]

You don't end up with the same result.
Some parts of the scene might match, but the shadows and highlights will render differently, and the mid-tone contrast will vary.

Now I don't know who to believe. Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting that I actually run my own tests. God forbid!!! I might as well just shoot at "box speed" and forget about it.

 

[miha]

Here's a theory. Many pros shot chromes back when with 35mm and built in meters so film and meters were rated a little faster to prevent clipping the highlights. So you can be less conservative when switching to negative film and reduce the film speed.

I don't think the theory holds up, but I do remember reading Kodak Ektachrome Panther marketing brochures (though I'm not sure if the film was available under that name in the US) stating that the film speed was set to work best when exposed using TTL meters.

 

[Vaughn]

Of course, much depends on the printing process one uses. I tend to use alt processes that can eat any contrast one throws at it. I typically expose using a spot meter and giving the deepest shadow I want detail in the exposure to put it on ZIII, and I increase development by around 100%, And generally I do not include a reciprosity factor to help pump-up the contrast a bit.

If one is doing things correctly (or incorrectly), it will show in the print.

 

[Bill Burk]

yeah. "we'll trick the meter into underexposing 1 stop..."

I would say that incident metering the shadows (meter facing the camera) needs 1 stop under-exposure and this 1 stop comes from effective film speed, which is typically 1 stop slower than the box speed. Hence, I could justify incident meter the shadows and shoot at the box speed?

Ah. I guess you could. Double half box speed, and you’ll be at box speed again.

 

[baachitraka]

Ah. I guess you could. Double half box speed, and you’ll be at box speed again.

All I know is incident metering will give me a value not influenced by any other parameters in the scene.

Next, I have to figure out how to expose for shadows...that is all.

Always luminous shadows and with controlled development can give you a near perfect negative.

 

[isaac7]

All I know is incident metering will give me a value not influenced by any other parameters in the scene.

Next, I have to figure out how to expose for shadows...that is all.

Always luminous shadows and with controlled development can give you a near perfect negative.

I ended up using incident metering for my LF shooting, made life much easier for me. First step was to establish a good EI for the film and developer combo I was using. I worked in a mini lab back then and so had access to a densitomenter. I’d measure film base plus fog and put the next step up at… man it’s a been a long time, zone 2? 3?

Anyway, with overcast conditions, the seemingly default lighting for many months of the year in upstate NY, a simple incident reading was all I needed. I’d boost the developing time by 15% or so and got very printable negatives. Open sunlight was a simple incident reading though I almost always could have guessed the exposure via sunny 16. Occasionally the subject was in shadow on a sunny day. Shadowing the incident meter gave me a good exposure in those cases.

Testing for me was all about getting good shadow detail. Good old D-76 1:1 usually got me close to box speed. Weird developers like Windisch Catecol could halve the box speed. With multigrade paper and split printing I rarely bothered with changing developing times except for the greyest of grey days. Maybe if I was out west and had to deal with harsher light I might have done some n minus development. Seems to me that using The zone system and variations are really only necessary if you are using graded papers.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the example given in the book he said that many people make the mistake of trying to find the deepest, darkest shadow they can and metering off that.

Instead, meter off the part that you want to retain detail, instead of crawling under bushes to meter off the dirt.

Phil Davis reduced the 10 AA zones to I think was 7, for him he wanted zone III shadow detail. Davis did not use the concept of visualization so shadows darker than Z III fell where they may.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It’s a detail in the BTZS instructions that you are to double the film speeds, then take the shadow incident reading.

View attachment 401181

Why reduce the middle gray to detailed black range when the goal of using the Zone System is to clearly print the middle gray to detailed black range.

 

[markjwyatt]

I'm a frequent participant on reddit's Analog Community and a big proponent of shooting box speed. I soap-box out on "I overexpose because I like the look" and "I underexpose/push to get more contrast/grain".

I started film in the early 1990s and would call my film knowledge average for that era; I've learned/read since I went back to film (2019) but I'm certainly I'm no darkroom chef. I'm one of the old-timers on Reddit but there are some MUCH more knowledgeable people here. SO... I would like to post my latest rant for critique, in the interest of becoming better educated.

Here it is, in reply to someone asking why one should NOT shoot at box speed. Thank you in advance. Please be gentle and remember I never did better than a "C" in chemistry.

--

I'm one of the naysayers, so I'll say nay here, and explain why. Forgive the long answer; I'm a bit of a lunatic on this subject.

First, yes, I do sometimes shoot off box speed -- if I am shooting indoors, my go-to is HP5 exposed two stops under (ASA dial set to 1600), then I push-process (overdevelop) to compensate. The results are less than optimal (increased contrast and grain in the negative), but it's more convenient then carrying a roll of Delta 3200 "just in case".

As far as I'm concerned the ONLY consideration for exposure should be getting the optimal amount of information on the negative. I'm a broken record here: The negative is not a final image. It stores the information from which we make our final image, which is the print or scan.

Some people examine their negatives with a densitometer, and may decide that their camera with a given film needs a little more or less light. This is totally legit. In fact it's really the only way to check/correct film speed. (I'm too lazy/ignorant so I just eyeball the negatives.) They'll say "XXX 400 is really an ASA 320 film" -- yes, perhaps, but also perhaps only on your camera with the wonky shutter, I'm just sayin'.

Some people underexpose and push-process to get more contrast and grain, particularly with B&W. This is wrong IMHO -- the place to get contrast is in your print (enlarger, filters or editing scans). Why not do it in the negative? Because you destroy data and narrow your options. You can always get more contrast from a flat negative; you cannot get more gray tones from a contrasty negative. Want more grain? Shoot wide, enlarge and crop. Remember, there is often more than one photograph in a single frame. Why narrow your options?

Some people overexpose because they like the more contrasty/punchy look. This too is wrong IMHO because all you do is slather too much silver (or dye) on the negative. The scanner then has to blast more light through this thick negative. Problem is, a lot of these people don't look at the negative, only the scans. Yes, you may get punchy colors, but you also lose the ability to recover highlights because of all that silver/dye. You've narrowed your options. You can get the same results by editing scans, adjusting contrast, dodging and burning -- all the things we were meant to do in the darkroom. I think that's the best way to do it.

Now, back in Ye Olde Days, I was taught to slightly overexpose my Velvia 50 (meter set to 40 ASA) to punch up the colors a bit. And I did. Because with slide film, the film itself is the final image. We projected slides and could not really correct.

Back to negative film -- it has tremendous latitude, and that's how disposable and very cheap cameras work. They have a fixed exposure and count on the latitude of the film to get a usable negative, and the person (or machine) printing them to compensate. You'll notice the photos look good in daylight adn crummy at night/indoors.

Negative tolerates too much light better than too little light, and if in doubt you should err on the side of overexposure. But some people have turned this into a rule that one should always overexpose negative film. No, no, no, no and no, and if everyone got and paid attention to their negatives, I think they'd see why.

Film is forgiving stuff. I have a couple of cameras that expose a little hot (about 1 stop), the negatives are a little dense and I still get perfectly good scans, but I still shoot for that perfect negative, or as close as li'l ol' undereducated me can get.

Film is not some mysterious substance we discovered in a deep underground mine, and whose properties we struggle to comprehend. It is a carefully engineered product, and companies have invested millions to devleop it. I say trust the film engineers rather than second-guess them.

Now, I might get roasted by the much smarter people on Photrio. In fact, I think I'll ask them. But this is my opinion. Hope it didn't put you to sleep!

I tend to use film/developer combinations that give me good results at or near box speed. Until you start experimenting with film, developers, times, and using densitometers it is hard to judge what film speed is "correct". I tend to take box speed as a reasonable suggestion. I would like to take it further (e.g., start experimenting, using a densitometer, etc.), but I just do not have the time right now. It may be a retirement project for me some day.