MattKing
Moderator
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.
I never knew I could under-expose or over-expose, and end up with the same results. Thanks for clarifying that point.
I don't quite understand what you are saying here, could you explain?
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.
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
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).
Is anyone here in Mortensen's 7-D negative camp? Give film as little exposure as needed!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't think that there is doubling film speed with BTZS, users are metering the scene brightness range, the shadow, open shadows, zone III or IV and VII ot maybe VIII, no need to even set the ISO of the film being used. Film speed has been determined by testing which is fed into the software now a android app, along with other information such a lens coatings and paper characteristic curve, the software determines the exposure setting. Unlike the zone system there is no visualization, what Phil David advocated for was the logical relationship between tones, what I think AA would call a record shot, but the best record shot possible. The work I have seen by those who use the BTZS have a full range of middle gray.
It's always interesting to read about the many opinions and approaches everyone brings to the table; however, a definitive answer will always remain elusive.
- We would need to have agreed upon terms and definitions which won't happen because everyone comes from varied backgrounds.
- Evidence should accompany conclusions. Most of the advice is disproportionately based on antidotal evidence or reiterating another's advice. Very little is from empirical evidence or evidence is rarely presented to support the claims. Without evidence, it's opinion.
- Artistic intention of the finished product plays a critical role. Is the aim to have a two dimensional photograph give the same impression as the real world object when photographed or is it to depart from a realistic representation? Intention is usually left out of the discussion.
- Photography is inherently problematic as it involves a physical process which can be precisely determined, but the finished photograph is psychological. The perceived quality of the results can vary under differing conditions. There is no single right answer, although there are tendencies. Even if everythi8ng was done correctly, definitive conclusions would still be impossible.
I think this example is good at illustrating the last two points. It shows the negative density ranges of prints that were judged as being of high quality laid over the characteristic curve of the paper they were printed on. While there is a certain pattern, there is no strict and precise rule.
View attachment 401297
Incident metering on a overcast days is a bliss and when combined with developers like Rodinol I can print with a minor or no adjustments at all.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?