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

[Autonerd]

To the OP: why do you feel such a great need to dictate to strangers on the internet how to make their art? That seems like the ultimate in futility to me.

I don't. I do feel a great need to do what I can, where I can, to provide education in the face of much, much bad information and the echo chamber that is the Internet. How else do you explain the notion that the AE-1 is one of the greatest "beginner cameras"?

Seriously, I do think that with the high cost and possible frustration levels, it's good if those of us who started in the era of good Photo 101 courses can pass that knowledge on to younger folks. The more people into film, and the more people who have success with film, the better for all of us.

But I could also just have narcissistic tendencies.

 

[Autonerd]

I am delighted that others have already addressed your use of the words, "right" and "wrong" (mostly "wrong"), so I don't have to. Those words are much harder to define than under and over exposure, and tend to convey a moral judgement, so should probably be avoided.

A point I have taken to heart.

 

[chuckroast]

Basically, you have to have all the exposures on a roll needing the same development, unlike sheet film. You can't have the start of the roll needing N+1 and the end of the roll needing N-2 for example.

Ah, got it. With conventional Zone N+- processing, that is certainly the case.

However for long, low agitation development that I typically use in such circumstances, the exposures on a single roll can vary quite a bit and you still get good results.

The long development time lets the shadows develop to completion pretty much independent of the scene SBR. So, you have to make sure you expose properly for the shadows. The limited agitation means that the highlights develop quickly initially and then stop developing, so you have to make sure your highlights are placed properly. This kind of development tends to expand mid tone contrast AND push highlights up somewhat, so I tend to place highlights lower than I would with conventional development - closer to Zone VI than VII. IOW you are not using N+- development.

You are counting on long development with very little agitation to hold things in place.

The extreme example of this is that - if you do the aforementioned exposure/placement properly - you can actually develop different films at the same time in the same long development session with same number of agitations and total time.

HOWEVER, none of this is free. These techniques - (semi)stand and EMA come at a price: They are VERY fiddly and it's easy to screw up the development and get streaking and other negative nasties. The single most important thing is to use absolutely minimal support for the film - stainless reels for rolls, simple clips for sheets - AND you have to get it off the bottom of the development tank.

So, it's quite doable to have multiple SBRs on a single roll, but it requires precision in exposure, placement, and development technique. It took me some years to get it right. I've shared my notes on the matter here a number of times if you want all the ugly details.

 

[dcy]

I also agree. If someone asks me how I like to do something, or for specific advice, I'm happy to share what works for me. But I don't have the time to convince people on the Internet that they're wrong--especially when they seem happy with their methods and results.

 

[Bill Burk]

Incident meter the shadows (facing the camera) and shoot at the box speed.

Wait! No. When you incident meter the shadows, the meter is supposed to be uprated. This is a BTZS (Beyond the Zone System - Davis) practice.

 

[MattKing]

How else do you explain the notion that the AE-1 is one of the greatest "beginner cameras"?

As someone who sold AE-1s when they revolutionized the industry, I can assure you that for many, many people the notion was completely true!
They, of course, were coming to 35mm SLR photography and slide film from the Instamatics and point and shoot cameras they used before.

 

[chuckroast]

As someone who sold AE-1s when they revolutionized the industry, I can assure you that for many, many people the notion was completely true!
They, of course, were coming to 35mm SLR photography and slide film from the Instamatics and point and shoot cameras they used before.

Wait. What? Everyone knows that you can only get good pictures with a Leica or Hasselblad. Quit spreading fake nooze. ;P

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wrong! As a former photography teacher, the K1000 is THE best beginner camera!

 

[chuckroast]

Wrong! As a former photography teacher, the K1000 is THE best beginner camera!

Yeah, but that's only true In Canada.

On a slightly more serious note, the camera that created the industry in the first place was the Leica IIIf. I still own one made in the 1950s, and apart from routine servicing and adjustment, it has been flawless. It's a marvel of simplicity and engineering. The IIIf literally created the 35mm still photography category as a widely accepted thing.

 

[cliveh]

Yeah, but that's only true In Canada.

On a slightly more serious note, the camera that created the industry in the first place was the Leica IIIf. I still own one made in the 1950s, and apart from routine servicing and adjustment, it has been flawless. It's a marvel of simplicity and engineering. The IIIf literally created the 35mm still photography category as a widely accepted thing.

No it's not. I spent 25 years teaching A-Level photography in the UK and I agree with Andrew, that the best beginner camera for teaching photography was the Pentax K1000. We had about 20 of them.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Yeah, but that's only true In Canada.

On a slightly more serious note, the camera that created the industry in the first place was the Leica IIIf. I still own one made in the 1950s, and apart from routine servicing and adjustment, it has been flawless. It's a marvel of simplicity and engineering. The IIIf literally created the 35mm still photography category as a widely accepted thing.

There are two IIIf's in my little collection of LTM Leicas. They are indeed excellent cameras. But when I was growing up in the 1950's in Illinois and then Oklahoma I saw a lot of Argus C3's and just two Leicas, one of which was my father's.

 

[chuckroast]

There are two IIIf's in my little collection of LTM Leicas. They are indeed excellent cameras. But when I was growing up in the 1950's in Illinois and then Oklahoma I saw a lot of Argus C3's and just two Leicas, one of which was my father's.

Yeah, those old C3s were everywhere back in the day. ISTR seeing them in Germany and in Canada back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. But the IIIf is what put serious 35mm photography on the map in the first place.

 

[Craig]

Wait! No. When you incident meter the shadows, the meter is supposed to be uprated. This is a BTZS (Beyond the Zone System - Davis) practice.

I was thinking of that exact demonstration when I read the quoted passage! What is the shadow is a very important question, with a non obvious answer.

 

[retina_restoration]

I don't. I do feel a great need to do what I can, where I can, to provide education in the face of much, much bad information and the echo chamber that is the Internet. How else do you explain the notion that the AE-1 is one of the greatest "beginner cameras"?

Seriously, I do think that with the high cost and possible frustration levels, it's good if those of us who started in the era of good Photo 101 courses can pass that knowledge on to younger folks. The more people into film, and the more people who have success with film, the better for all of us.

But I could also just have narcissistic tendencies.

I think you missed my point: if you want to help people do better, teach them, don’t spank them and tell them they’re doing it wrong.
That won't open people's minds. Create your own blog and publish instructional articles and then point people to them. If they like what you're saying, great. But "having a conversation" with people who are disinclined to actually learn anything seems pointless to me.
I mean, why do you care if there's a lot of traction for the idea that the AE-1 is a great camera for beginners?

Ultimately Reddit isn't a very good teaching opportunity - too much random noise and uninformed opinion. If you want to share your knowledge with a community, Reddit is surely the least likely environment to make use of a seasoned practitioner's knowledge. Format your wisdom into coherent, engaging chunks and publish them somewhere, so they can be perennially available and not simply lost in the stream of noise that is Reddit.

 

[Adam W]

View attachment 401147

That XKCD cartoon was on my mind when I wrote that post!

 

[xkaes]

It seems like some people are defining "overexposure" as metering at an EI below box speed, and "underexposure" is defined as metering at above box speed. These definitions depend on the assumption that metering at box speed gives the "correct exposure," which may or may not be true. And it ignores the fact that the box ISO speed was determined using a specific set of developing parameters. If you use a different developer, processing time, or agitation scheme, then the "correct exposure" is no longer correct.

I'll second this. The "box speed" is what the manufacturer recommends. They didn't use your camera(s), lens(es), developer(s), method(s), gear, etc. -- and they couldn't care less about your objective or taste. I always run some rather simple tests to determine what works for me -- starting with the "box speed". But I often don't establish just one film speed for the same film. HP5 is a great example. I shoot it at ISO 200, 400, 800 and 1600. And each ISO gets processed differently according to my test results.

So anyone is free to shoot any film at "box speed", a higher or lower speed, or at different speeds. There is no single speed, unless you define the speed the exact same way as the manufacturer, and process it exactly as they did -- which you never will.

 

[xkaes]

Some people underexpose and push-process to get more contrast and grain, particularly with B&W.

Some people overexpose because they like the more contrasty/punchy look.

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

 

[Paul Howell]

Wait! No. When you incident meter the shadows, the meter is supposed to be uprated. This is a BTZS (Beyond the Zone System - Davis) practice.

I have only read the first edition of Phil Davis' book, as I understand the process, he uses (used) an incident meter to meter the shadows for zone III or II, then in open light for zone VII, this provides the scene brightness range, which is input into either the wonder wheel and later an app on a Palm Pilot and later Smart Phone which has the tested film characteristics curve along with a curve for selected paper and paper developer, then the app provides the exposure. Film speed is always based on testing. In the first edition Davis provides instructions on how to build a rig for using a spot meter as a transmission and reflective densitometer

 

[Bill Burk]

I was thinking of that exact demonstration when I read the quoted passage! What is the shadow is a very important question, with a non obvious answer.

I wish I could type smörgåsbord without having to Google it.

It’s great having so many philosophies about exposure and development from so many different people.

You really can pick and choose bits and pieces from different teachers as they catch your spirit, it’s like a smörgåsbord.

But be careful to check that the set of adjustments you put together for yourself don’t cover the same factor twice.

For example: knowing Zone System rates lower than box speed, you may set the meter at half box speed. Or you might place your shadow value readings a Zone higher.

Early Zone System write-ups suggest placing shadow readings on Zone II (Minor White) but later books (Ansel Adams) says place them on Zone III.

 

[Craig]

I have only read the first edition of Phil Davis' book, as I understand the process, he uses (used) an incident meter to meter the shadows for zone III or II,

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have only read the first edition of Phil Davis' book, as I understand the process, he uses (used) an incident meter to meter the shadows

This is his trick from first edition. Double the speeds then read the shadows.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The film manufacturers know more about their product through research hand can be found doing random exposures and development. I start using box speed and adjust for back lighting or choice of contrast filter and/or Zone System exposure placements. I always end up with a very usable negative and capture the details I want.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

In 1960, the ASA definition of of B&W speed was revised, essentially doubling the numbers. This was not controversial at the time, but in retrospect it appears to have been a mistake. The reason for the change was ostensibly that negatives were too dense (35mm cameras were becoming more popular).

In reality, the introduction of faster films was the problem. Before about 1958, most cameras sold for amateur use were roll-film types with limited adjustments. The large negatives were usually developed by wholesale photo-finishers and contact-printed. These cameras used leaf shutters, which open in a radial pattern. When small apertures are used with such shutters, the amount of exposure given is greater proportionally than when a large aperture is used. In other words, 1/50 sec at f/16 using a leaf shutter gives more exposure than 1/400 at f/5.6. With focal-plane shutters, this is not true. Users of focal-plane shutter cameras (which became more popular after 1960) are advised to use about 1/2 to 2/3 of the stated ISO speed.

 

[baachitraka]

Wait! No. When you incident meter the shadows, the meter is supposed to be uprated. This is a BTZS (Beyond the Zone System - Davis) practice.

Yes this is BTZS and puts the shadow to middle gray*.
But most of the films true speed is less than a box almost which is always* a stop less. This would compensate the incident metering of shadows.
Otherwise said, this will put the shadows in middle gray.

 

[Bill Burk]

Yes this is BTZS and puts the shadow to middle gray*.
But most of the films true speed is less than a box almost which is always* a stop less. This would compensate the incident metering of shadows.
Otherwise said, this will put the shadows in middle gray.

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