Over Expose, Over Develop

[Nicholas Lindan]

Can we please try to get the nomenclature straight?

Many arguments/discussions eventually devolve into a dispute over the meaning of words. That's when I leave.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

 

[removed account4]

Turns out he was just taking an incident reading of the overall scene and adding X stops. This is not the definition of overexposure as far as I can tell.

its not ? what is it if the original metered exposure was the alleged correct exposure and someone adds 2 or 3 stops to it, isn't that over exposing. compensation by 2 or 3 stops means the same thing

Can we please try to get the nomenclature straight? What you describe isn't overexposure, it's correct(ed) exposure!

same thing. corrected the exposure by adding more time and over exposing.

what are you both suggesting over exposure is ?

 

[Dismayed]

I run old school film tests when trying out a new film (I pretty much stay with XTOL developer). I check zones with a densitometer and verify that most prints look decent starting at a 2.5 filter. There is some variation in contrast when shooting roll film, but this gets me to a nice middle ground so that I can easily go up or down in contrast.

 

[grain elevator]

Many arguments/discussions eventually devolve into a dispute over the meaning of words. That's when I leave.

As Dusty wrote, the nomenclature issue isn't just peripheral to the topic of this thread.

its not ? what is it if the original metered exposure was the alleged correct exposure and someone adds 2 or 3 stops to it, isn't that over exposing. compensation by 2 or 3 stops is the same thing

same thing. corrected the exposure by adding more time and over exposing.

what are you both suggesting over exposure is ?

Analogous to "overcooking" - "over" means too much, not just increased over whatever reference.

 

[removed account4]

Analogous to "overcooking" - "over" means too much, not just increased over whatever reference.

so, exposing film upto 5 stops more than recommended by (box speed) the iso determined by the manufacturer, and developing it for more time than recommended by the manufacturers isn't over exposing and over developing his film?
its more than the meter says, its more than the manufacturers suggest and probably more than zone system users would suggest..

 

[Don_ih]

In the original article, his images looked possibly up to one stop overexposed and not at all overdeveloped. He really should have shown the negatives on a light-table.

From what I can tell, people who think they get great results from gross overexposure don't know how to use their meter. "Overexposing" a backlit portrait of someone 2 stops (like in the original article) isn't actually overexposing. Any overdevelopment done on those images just boosted contrast - didn't horribly clump the grain and destroy the highlights (like genuine overdevelopment does).

Believe me. I have both truly overexposed and overdeveloped negatives to the point where the entire thing was black.

 

[cowanw]

I prefer "increased" exposure, because it makes these sorts of discussions better, but otherwise I agree.

Augmented exposure or truncated exposure would be my etymologic suggestion.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Film is dead.
Jazz is dead.
Paul is dead.
The zone system is dead.

Judging from the last 20-30 years, being dead seems to be a great way to produce interesting artwork and remain artistically relevant.

 

[Dusty Negative]

The zone system is dead.

Long Live the Zone System!

 

[Vaughn]

If one gives a piece of film the proper exposure one wanted to give it, how can it be over or under exposed?

 

[Don_ih]

"Overexposed" means received more exposure than recommended by the manufacturer for the lighting conditions. That is not compensation - it's more exposure whether or not there's a reason for it (compensation is done for a reason, such as a backlit subject, etc.). The meaning of the word is straightforward. For a subject (either a scene or a bit of a scene), the recommended exposure is established, when more exposure is given, that's overexposure. You can see what it means by taking photos of a sheet white paper with words written in pencil on it. Overexposure will eat at the words.

 

[warden]

I believe this is also him: https://www.justalittlepatience.com/

Nice images on that site, using a variety of films, cameras, and formats. He’s clearly an experimenter, and it’s working for him.

 

[Dusty Negative]

so, exposing film upto 5 stops more than recommended by (box speed) the iso determined by the manufacturer, and developing it for more time than recommended by the manufacturers isn't over exposing and over developing his film?
its more than the meter says, its more than the manufacturers suggest and probably more than zone system users would suggest..

But doesn’t that all hinge on what your reference point is? Is it: a) An incident reading of just the light source completely irrespective of your Subject, much less a specific part of your Subject? Or b) a reflected reading of your Subject’s jet black hair?

if it’s A, and my meter reads f8 @500, and I shoot at f8 @125, am I really “Overexposing?” Or am I just trying to ensure my subjects black leather jacket and jet-black hair don’t turn to squid ink since they’re standing in a cement parking lot on a cloudless day at noon?

Mr. Patience revealed that he shoots using an incident reading. If he alters the meter reading by 2 stops, I am asking if that’s overexposing or just correcting/compensating? Just like the Zone System would suggest…?

 

[removed account4]

Hi Dusty
Yes completely agree, and go off road and say its all different words for the same thing

 

[Alex Benjamin]

His "zone system is dead", if other than in jest, signals a poor understanding of what the zone system is about and how it has evolved. The zone system isn't about shooting at box speed or metering a grey card and shooting at the given combination shutter speed/aperture. The zone system is about placement - i.e., about figuring out what you want to see, and, obviously, what you want to hide, and "placing" values in the zone you want them to fall. That means that for certain scenes, you may want to reveal what's in the shadows, and, for others, you may want your shadows with little or no detail.

Yes, "placing" may mean over-exposing or under-exposing, but, in this case, they are a means to an end: getting the negative as close as possible to what you want to see in the finished picture. In the case we're discussing, over-exposing is the means to nothing, it's the end in itself. To me, wanting to see everything, wanting everything registered on the negative, whether or not it's important, whether or not it has interest, is taking photographs, but it's not thinking photographically.

There seems to be a "you have to see everything in the shadows and everything has to be super sharp" aesthetic happening theses days. I'm a bit puzzled by it, as it doesn't correspond to what I like about photography, both as a photographer and, even more, as an admirer of great photographers, who knew what was important to show and what was important to leave in the dark (W. Eugene Smith comes to mind, but there are others).

I'm not saying this aesthetic doesn't have its merits. Just not sure what they are, both in practical and aesthetic terms.

 

[warden]

There seems to be a "you have to see everything in the shadows and everything has to be super sharp" aesthetic happening theses days. I'm a bit puzzled by it, as it doesn't correspond to what I like about photography, both as a photographer and, even more, as an admirer of great photographers, who knew what was important to show and what was important to leaving in the dark (W. Eugene Smith comes to mind, but there are others).

I appreciate that paragraph, thank you. I enjoy reading threads like this one for my own curiosity and enjoyment, but they have no impact on my photography.

 

[MattKing]

If one gives a piece of film the proper exposure one wanted to give it, how can it be over or under exposed?

"Overexposed" means received more exposure than recommended by the manufacturer for the lighting conditions. That is not compensation - it's more exposure whether or not there's a reason for it (compensation is done for a reason, such as a backlit subject, etc.). The meaning of the word is straightforward. For a subject (either a scene or a bit of a scene), the recommended exposure is established, when more exposure is given, that's overexposure. You can see what it means by taking photos of a sheet white paper with words written in pencil on it. Overexposure will eat at the words.

To me, "overexposed" relates to the result, not the process. A negative is overexposed when there is more density in all the relevant areas than what is necessary and what I want. For a transparency - where it is quite critical - the important parts of the subject are too light.
Overexposure happens when I or my camera gave the film too much exposure. Increased exposure is instead something I may choose to do, in order to obtain a particular result.
If I screw up, increased exposure can result in overexposure. If I choose wisely, increased exposure (or reduced exposure, or even manufacturer's recommended exposure) can result in negatives or transparencies that are the way I want them to be.
If a negative receives more exposure than is recommended for the lighting conditions by the manufacturer, it may very well be correctly exposed for the subject and my needs - not overexposed.
Usually, negatives will be reasonably correctly exposed if you choose exposure within a relatively moderate range. And frequently the manufacturer's recommendations will yield results that fall within that range. For that reason, the manufacturer's recommendations are a great place to start when considering exposure, and a great place to end up if one is unsure about exposure.

 

[Vaughn]

Right -- if someone else tried to make silver gelatin prints from my negatives, they would throw up their hands and say "These negs are over exposed and way over-developed!". And for the printing I do, I would say they were exposed and processed perfectly...or close enough, anyway...

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Zone System is dead usually means the author does not understand it. I use the exposure control of the Zone System to bring out shadow details sometimes, however with the wide exposure latitude of film, I have not used the Zone System development changes [expansion versus compression of the range of contrast]. That means I may have to work harder to get the full exposure range on a print.

 

[bernard_L]

The zone system is about placement - i.e., about figuring out what you want to see, and, obviously, what you want to hide, and "placing" values in the zone you want them to fall. That means that for certain scenes, you may want to reveal what's in the shadows, and, for others, you may want your shadows with little or no detail.

+1

 

[Don_ih]

A negative is overexposed when there is more density in all the relevant areas than what is necessary and what I want.

No. Overexposure is when the negative has been given more exposure than recommended by the manufacturer based on the lighting. It does not mean "unacceptably dense result".
Overexposure does not necessarily generate "unacceptably dense results." If it is exactly the way you wanted it to be, you wanted it overexposed.

 

[Saganich]

In the original article, his images looked possibly up to one stop overexposed and not at all overdeveloped. He really should have shown the negatives on a light-table.

From what I can tell, people who think they get great results from gross overexposure don't know how to use their meter. "Overexposing" a backlit portrait of someone 2 stops (like in the original article) isn't actually overexposing. Any overdevelopment done on those images just boosted contrast - didn't horribly clump the grain and destroy the highlights (like genuine overdevelopment does).

Believe me. I have both truly overexposed and overdeveloped negatives to the point where the entire thing was black.

I agree, once I has a speed dial malfunction and a whole role was 4 stops increased exposure from what I intended and I increased development one stop. Well, the Idea that I could print those was laughable. Sometimes what people think they are doing is not really what's been done.

 

[Vaughn]

No. Overexposure is when the negative has been given more exposure than recommended by the manufacturer based on the lighting. It does not mean "unacceptably dense result".
Overexposure does not necessarily generate "unacceptably dense results." If it is exactly the way you wanted it to be, you wanted it overexposed.

We'll just have to disagree about that and make it clear what each other means, if needed. Manufacturers recommend starting points to find one's own time -- which might end up being the manufacturer's 'recommended' times. Too many other variables for a manufacturer to state a spot-on specific time and temp for a particular developer/film combo for B&W.

 

[MattKing]

As you can see, different people understand different things when the word overexposure is used. For that reason, I would suggest that people avoid using it unless they also qualify their terms.
It appears that Don and I disagree on the meaning. As one Canadian to another, all I can say is "Sorry".

 

[Don_ih]

We'll just have to disagree about that and make it clear what each other means, if needed. Manufacturers recommend starting points to find one's own time -- which might end up being the manufacturer's 'recommended' times. Too many other variables for a manufacturer to state a spot-on specific time and temp for a particular developer/film combo for B&W.

What you said doesn't disagree with me. You find your own combination of exposure and development to get the results you want - whether or not that amounts to overexposure according to the manufacturer's recommendation.

@MattKing The word has a meaning and it applies to a standard of exposure - there is only one established standard of exposure: the manufacturer's recommendation. That recommendation would amount to saying you should adjust your development if you overexpose too much. You can phrase that as "if you expose in a certain way" but it doesn't change the point of reference, which is the recommendation.

If the recommendation is a guideline, you may get your desired result by exposing more. That is the same as saying overexposing cf. the recommendation.