Over Expose, Over Develop

[bdial]

An old-fashioned rule of thumb is that you should be able to read a newspaper through your negatives. It implies that you have few or no highlight areas that completely obscure the text. Such negs are a little thin for my taste, but as Mat and Ian pointed out, they don't necessarily print badly. Getting adequate shadow detail doesn't require severe over exposure. It can be a delicate balancing act to achieve "just enough, but not too much". It's one of the things that makes this stuff interesting though and very satisfying when you get it right.

 

[removed account4]

Derek L
I hate to say this but the best way to understand any of this mumbo jumbo we have been yapping at you about ( and this now merged thread has been yappin on about ) is by taking a-couple of roll of 35mm film and expose it for what the light meter says and then incrementally over expose your negative. you can do this by adding more light via shutter speed or fstop it doesn't really matter. do this for 2 or 3 or 4 rolls. then develop each one a little differently. don't change how you agitate your film ( usually 1full minute then 10seconds/min or 5 sec/30secons whose ever religion you follow ) do the developer as recommended for "normal" development and then for the next roll add 30% to that time, and the next another 30% and the next another 30% ...THEN depending on whether you are a scanner person or a darkroom person, make scans .. or prints of your negatives. you will see the grain or unsharpness or the highlights or the moody-stuff and then you will be able to say " i like my film exposed like ... and developed like ... " from first hand knowledge. its really hard to grasp all this stuff via words and pix on the interwebs .. and a lot easier to see it in real life with your eyes &c. for me, ,, well for years i'd have thin under developed negatives, which was compounded by using a developer for a few years that had trouble building contrast and density on my film so i went whole hog over expo/devo a handful of years ago. im talking dense enough that you cant see through it except for with a bright bright flashlight and then ( a lot of the negatives have been 4x5 ) i contact print them with a 300watt light bulb onto rc paper. its usually a 10-20second exposure. the prints probably look terrible to the westonites, anselites and whiteites but have a look i kind of like. in addition to what ian and matt and bdial have said, when you heavily over expo-devo ( as i do ) you are essentially beating the hell out of your film ... expect to see flaws/pock marks, micro scratches and other problems magnified.
YMMVFTSITWATD

 

[Ian Grant]

Thank you, Matt and Ian, for your wonderful answers. They are exactly what I was looking for.

Ian, what exactly is the mechanism that causes loss of sharpness and resolution in over-exposed and over-developed negatives? Is it just the increased grain, or is there some separate process at work?

Yes it's the increased grain and the higher overall density which results from the over exposure and over development, also you're masking any surface edge effects that help increase sharpness and resolution.

The technique advocated isn't new it's the way people used to work in the days or uncoated lenses, this was fine with plates which were only slightly enlarged and often processed in Pyro developers to much higher contrasts than we use now, printing papers matched those negatives. The advent of 35mm meant a change in technique to get high quality results Hans Windisch emodies this in 1938 in "Die Neu Foto Schule" (published in English as "The New Photo School)and also the Leica publications.

Essentially this change was made possible because of the advent of reliable exposure meters in the 1930's, Gossen advertise in Die Nue Foto Schule and meters were availbe from a few other manufacturers as well. So at last we could make accurate exposures with minimal over exposure and unlock the qualities possible from smaller formats. It's the way we still work today.

Ian

 

[timmct]

Good advice...

"Expose for the detail in shadow areas and develop for the highlights".

Used to be expressed... overexpose and underdevelop (10-15 .per cent)...for an easily printable negative.

Overexpose and overdevelop if you want pronounced grain and a moody print. I used to do this specifically for images that were taken in foggy, atmospheric, conditions.

A very helpful friend instructed me that he made two exposures on sheet film in film holders (4x5). He then developed one to his perceived ideal and then adjusted his second one to account for any shortcomings. This is just what John has been telling you to do; his recommendation being the logical way to achieve this end through "bracketing" with 35mm roll film.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thank you for your thoughts, KN4SMF.

Ian, I looked at that thread and it seemed to devolve into squabbling without any clear answers. Surely someone who opposes this method of exposure should be able to concisely describe a problem it causes. I've thought about it for a few minutes and all I can think of is the grain issue.

Again: I'm skeptical. I would love for someone to tell me what's wrong with this. But the fact that 5 pages of posts transpired without someone noting a real downside make me think the author is substantially correct.

35mm fine grain film carefully exposed and processed is capable of “nearly 4x5 quality” results. In the’80s that’s what I was going for with Panatomic-X and a tripod. I got some very nice photographs that could stand up in a gallery next to prints from 4x5.

Until you look close and notice that those white spots that are supposed to be Dall sheep just look a little fuzzy and you can’t see their curly horns.

Overexpose and overdevelop would make that shot look so bad that I wouldn’t want it on the wall. As it is I took down that print when I got a couple shots from 4x5 that really look better.

So if you are trying to make 35mm look like 4x5, be studious.

Now if you are shooting 35mm Tri-X handheld. Your photographs will not suffer due to the real degradation in quality. It’s real but come on, you probably get just as bad a degradation in quality the moment you shoot handheld.

In other words, my opinion is there is a loss of quality but it’s a potential quality that 35mm film can give, but which you may not be accessing anyway.

 

[Arklatexian]

Just to be contrary...
I find that my favourite to print negatives are sometimes a slight bit thinner than average.
And I definitely find that my favourite to scan negatives are frequently a bit thinner than average.
Of course, I tend to gravitate to the mid-tones and highlights, with less of an interest than some in what the shadows might reveal.
I've posted this frequently - it is from a negative that upon inspection seems quite thin:
View attachment 219744

As long as I have been in photography, I have heard-that the easiest to print and the negatives that make the best prints have a tendency to look a bit on the "thin" side so maybe you are hitting the "golden" norm in your exposing and developing. The print of the leaves look, to me, as good as any similar picture by A. Adams. If I could do as well I would be happy. Which makes me wonder, just what is wrong with making negatives that are easy to print? Is there something "wrong" with a negative that does not require burning-in and I don't see how such a negative can be obtained by over-exposure and over-development..........Regards!

 

[Richard Man]

Since I started the thread ;-) FYI, I went back to shoot normally and develop normally. Not that I have tried more than a roll of a few sheets anyway (not that I even remember) Ha ha.

 

[Bill Burk]

I spooled a half dozen rolls of Panatomic-X from a bulk roll that was stored at room temperature and tested and shot it. It’s still usable at 32 EI

 

[removed account4]

different enlargers and different printing methods like different negatives. there really isn't a one type of negative fits all rule. it used to be printed on the little sheet of paper included with kodak film (IRCC) that said "cold light heads develop 30% more" or something. i have an aristo head and it HATES thin film, i contact print, the paper and light source HATES thin film, its best to find your own sweet spot instead of relying on what people you admire, or who might write about the subject eloquently on the internet say. as the car store says your mileage may vary from the sticker in the window ...

 

[Dusty Negative]

Oh, no. Two years later, and I've just stumbled on Mr. Patience's article and had to jump right over to Photrio to see the response. I am now even more puzzled.

What I cannot understand is this: the argument of the paper is that "the zone system is dead." He talks in great detail about how he (and by inference we all should) ignore the zone system and rather overexpose by x stops here, y stops there, then overdevelop by Z stops yonder, because of changes in film technologies that have rendered the Zone System obsolete. But it took two reads to finally realize (or think I realize) this: he's not actually referencing the zone system in any meaningful way at all, much less disproving it. Although he implies he "overexposes" the shadows (presumably more than the Zone System would suggest), it turns out that he is not actually metering the shadows at all. He's using an *incident* reading, ignoring specific shadow and highlight considerations, and then evidently just extending his exposure and development time based on his gut instincts and practical experience. Per his own words in the Q&A infra to the blog post: "I don’t have the time to spot meter a scene because I would be losing moments left and right. But that’s not the point of my post, to each their own. If the Zone System works for somebody, they should keep enjoying it. I’m not trying to educate people who already know it all."

Am I just late to the party and everyone else understood this implicitly? Ooooh, I HATE when that happens....

 

[radiant]

Am I just late to the party and everyone else understood this implicitly? Ooooh, I HATE when that happens....

I didn't understand that either, but it is probably just more a clickbait. Attacking zone system usually just shows that the attacker doesn't understand the system. It is not dead. It is not hard to understand.

I try to conclude what Johnny Patience is doing:
- overexposing (incident measured) to maintain shadow details -> usually just fine, modern films can handle this because they are linear in the highlight area for many stops
- overdeveloping to increase contrast (to avoid low contrastness caused by overexposing)

So in short he overexposes and corrects the overexposure low-contrastness with developing, correct if I'm wrong.

The question everyone needs to ask is that do you want to maintain shadows that much?

 

[reddesert]

Overexposing a modern film doesn't decrease contrast. That's the point of the long linear highlight area. Since the highlights don't roll off, overexposing a little just slides the image further up the density curve. It moves the image values off the toe of the curve, which increases contrast in the shadows, which of course is what we mean by maintaining shadow details.

Overdeveloping after this makes contrasty negatives. If one's printing or scanning process can compensate for this, it's ok. Because printing papers also have toe and shoulder, there is no guarantee that an increased-contrast negative can be printed nicely (that is, you might be able to deal with the increased contrast by printing on softer paper, or that might give you gray soup).

I thought the original article was argumentative and tendentious, I mean his photographs might be good, but the Zone System part is clickbait. However, I just went back and looked at the photos in the article. A few of them are of high contrast scenes, but several are taken on overcast days and all of the portraits of people are done with very diffused light. That's good practice, but it also means of course those images can benefit from the increased contrast without turning into chalk and soot.

I think the whole thing might be a useful tool for someone who has a lot of control over their process, but marketing it as a cure-all for novices is lousy. I would rather say: overexpose by a half-stop (for negative film) and develop normally.

 

[radiant]

Overexposing a modern film doesn't decrease contrast. That's the point of the long linear highlight area. Since the highlights don't roll off, overexposing a little just slides the image further up the density curve. It moves the image values off the toe of the curve, which increases contrast in the shadows, which of course is what we mean by maintaining shadow details.

I stand corrected.

there is no guarantee that an increased-contrast negative can be printed nicely (that is, you might be able to deal with the increased contrast by printing on softer paper, or that might give you gray soup).

If one likes contrasty style however. I think Johnny Patience has a bit this contrasty look. However his look is so suddle that it can be achieved with normal development + normal multigrade filtering.

I think the whole thing might be a useful tool for someone who has a lot of control over their process, but marketing it as a cure-all for novices is lousy. I would rather say: overexpose by a half-stop (for negative film) and develop normally.

Many beginners search for savior methods to enhance their photography without concentrating on the content itself.

 

[pentaxuser]

Just out of curiosity can anyone point me in the direction of what Johnny Patience is doing currently? . I am not the best at navigating the 'net to discover these things so can anyone point me to where he now is?.

I am not interested in him per se as I made up my mind about his photographic worth and usefulness to me a log time ago but I am just wondering if he was a kind of "9 day wonder" i.e. like others who shine brightly usually because they know how to make a quick impact but then quickly burn out

When I googled him all I could find were references that were at least 2 years old so me may have moved on to other things but I don't know

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

hi pentaxuser
he's on instagram with the same name
so you go instagram.com/johnnypatience and you should get to see him there ..
his healthcare feed is the best!

 

[Dusty Negative]

Just out of curiosity can anyone point me in the direction of what Johnny Patience is doing currently? . I am not the best at navigating the 'net to discover these things so can anyone point me to where he now is?Thanks

pentaxuser

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

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks He seems to be confined to a gallery of photos but no more photo instruction articles but from his gallery he is now into the serious underexposure look which is most numerously represented by PanF at exposed at EI 400. He does not say what dev times he uses

So has he done a volte face since the original "The Zone System is dead" article? It would look that way

Not sure where his healthcare feed is or what that is all about but as it is jnantz's comment I suspect that I have merely failed to pick up on the zany humour

Any chance of an explanation, jnantz ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Overexpose / overdevelop makes sense for a foggy scene, or anything high-key and low contrast.

Aiming the meter at the fog is going to produce 18% grey fog, and you want it one or two zones lighter - so open up one or two stops over the meter reading.

A foggy scene is low contrast so to boost the contrast overdevelop the film by ~25%.

If the two are combined then a one stop overexposure and 15% overdevelopment might be employed. How much overexposure and overdevelopment is appropriate depends on the scene and your own preferences - what do you want the final print to look like.

The over/over regime for 'normal' subjects isn't to my taste, but if you like the look then go for it. Not that you need (or want) my blessing on it.

If you are printing on MGIV VC paper you might want to err on the side of rather thin low contrast negatives - overexpose and underdevelop. The reason being that MGIV paper has very wonky HD curves for grades #00 - #2. The best tonal separation is at grades #3 and above.

 

[gone]

This thread might fall under the heading "everyone has their own way of doing things", LOL. APUG is a great place to ask about all the types of developers, papers, films, and probably everything under the sun except questions like this. It always ends up with a lot of people giving answers based on our own experiences, and our own personal likes and dislikes. That can't work because everyone is different, and no one has a "right" answer (although you do get a lot of good answers for sure). Basically there IS no right answer. The only way to find out an answer to this type of question is to shoot a few rolls and see w/ your own eyes what things look like. Once you've done that, you'll have the comparison results right in front of you.

If someone's shooting Tri-X, it's not that big a deal anyway probably, that film can be exposed high or low and give good, printable negs. We all fine tune things on the film exposure/development/paper/printing end, and doing some simple comparisons gives us what our individual tastes like. Sometimes. Sometimes I don't like any of them, which generally means something big needs to change....different film, filter, exposure......

 

[Saganich]

[Basically, there IS no right answer. {Quote]

Yup. When I see a print I like and make the mistake in asking, "How'd ya get that"... the answer always includes, 5 things I normally do, 3 I sometimes do, and at least 1 thing I never thought of doing. If I did everything the same it wouldn't come out the same anyway. Why I like art.

 

[grain elevator]

Overexpose / overdevelop makes sense for a foggy scene, or anything high-key and low contrast.

Aimingng the meter at the fog is going to produce 18% grey fog, and you want it one or two zones lighter - so open up one or two stops over the meter reading.

Can we please try to get the nomenclature straight? What you describe isn't overexposure, it's correct(ed) exposure!
Just a pet peeve of mine ..

 

[MattKing]

What you describe isn't overexposure, it's correct(ed) exposure!

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

 

[Dusty Negative]

Can we please try to get the nomenclature straight? What you describe isn't overexposure, it's correct(ed) exposure!
Just a pet peeve of mine ..

Ha! In essence, that’s what drove me to resurrect this thread. Mr. Patience kept repeating the words “overexposed” and “overdeveloped” without clearly stating what baseline he was referring to. 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.

Ironically, now that I’m thinking of it, I guess one could argue that he was in fact UTILIZING the zone system, not discarding it?

 

[ic-racer]

 

[pentaxuser]

What seems clear now based on his b&w pics is that Johnny Patience has for reasons unspecified decided to abandon what he was preaching in the original of over-expose and over-develop to at least the extent of abandoning overexposure, In most case his pics are 3 stops under exposure. I wonder what brought that about?

A change is as good as a rest, perhaps?

pentaxuser