• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Placing Shadows on Zone IV question

These threads are always the same
- someone asks a serious question about exposure
- several people give good answers
- the usual suspects emerge from the shadows (never mind what zone) and ridicule others, calling them names, and making them into caricatures

Fun to watch, though.
 
I always overexposed slightly, underdeveloped a bit and selenium toned. It worked very well for me.
 
Shadow detail found: just an aside having lost shadow detail. I had my service bureau adjust the scanned image of my Swiftwater falls to bring up the shadows and bring down the hot spot in the top of the falls. I didn't think there was any detail under the right rock, but the scan proved otherwise. There was some waterfalling under that rock (prescient to Bill Burk comment), it looks wonderful now printed and completes my set satisfactorily. Still, more skill and attention to metering and exposure are still the lesson. Here is a crop of that shadow area
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It all depends on the image and how I want it to look. Sometimes zone 3, sometimes zone 2, sometimes even zone 4.... sometimes even, gasp... zone 1! But I always rate my film 2/3 stop more than box speed....
 
michaelorr said:
Still, more skill and attention to metering and exposure are still the lesson.
Click to expand...

Actually no, the lesson I see here is all about the printing choices and not about the camera/film exposure.

If the issue had truly been a film exposure problem there would be no detail to print, end of story.
 
Mark, i agree with your correction, in the need to get a negative exposed range to fit on a paper SBR. The printing part i have not gotten to yet, so not sensitized to those challenges and options. This thread and the other one running concurrently "what is exposure index" are two resources now that are my "sticky notes". limitations in dark room are keeping me in contact print mode of my 8x10s. Thanks.
 

Just wanted to make sure you weren't "chasing ghosts", they are really tough to catch.

Anytime a third party is involved in the printing of a photo and one has a problem, one needs to ask the printer to try and fix the print before one tries fixing the film, IMO most "negative problems" are actually "printing problems".
 
Old-N-Feeble said:
I always overexposed slightly, underdeveloped a bit and selenium toned. It worked very well for me.
Click to expand...

Old-N-Feeble,
Are you saying you Selenium tone all your negatives? Are you doing this after your fix and before your final wash? What is the reason for doing all your negatives that way if that's what you're doing? Curious John W..
 
JW PHOTO said:
Old-N-Feeble,
Are you saying you Selenium tone all your negatives? Are you doing this after your fix and before your final wash? What is the reason for doing all your negatives that way if that's what you're doing? Curious John W..
Click to expand...

It was a long time ago and things have changed since then. At the time, I shot only Agfapan 25 and 100... very rarely 400. I processed only in Rodinal at 1:50 or 1:100 dilution. I disliked the grain but loved the acutance. On average I shot at half box speed or slower, then underdeveloped such that my negs would print well on Ilford Gallery grade 4. I then selenium toned the negs to print well on grade 3. What I saw in my work was extended straight line of the H&D curve, increased shadow detail and high acutance. I toned after a thorough archival wash then washed again. I toned by inspection and occasionally pulled negs before full toning was complete.
 

Now I understand. Thanks for clearing that up for me since I was a little puzzled. John W
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register