Properly exposing B@W film for snow scenes

WILL WORK FOR FILM said:

But... the question still stands. If I were to bracket exposures as suggested earlier should I do so using the ISO dial (film speed) or exposure compensation (shutter speed)? Or does it matter since the outcome would likely be the same if the camera is properly calibrated?

Click to expand...

Hi Will,

It depends a bit on the actual meter system being used.

The camera manuals I've read, if they address the issue at all, usually suggest using the compensation function since that's what it's for.

Modern __fancy__ metering systems may use different algorithms for ISO base exposure vs. exposure compensation.
The latter should be just an adjustment of shutter speed and/or aperture, which is what you want.

This is a perfect example of why an incident meter is preferred in some situations over a reflectance meter.
The incident meter (if used correctly) will give you the proper exposure regardless of the subject.

The fact that a scene is predominantly highlights does not impact the exposure.
It may well impact development, particularly if using a system where high density might deplete the developing agent before completion.

- Leigh

Just read the first post. OP is using a Nikon F4. Just go with the matrix metering of the camera. It takes into account the type of scene (snowscape in this case) and whatever filter is used.

frank said:

Just read the first post. OP is using a Nikon F4.

Click to expand...

This is one of the interesting aspects of internet fora, since all threads are archived.

The thread title does not specify the F4 as the point of discussion.

Therefore, the responses should be to the thread subject, not necessarily restricted by subsequent posts.

When people search the archives, they go by the thread titles.

- Leigh

All very helpful suggestions. Thank you. I agree that I am certainly over thinking this but sometimes I just can't help it. As for trying to use this scenario to find my EI, I would much rather find a tame subject for that. I will now play with this for a while with a better understanding of my options.

Leigh B said:

This is one of the interesting aspects of internet fora, since all threads are archived.
The thread title does not specify the F4 as the point of discussion.
Therefore, the responses should be to the thread subject, not necessarily restricted by subsequent posts.
When people search the archives, they go by the thread titles.
- Leigh

Click to expand...

The F4 wasn't introduced in subsequent posts, it was specified in the original post.
It's not in the title because you just can't fit all the info into the title.
(In a previous post, I gave simple instructions if using a handheld meter in incident or reflected mode.)

WILL WORK FOR FILM said:

Scenario:
-A cold partly cloudy day with lots of fresh snow (common here). Mostly high desert vegetation and a far off tree or two.
-Nikon F4, tri-x at ISO 400 and maybe a yellow #12 filter to lighten the foliage and possibly bring out cloud detail.
-Based on what I have read, I might "spot meter" the bright white snow and use exposure compensation (+1 to +1-1/2) to avoid under exposing the snow since the meter will consider the metered point Zone 5.
Does this sound reasonable?

Click to expand...

Vaughn said:

This is just a favorite snow scene of mine. A white sheep skull in the snow...I almost stepped on the skull as I was getting a bit snow-blind and had gone to wearing my darkcloth over my head and looking thru a small slit. Upper Mono Lake Basin.

On my Pentax Digital meter, the darkest tones read 14, sun on the skull read 16 to 17, and the sun on the snow 18. I set the meter for the 4x5 TMax100 at 16, but then added another stop of light to account for some bellows extention (and a touch more exposure). It was f64 at 1/4 second, no filter.

That would be a little more exposure than what you were suggesting- about a +2.5 stop 'compensation' compared to your 1 to 1.5 stop increase. It seems to work out the best for me. About 30% more develpment given to bump up the contrast a little. A pleasure to print (16x20) -- and while the image may not show it on the computer screen, there is a fine texture and detail in the snow, while keeping its brilliance. It was printed on Gallerie, glossy grade 3 in Dektol, then selenium toned...keeps the snow looking cold! The selenium took a little of the paper's very slight warmth and neutralized it. A condenser enlarger (D5-XL) was used.

I found that TMax100 (w/o filter) responds to blue similarily to a conventional film with a yellow filter...so I rarely use one with TMax.

Click to expand...

Great job! the snow looks crystaline and crunchy. Very tough to convey.

WILL WORK FOR FILM hasn't said why he thinks there are better films for the snow scene scenario and he may be an experienced film user but it always worries me that anyone hinting at there being an ideal film for snow scenes, autumn colours, portraiture etc has misunderstood the medium of film and this misunderstanding influences the basis for their questions.

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass said:

Yes or you could use the spot meter to meter either people's faces or what you want to be the neutral gray.

Click to expand...

An incident meter pays for itself when photographing snow.

Or you can just learn the basics of the zone system and use a spot meter, for exposure put the snow on zone 7 or 8.

Ted, that depends on the desired vision of the final print. Often, the best solution is to meter for the snow and develop to desired contrast within the snow itself. There are many times when other objects have little or no impact on the final image other than to provide shape and contrast. Often the snow and ice will render a full contrast spectrum just in itself.

And in my image of the skull in the snow, knowing the light values (via spot meter) deep in its eye socket, etc. was useful information when it came to exposing and developing the film. But it all comes down to experience with one's tools, film, light conditions, and processing techniques. And not like this past June and doing something dumb like mis-reading the scale of the meter and exposing for 30 minutes instead of 30 seconds. At least it was a beautiful place to kick back at while I was hammering the film with about 6 extra stops of light.

Here's an example; How does one capture the 'sparkle' of snowflakes? You can't do that by setting exposure to +2 or +3. You must expose for Zone V or darker. Otherwise, there's no contrast between the bright sparkling snowflakes and the rest of the 'white' snow.

If one takes the light reading directly from the snow, the snow will be neutral gray in black & white.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Here's an example; How does one capture the 'sparkle' of snowflakes? You can't do that by setting exposure to +2 or +3. You must expose for Zone V or darker. Otherwise, there's no contrast between the bright sparkling snowflakes and the rest of the 'white' snow.

Click to expand...

Specular highlights are a special case, the OP didn't ask about specular highlights he asked about a general exposure assessment.

The film has enough density to record the specular highlights of snowflakes. IMHO the problem is not how to get them on the film the problem is how to get them off the film and onto the print.

Back to filters. It depends on the light conditions. If the sun is out, your shadows will trend blue. That includes all those micro-shadows in powder
snow too. So you can differentiate all the sparkle and highlight detail better using filters, starting at the weakest with yellow, then trending thru
orange to red. Deep green can be used too, or lighter yellow-green, without darkening foliage in the scene like a red filter would. As per general
technique (and I've done zillions of snow scenes), this is one of those scenarios where getting a basic Zone System text and owning a good spot
meter really helps. Otherwise, with a small camera you can afford to bracket shots for the learning curve, if necessary. More softly lit scenes, like
in falling snow or overcast lighting, will benefit from more film development time, and contrasty scenes from less. Tri-X is 35mm won't hold much
detail however. Too grainy.

I don't claim to be an expert but living where I do I shoot a lot of snow scenes. I don't do anything particularly different, most of my cameras are meterless and I expose Sunny 16 rule with good results. When in doubt err on the side of extra exposure. Shooting large format I spot meter for the shadows as I would any other scene. I will do a quick check on the scene highlights just to make sure they're not too overexposed but B&W negative film will hold a lot of highlight detail.

The low winter sun gives good light pretty much all day. I like to shoot backlit or cross-lit which helps give the snow some definition.

Some examples here, these are B&W, color neg and color slide film:
Dead Link Removed

WILL WORK FOR FILM said:

We are very close to having a snow covered landscape here in beautiful South Western Idaho and I am looking forward to trying my hand at Black and white landscape photography with my Nikon F4 and Tri-x 400. I have read several online tutorials and think I have a handle on the basic principals of properly exposing for a mostly white scene, but would like to get a few personal opinions on the matter.

Scenario:

-A cold partly cloudy day with lots of fresh snow (common here). Mostly high desert vegetation and a far off tree or two.

-Nikon F4, tri-x at ISO 400 and maybe a yellow #12 filter to lighten the foliage and possibly bring out cloud detail.

-Based on what I have read, I might "spot meter" the bright white snow and use exposure compensation (+1 to +1-1/2) to avoid under exposing the snow since the meter will consider the metered point Zone 5.

Does this sound reasonable?

Click to expand...

The key to making good images of snow is to have found your personal EI and then you place the brightest highlights on Zone VIII. This also requires having established the c correct development time to achieve Zone VIII.

May I suggest my approach? The system I teach can be found here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Please refer to my post no #3

Once you have done the tests (note that I do not recommend constant tests of materials but rather doing it once and then sticking to the equipment, film, development technique and methodology) all the beginner has to remember is either:

• To go in close and meter the darkest shadow area where they wish to retain detail and adjust the meter’s recommendation by closing the aperture down by two stops, increasing the shutter speed by two stops or a combination of the two

or

• To go in close and meter the brightest highlight area where they wish to retain detail (excluding the sky and on a dull day this may in fact be a light grey wall or even wet brickwork reflecting the sky) and adjust the meter’s recommendation by opening up the aperture by three stops, decreasing the shutter speed by three stops or a combination of the two.

Whether you meter the important shadows or important highlights is not important and generally simply a question of which is easiest to reach.

That is it, no need for years of wasting film and time trying to build experience of how to compensate for different lighting conditions. It also short circuits many of the suggestions given as to why people are ‘wrong’ to test for a personal EI, such as:

“they meter too much sky and have not learned to take a light reading correctly”
If you follow any version of the testing strategy, you will never meter the sky and will require 0 years experience of how to meter correctly because you either meter the important shadow area or the important highlight area. Absolutely no need to spend years building up knowledge and experience.

“the meter is out of calibration and needs adjustment”
It is really not necessary for a meter to be calibrated correctly. What is of fundamental importance is that it is CONSISTENT. Any inaccuracy will be compensated for by the real world testing method as described.

“the camera/lens is out of calibration and needs a CLA”
It is really not necessary for a camera/lens to be calibrated correctly. What is of fundamental importance is that it is CONSISTENT. Any inaccuracy will be compensated for by the real world testing method and how many people earn enough to pay for a CLA on a good quality camera?

If you undertake practical tests using your equipment none of the above matters because it will all be automatically compensated for during the tests. Even if your camera is working as per blueprint (highly unlikely given required production tolerances) it cannot be assumed that the box speed will suit your equipment, exposure and development technique.

So the simple answer is, once you have established a personal EI, for snow scenes you just meter the snow and adjust the meter’s recommendation by opening up the aperture by three stops, decreasing the shutter speed by three stops or a combination of the two.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Really good advice, David.

Use the in-camera meter...keep it simple. Establish your own EI.

I was going to provide the usual hack...slight overexposure and mild underdevelopment...

Your approach tunes in the camera, film and developer in a really pragmatic way.

I engaged in this style of testing often and I never found it boring; I always was headed into an interesting project and wanted to know what the camera, film, developer combination could give me.

Snow, fog, expanses of dark skin/light skin, kerosene lamplight...a little research = FUN!

I was working for a small photochemical manufactory in Pawtucket, RI at the time, so many of my efforts were film tests. I got to use many cameras.

Many times, people have told me that I need to have a better camera...I always tell them that I have a great tool...all I need to know is how to use it.

I think your approach informs anyone who has a camera and chooses to use a certain film and developer.

I knew a cagey beast who had done this same kind of work, shot 4 x 5 sheet film, and took 2 exposures for every effort. He developed the first image and, then, adjusted development time to get a better negative (for printing) if he thought it was needed.

Tough to do that with 35mm roll film, but your method gets as close as I can imagine to that ideal.

Thanks, Tim.

400 film, snowscape = 1/500 @ f16 w/sunny 16. add bright sunlight and you need more speed
or smaller f stop. Until you compensate for the brightness.
A slower film will give more choices for exposure but they tend to be more contrasty.

Chiming in late here...

I think a lot of people make exposing snow scenes, etc. a whole lot more complicated than it really is. With a little awareness of the overall brightness and the range of luminescences in the subject, exposing snow scenes is just like anything else: place the values where you want them and develop (or use paper grade) to adjust the contrast to where you want. Add filters to help the contrast out when shooting if you desire.

The big thing to be aware of is that most snow scenes are fairly bright overall, i.e., have a higher average reflectance than "normal" scenes and have tendency to fool the meter into underexposing. The same applies to beach scenes with a lot of bright sand, etc., etc. So, if you're using your averaging meter (or matrix metering or whatever the F4 has), which I certainly would when using small format cameras, then make sure you add extra exposure. Placing the snow in your desired exposure (2-3 stops over) works just fine as long as the contrast of the scene is not too high (more later). Or, you can just find a spot to meter on that is more "average" in that it has an equal distribution of lighter and darker objects. Developing a feeling for this (and bracketing when in doubt) is one of the skills needed for using in-camera metering. LF photogs get around this by using spot-metering or incident techniques.

Secondly, you need to be aware of the contrast of the subject. Snow scenes, although often blindingly bright, can often be very low contrast. Measuring contrast with a spot meter or such is a good way to get a handle on this, but I certainly don't bother with spot-metering when shooting 35mm. I make a visual assessment: If the scene is fairly low-contrast or "normal," then I just use my in-camera meter and whatever exposure compensation the average brightness of the scene may need. If the scene is really contrasty, however (say bright, sunlit snow and deep shadows that I want some detail in), I'll add even more exposure (at least a stop, often more) to make sure that the shadows don't go detail-less black. This seems counter intuitive to some, but not when you think about it: your meter wants an exposure that is in the middle (or some other average) of the range of tones in the scene. For very contrasty scenes, this middle exposure can leave shadows underexposed; more exposure is needed to get proper exposure there. The result is a negative with more contrast (like the scene) if developed normally. You simply have to use a lower contrast grade when printing to deal with this. Sheet-film users can develop each shot differently depending on the contrast they want from the negative; this is not very practical for roll-film users though. I always recommend simply dealing with the "overexposed" (but with adequate shadow detail) neg in the darkroom by 1) having a standard development time that gives a lot of leeway in both directions to control contrast and then 2) by using the range of contrast available from the printing controls when making the print.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus Scudder said:

So, if you're using your averaging meter (or matrix metering or whatever the F4 has), which I certainly would when using small format cameras, then make sure you add extra exposure.

Click to expand...

The way that I understand the Nikon F4 matrix metering, is that the meter recognizes that it's seeing a snow (or bight sand beach) scene and automatically adds extra exposure, so there is no need for the operator to do so. With an averaging meter, then yes, 2 or 3 stops of extra exposure needs to be added.

WILL WORK FOR FILM said:

We are very close to having a snow covered landscape here in beautiful South Western Idaho and I am looking forward to trying my hand at Black and white landscape photography with my Nikon F4 and Tri-x 400. I have read several online tutorials and think I have a handle on the basic principals of properly exposing for a mostly white scene, but would like to get a few personal opinions on the matter.

Scenario:

-A cold partly cloudy day with lots of fresh snow (common here). Mostly high desert vegetation and a far off tree or two.

-Nikon F4, tri-x at ISO 400 and maybe a yellow #12 filter to lighten the foliage and possibly bring out cloud detail.

-Based on what I have read, I might "spot meter" the bright white snow and use exposure compensation (+1 to +1-1/2) to avoid under exposing the snow since the meter will consider the metered point Zone 5.

Does this sound reasonable?

Click to expand...

I'd place the brightest snow on Zone VIII and let the rest fall where it may.

Of course, printing even a good negative of a snow scene is not straight forward either. It takes a fine touch and appreciation of print dry-down. Also, it was printing an eastern Washington State snow scene (16x20 silver gelatin from 4x5) that taught me about safelights...and how unsafe they can be (university darkroom)!

frank said:

The way that I understand the Nikon F4 matrix metering, is that the meter recognizes that it's seeing a snow (or bight sand beach) scene and automatically adds extra exposure, so there is no need for the operator to do so. With an averaging meter, then yes, 2 or 3 stops of extra exposure needs to be added.

Click to expand...

Frank,

Thanks for the clarification and correction. My last Nikon was an F2 (still have it somewhere along with a slew of lenses that haven't been used in 20 years or more...). I've never used the matrix metering.

Best,

Doremus

My print of the skull in the snow just got back to me -- it has been in a show for the last couple of months. Taking the past discussions into consideration while sitting in front of the print has been interesting. Doremus is quite spot-on. The contrast in the snow itself is low contrast. It has been a long time since I printed this...25 years? I am pleasently surprised how well I seemed to have carried it off. I was helped by the full range of values that the skull has -- from as white as the snow on its snout, to a few small areas of black, and dark areas with good details. Lucky. People react well to the print, but to me it has the snow-blindness-walking-around-the-rocks feel of the upper edge of Mono Lake Basin. Still work with snow occasionally...platinum prints and carbon prints now -- heading up to Spokane for the holidays, so might be getting some more snowtime in soon!