Pulling film for sunny scenes’ multigrade printing with clean shadows… How far do you go?

This question is big as it’s equally related to exposure, development and printing at the same time… Thanks everyone for sharing opinions and experiences!

How far do you pull film for direct sunlight?

Let’s think of ASA400 film: it’s often used at 320-200 for common soft overcast light (real film speed, some say), and if –very different case– we need to pull film for sunlight contrast control, we expose it even more generously, and cut development to keep highlights safe. In the case of direct sunlight scenes, if we prefer shadows with distinct subjects -in a natural look- we commonly pull 1-2 stops from box speed: so, more light, and a shorter development…

But what if we need more “open” shadows? If sunbeams are hitting white walls / white floor, surrounding shadows are filled a little, but if walls and floor are darker, well, as there’s less / no bounced light, we need to expose film for even more light if we want to clearly show a subject that’s in the shadows… So here’s the complex question:

Have you found any push/pull/multigrade filter scheme that’s common to the films you use? Something like saying “I prefer to underexpose X stops and extend development (push) for most of my photographs because they come from dull light (overcast days) and I find myself using filter #Y for those negatives; but when there’s direct sun and I need very clean shadows, I overexpose Z stops from box speed and cut development accordingly (pull), and I like to print those pulled negatives using filter #A…”

This question involves the whole (technical, at least) photographic process, but my opinion is, as the sun is a relatively stable source of light when there’s open sky, there should be some agreement about how to pull for clear shadows, and the optimal multigrade filter(s) to use in that case…

So, how far do you pull for direct sunlight when shadows are important, and which multigrade filters do you commonly use for printing those pulled negatives?

And which filters do you use when you print pushed negatives?

Following ‘real world’ testing I always use Delta 400 at EI 200 developed in Barry Thornton’s Two-Bath developer. For every exposure, I measure the shadow area where I wish to retain detail and then correct the meter reading by closing down two stops (or placing on Zone III in Zone System terminology).

This system gives me negatives that print easily on Grade 3 (on Foma Fomabrom Variant 111 - unglazed glossy fibre base paper) when using the Ilford Multigrade 500 head on my enlarger. However, for exhibition prints, I tend to print on Grade 3.5 - 4 with a little dodging and burning as this gives the prints a little extra ‘punch’ that I prefer.

That’s it.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Juan Valdenebro said:

This question is big as it’s equally related to exposure, development and printing at the same time… Thanks everyone for sharing opinions and experiences!

How far do you pull film for direct sunlight?

Let’s think of ASA400 film: it’s often used at 320-200 for common soft overcast light (real film speed, some say), and if –very different case– we need to pull film for sunlight contrast control, we expose it even more generously, and cut development to keep highlights safe. In the case of direct sunlight scenes, if we prefer shadows with distinct subjects -in a natural look- we commonly pull 1-2 stops from box speed: so, more light, and a shorter development…

But what if we need more “open” shadows? If sunbeams are hitting white walls / white floor, surrounding shadows are filled a little, but if walls and floor are darker, well, as there’s less / no bounced light, we need to expose film for even more light if we want to clearly show a subject that’s in the shadows… So here’s the complex question:

Have you found any push/pull/multigrade filter scheme that’s common to the films you use? Something like saying “I prefer to underexpose X stops and extend development (push) for most of my photographs because they come from dull light (overcast days) and I find myself using filter #Y for those negatives; but when there’s direct sun and I need very clean shadows, I overexpose Z stops from box speed and cut development accordingly (pull), and I like to print those pulled negatives using filter #A…”

This question involves the whole (technical, at least) photographic process, but my opinion is, as the sun is a relatively stable source of light when there’s open sky, there should be some agreement about how to pull for clear shadows, and the optimal multigrade filter(s) to use in that case…

So, how far do you pull for direct sunlight when shadows are important, and which multigrade filters do you commonly use for printing those pulled negatives?

And which filters do you use when you print pushed negatives?

Click to expand...

Aiming for a contrast index of about 0.5-0.55 for a diffusion enlarger should place pretty much any real world contrast range between G0 & G5 on paper. Somewhere round about 0.42 or a fraction less for a condenser. That said, there are no magical solutions because your own geographical location will impact on the contrast range you need to develop for. The simplest answer is to make some images, print them & see if you need more or less exposure (shadow detail) and more or less processing (highlight density) to get an average negative on to grade 2. That's about it. The rest is interpretation & you might want to print harder or softer than 'reality'. Same with filtration for pushed negatives, you might end up having to use several grades to get the best possible print from a difficult negative. Don't arbitrarily limit your filter use.

Thank you... The question is about proceeding differently for dull lght photography and direct sunligh photography... I don't think metering/exposing/developing the same way, in both cases, is the only/best option, even if film has some latitude for working that way...
For example, IMO, that way we can't make prints with very clean shadows that are close on paper to the higher range of grays used for the areas in direct sunlight...

For dull lighting, opening up the aperture half a stop or one stop sometimes helps, but that is within the latitude of the film and there is no need for pushing, pulling, sliding, coasting or anything else. Just shoot at box speed and open the lens if that is what you need for dim or flat lighting to brighten the scene.

So nobody around here using different ASA or EI with the same film, depending on scene contrast? I was taught to... Filters do a part of it, but pushing and pulling do the other half... Sunny scenes without pulling tend to produce too dark shadows (like slide film) and the scenes look colder and don't convey a warm weather feeling: when there's direct sun, we see into the shadows easily... I think I remember, when I was a student, it was usual exposing ASA400 film at 200 for normal contrast, and at 100-50 for high contrast (sun) control: this way shadows are well exposed, and with a short development highlights under direct sunlight are controlled and printable...

I think that I see where you are coming from, but I approach it differently.
From my point of view, a reference to "pulling" is a reference to reducing contrast by reducing development. There is no direct effect on the need for exposure. But for some film and developer combinations, there is an indirect effect. So sometimes when I decide to reduce development, I will increase exposure somewhat.
Development change to respond to the contrast in the scene. Exposure change to make sure that mid-tones and highlights render well (primarily) and that shadows render well (secondarily).
If your focusing on the shadows, then you need to meter with them in mind.
I tend to use printing controls to bring difficult highlights under control.
FWIW, most of my film is metered and exposed at or near "box" speed, and I rely heavily on incident metering.

Have you found any push/pull/multigrade filter scheme that’s common to the films you use? Something like saying “I prefer to underexpose X stops and extend development (push) for most of my photographs because they come from dull light (overcast days) and I find myself using filter #Y for those negatives; but when there’s direct sun and I need very clean shadows, I overexpose Z stops from box speed and cut development accordingly (pull), and I like to print those pulled negatives using filter #A…”

Yeah it's called the Zone System. If you have not read about or used the Zone System you might want to give it a try, or Phil Davis's Beyond the Zone System. The concept is basic, meter for the shadows and develop for the highlights. The ZS was designed for sheet film, but can be adapted for roll film. Your concept of pulling film is adjusting the development time on what AA termed -N development to lower contrast, or extends development +N to increase contrast.

Take a look at this.

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/LatentImageBleach/latentimagebleach.html

Paul Howell said:

Have you found any push/pull/multigrade filter scheme that’s common to the films you use? Something like saying “I prefer to underexpose X stops and extend development (push) for most of my photographs because they come from dull light (overcast days) and I find myself using filter #Y for those negatives; but when there’s direct sun and I need very clean shadows, I overexpose Z stops from box speed and cut development accordingly (pull), and I like to print those pulled negatives using filter #A…”

Yeah it's called the Zone System. If you have not read about or used the Zone System you might want to give it a try, or Phil Davis's Beyond the Zone System. The concept is basic, meter for the shadows and develop for the highlights. The ZS was designed for sheet film, but can be adapted for roll film. Your concept of pulling film is adjusting the development time on what AA termed -N development to lower contrast, or extends development +N to increase contrast.

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,
Yes... In the 90's I bought Adams' 3 books for the first time: I read them before they were translated to Spanish, and also edge of darkness, cookbook, post exposure, etc., all of them common in Europe while I cursed my career in photography... I've pushed and pulled since, nearly two decades ago.
I'd recommend those who have not done it: pick a direct sun scene and place inside it 2 identical cards with levels of gray from black to white, one in pure sunlight and the other one in pure shadow, and test a few levels of overexposure and a few levels of underdevelopment applied to identical strips (bracketing)... Would you spot meter for shadow detail (ZIII, close 2 stops) the grays card un the sun, or the one in the shadows... I'm afraid none of both options offer the best exposure for sunny scenes' negatives if we need to show subjects in both light and shades...

im going to be the outlier here
but my fall back is to over expose and over develop
so bright scene with tri x
i will expose at iso 50 and develop normally ( in caffenol c )
everything is on the negative you just need to get it out
sometimes that means bleaching back a little bit with farmers reducer
( chemistry which is readily available worldwide ) ..
good luck !
john

Juan Valdenebro said:

So nobody around here using different ASA or EI with the same film, depending on scene contrast? I was taught to...

Click to expand...

The variance is drastically smaller if you are keying off your shadows like you should with a negative film. As others have said, go and take a look at Phil Davis' BTZS work, it's not perfect, but it is a good introduction to sensitometry & better approaches to metering. I'd like to reiterate that with today's papers it is possible to expose a roll of film sufficiently for good shadows, develop for not over dense highlights & still land with printable negatives between 00 & 5 from a wide variety of subject contrasts on one roll. If you work with a narrower range of subject contrasts, there is no reason not to refine your exposure & processing to land on G2 or G3. For the subjects I photograph & the quality of light I prefer, my process is now refined enough to land a core exposure on G2-3, with other filters used where needed to define details or burn-in where necessary. It isn't hard to do & the hours spent talking about it & theorising about what various 'gurus' have blethered about could be better spent exposing a few rolls of film & getting your processes under control.

This is not about if a negative is just "printable"... It's about if a negative can be treated in a better way thinking of better printing possibilties.

Lachlan Young said:

The variance is drastically smaller if you are keying off your shadows like you should with a negative film. As others have said, go and take a look at Phil Davis' BTZS work, it's not perfect, but it is a good introduction to sensitometry & better approaches to metering. I'd like to reiterate that with today's papers it is possible to expose a roll of film sufficiently for good shadows, develop for not over dense highlights & still land with printable negatives between 00 & 5 from a wide variety of subject contrasts on one roll. If you work with a narrower range of subject contrasts, there is no reason not to refine your exposure & processing to land on G2 or G3. For the subjects I photograph & the quality of light I prefer, my process is now refined enough to land a core exposure on G2-3, with other filters used where needed to define details or burn-in where necessary. It isn't hard to do & the hours spent talking about it & theorising about what various 'gurus' have blethered about could be better spent exposing a few rolls of film & getting your processes under control.

Click to expand...

Hi Lachlan,
I think it's me who shot the rolls both for real photography and for testing... Have you? From your words, it seems you have not, or maybe you should take a new look to your direct sun / pulling tests... I know what I know, and b&w film is not an absolute media, but a relative one, a flexible one... It has no fix ASA: a good photographer can make it work at different exposure indexes. And that's done because that's the way to make a negative able to get the most out of the printing stage.

Juan Valdenebro said:

Hi Paul,
Yes... In the 90's I bought Adams' 3 books for the first time: I read them before they were translated to Spanish, and also edge of darkness, cookbook, post exposure, etc., all of them common in Europe while I cursed my career in photography... I've pushed and pulled since, nearly two decades ago.
I'd recommend those who have not done it: pick a direct sun scene and place inside it 2 identical cards with levels of gray from black to white, one in pure sunlight and the other one in pure shadow, and test a few levels of overexposure and a few levels of underdevelopment applied to identical strips (bracketing)... Would you spot meter for shadow detail (ZIII, close 2 stops) the grays card un the sun, or the one in the shadows... I'm afraid none of both options offer the best exposure for sunny scenes' negatives if we need to show subjects in both light and shades...

Click to expand...

I think your missing the point of Visualizing, if you place shadows in zone III as a matter of practice then meter for what zone you want your high lights to fall, adjust development time. If you have established your personal EI for a particular film and developer I don't see why it matters if a gray card is in the sun or the shade, you are establishing zone V then adjusting for zone III for the shadows or in some cases just the lowest zone in the scene. Of course in many cases when I go to print I find that I've changed my mind, at that point I change paper grades or do any number of other techniques to obtain my final print. .

Juan Valdenebro said:

Hi Lachlan,
I think it's me who shot the rolls both for real photography and for testing... Have you? From your words, it seems you have not, or maybe you should take a new look to your direct sun / pulling tests... I know what I know, and b&w film is not an absolute media, but a relative one, a flexible one... It has no fix ASA: a good photographer can make it work at different exposure indexes. And that's done because that's the way to make a negative able to get the most out of the printing stage.

Click to expand...

Many, many rolls of film, both for myself & others. I gave you the baseline data for effectively placing 8 stops rather than 7 on grade 2, which (unless you work in contrast ranges very rarely seen in reality) should make most contrast ranges from 5-10 stops pretty readily printable on grades 0-5 with less tricky burning-in than can often be the case. Essentially it's about giving me (as a printer) a negative that's less potentially painful to make an expressive print from without fighting overly dense highlights on the negative. Excessive pull processing may be of questionable value depending on what film you use & how much you want to begin to affect the midrange tonalities. At that point, I'd generally reach for the box of Ortho+ and make a mask instead of further reducing development. Furthermore, given that you are not working with sheet film with individualised development times, you will always have to choose a compromise in terms of development. It's not very clear what you are looking for other than some magic average formula that doesn't exist. Once you've printed enough negatives of all sorts, you get pretty good at 'just making the print' without getting bogged down in the (generally very silly) doctrines of filter use. You use whatever you need & that's it.

Dear forum members: I have no time for the type of blind arguing some internet presences (totally unknown to me) propose, but I do have a little more time for truth: that’s what this place deserves when I think of present day and future readers. This is message is not directed to any specific person, but to every forum member who didn’t understand before.

When I was a teenager, an amateur photographer, I metered under direct sunlight… When I became a professional (I don’t mean just LF & MF Product, Fashion and Architecture work but a degree after cursing a six year career in 100% Analog Photography) I thought it was posible to remember how to expose/develop for direct sun as the sun is more or less a stable source of light, at least the (known) sun where someone lives, and from mid morning to mid afternoon when there’s open sky... Yes, I used to expose the same way all sunny scenes long ago…

Then, for the last 15 years I did it differently, and I exposed for direct sun in two ways: one necessary case was doing a sunny scene I didn’t want to miss with my main camera, which has ASA400 film at 1600 for soft light in the street… I try to avoid photography when there’s direct sun. But sometimes -as here clouds appear and disappear quickly- I need to press the shutter for a direct sunlight scene that comes just a few seconds after I shot an overcast scene: this happens constantly, as here in the tropic we can have direct sun and rain three times a day each… So for this first way of doing sun, I just learned after darkroom testing, which was the best aperture/speed combination (exposure) for wet printing a negative that was contrasty (sun+push), as I said, an emergency case, because the second way of doing it, is the good one: I carry a second camera/lens (now I use small rangefinders mostly, as they’ve already given me more pleasure than my LF Arca Swiss and my MF Hasselblad have…) with a roll that’s just for registering direct sun. When a sun roll is finally done, I develop it differently to my more usual rolls at 1600, because those sunny rolls are exposed for 16 times more light than my standard street rolls, of course for a short development, as their EI is 100, with the same film… Decent clean shades this way.

So my personal work has those 2 main options for direct sun, one pushed (for emergencies) and one pulled (when the day is definitely becoming a sunny day and I had enough time to take out the second camera…), but this thread I started, was about a third case, and I explained it from my first post…

As it’s often said, subjects in the sun and subjects in the shades are “separated” by 2-3 stops of light… I had tested it, and yes, for me it’s usual to keep f/8 (zone focusing) and use 1/2000th for direct sun, and after aiming at the other side of the street, in shadows, just open speed and use 1/250th, that’s three stops. In general it works, and I don’t know of a better way for really fast street photography.

I’ve done this as my bread and butter here at the peasants’ fruits and vegetables market where most of my work has been done since I was young… As half the scenes are sunny and the other half are in the shades, I seldom have time for using the second camera, the “correct” pull one for sun: only when there are no clouds and I can work with a bit more time and when there’s direct sun and nothing else, instead of 2 very different situations in the very same place/street all the time… That’s how it is…

Then one day (2 years ago?) I got a standard pushed street roll with all its shady scenes underexposed, and the sunny ones were normal, so development wasn’t involved… I was puzzled… I went back to the market and checked: I didn’t undestand, as with careful metering, again I got the 1/2000th and 1/250th I always knew and always used without any problem… I even checked everything with my sekonic incident/spot meter and grey card… I couldn’t understand why my shadows were that under…

It took me a few months of considering details to understand what was happening… The underexposed negatives I talked about were not slightly off: they were ruined. So, where was the mysterious huge mistake? Well, it was a mix of a few small and generally unperceived facts I had to learn the hard way: missed shots. Here’s the explanation, subject of this thread:

To make it short and easy, let’s say sunlight and shades are usually at a 2-3 stops distance… But when there are no clouds at all in the blue sky (highly uncommon here), with zero fill for the shadows, and the sun is too directional and localized (8-9am), the gap here can be 4 stops… And when instead of white walls here and there, all there is is unpainted dark gray, it goes to 5 stops… And when part of the “roofs” and umbrellas used by sellers are black... Well, subjects in the shades can sometimes be 6 stops from subjects in the sun, and I’m talking about situations one yard one from the other… Same f-stop, 1/2000th and 1/30th…

So no matter if you “know” how to expose/develop sunny scenes, doing it the same way always, just isn’t the best way to do it, because as I had already explained or implied in my previous posts, the amount of overexposure/pulling should be changeable depending on how “far” the subjects in the shades are, and how clear those shades should be, to benefit the photograph.

So again I recommend testing, or if tests were done and they were well done, sometimes taking a look at them again can help us understand.

Have a nice day.

I'd rather start with a film that can handle a long contrast, like either TMax product, than try to scrunch a film with a longer toe via minus or pull dev and end up sacrificing crisp shadow tonal separation. But you need to carefully meter your shadow values with TMax.

No 'pulling' or 'pushing' needed. Expose so the lowest shadow density produces 0.1 log density on the film. Develop the film with a processing time long-enough or short-enough so it prints correctly with your setup and paper. This works for all subjects, short or long tonal range.

I often have cameras that will not work above 1/250. And my lenses have f/16 but I often shoot my 400 speed film on sunny days at f/11. So actually if you think Sunny 16, I am shooting at EI 125.

In my coastal, wooded climate there are often foggy days and some sunny days. I don’t often see more than 7 stops of subject luminance range that I can meter at the camera position. Are you using a spotmeter?

So I tend to develop normally for the majority of my photography. I use longer development for foggy day rolls, or indoor photography where the subject luminance range is less. Often indoors I risk under exposure because I want to handhold at 1/30 and f/2 and there is often barely enough light but I shoot that way anyway.

So I think you should check that you really have 6 stops of shade, that sounds wrong. I don’t recall ever seeing that.

The common concept of pulling or pushing film to control contrast is, at best, fuzzy thinking and, at worst, a complete misunderstanding of how exposure and development works.

Add to this the myriad "rules" for over- and underexposing under this or that condition (which are different for different types of meter and metering techniques) and the confusion is compounded. You should probably open up a stop or two from the meter reading for contrasty scenes if you're using an averaging reflected meter. If you're spot-metering the shadows, you never have to do this; with incident meters, it depends on your metering technique, etc., etc.

If you're interested in getting an optimal negative, then follow the old adage: Use the minimum exposure you need to get the desired shadow detail (erring on the side of overexposure when in doubt) and test to find a development scheme (or schemes) that works with your film format and workflow.

There are thousands of ways to arrive at the optimal negative. If you shoot roll film and use an averaging TTL meter, then you have to learn to recognize contrasty situations and open up a stop or two from the meter reading. Then, you need to have a standard developing time that allows the luminance range of extreme scenes, both flat and contrasty, to yield a printable negative (the suggested C.I. targets mentioned above should do the job nicely, or you can test by trial and error and arrive at the same place). If you spot meter shadow values and base your exposure on that, you never have to change exposure from what the meter indicates (other than stopping down the appropriate number of stops to place the shadow correctly, of course).

If you use sheet film, you can spend a lot of time finding the "perfect" development time for every scene (BZTS) or have a set of different developments for several categories of subject luminance range (Zone System) or simply develop at a standard time and rely on contrast controls when printing. All of these work just fine in the hands of experienced photographers. The point is: there are many ways to get good results provided that the methodology involved is based on a sound understanding of how the photographic process works.

Despite the OP's verbosity, I suspect that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works at play here. I would suggest that he review the exposure compensation requirements for the type of metering he is using in order to be sure that he is preserving the desired shadow detail in sunlit scenes (which can be extremely contrasty). Additionally, a developing strategy is needed to 1.) keep highlights under control in contrasty situations while simultaneously 2.) keeping low-contrast negs from being so flat as to not be easily printable at with higher-contrast settings. This could be as simple as finding one intermediate developing time that works for all his commonly-encountered situations or, if more than one camera body can be carried, one "average" development time for mid- to low-contrast scenes and one for mid- to high-contrast ones.

None of this is new or rocket science. Frankly, I'm surprised that someone with a degree in photography and years of experience as a professional has to ask such a question.

Best,

Doremus

Bill. Often around here the coastal fog can break around mid-day. In the redwoods you can very quickly go from natural soft-box lighting which even Pan F can handle to a full twelve stops of dynamic range that's tricky even with TMY. Sure miss good ole Super-XX and Bergger 200.