Scenes with mixed sun and shade

[Carriage]

What's the best way of going about exposing and printing for a scene where there's important detail in both bright sun and shade? The scene that raised this question was of a group of people queuing in the sun at a desk which was under a marquee at the edge. i.e. The desk and person at the desk are shaded but the queue isn't. I exposed for the lighting under the marquee and on my contact sheet, as expected the full sun sections have blown out but the shaded section looks fine. I think this is the correct exposure as it gives me all the info on the negatives (B&W). If I wanted it to look vaguely like I remember I suspect that dodging/burning the appropriate section is the way to go? I could use a lower contrast grade (or develop differently if I wasn't using roll film?) but that would give odd tonal ranges in each section I would think. Is there a way to do it as a straight print?

 

[ic-racer]

"Expose for the shadows and develop and print for the highlights."
This is still true after all these years because, 1) The ISO speed is still based on the minimum exposure for a good print and 2) Unless you have light sources in the image, name brand film's range extends beyond what you lens likely will project on the film and 3) Highlight values on the processed film and paper are not linked to any standard because they are influenced by 10,000 things that are unique to your darkroom and work habits.

 

[Arvee]

Flash fill or a reflector to bounce light into the dark areas. Wedding photographers deal with this situation all the time. This solution eliminates all the hassle of burning/dodging when printing blown out negs.

 

[tedr1]

Film can often capture detail in both shade and sunlight. Printing it is the problem. This is what dodging and burning is for. There is also the split-grade printing technique if you are using variable contrast paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For black & white negative and color negative film shoot at box speed and the dynamic range will cover the SBR. Color slide film must be shot at box speed, but mixed sun and shade are harder to capture with the narrow dynamic range.

 

[jimjm]

For print film, especially B/W, it's usually better to give priority to the shadows for high-contrast scenes. As a "general rule", these films can handle overexposure more easily than underexposure. During printing I can often pull detail out of highlights by burning-in, but trying to dodge shadow areas just results in muddy-looking shadows. If you expose somewhere in-between, underexposing the shadows maybe 1 or 2 stops, you may be able to avoid having to burn in the highlights too much. I live in Southern California where this problem crops up a lot, especially in the summer.

Printing at a lower contrast might help to retain detail in the final print, but you may not like the flatter "look" that results. If you can't get a satisfactory straight print, skills like burning, dodging and split-grade printing can make a huge difference. As Fred mentioned, it would be ideal to modify the lighting and get it right the first time, but in many situations you just don't have that control.

This is a straight print at Grade 3 with no burning or dodging required. I used the recommended meter setting and just got lucky with the lighting I had:

This print required quite a bit of dodging/burning and split-grade printing. Everything from Grade 4.5 for the door to Grade 1 for the sunlit highlights. I metered for the door and figured I would try to burn in the highlights in the darkroom. As a straight print it was very flat and all the highlight areas were completely blown-out:

 

[jim10219]

In addition to the other good suggestions, sometimes you can use a graduated neutral density filter, if the scene allows it. That works best if you have the dark and light areas on two separate sides, like in a canyon or a field/water body and bright skyline.

 

[OzJohn]

Flash fill or a reflector to bounce light into the dark areas. Wedding photographers deal with this situation all the time. This solution eliminates all the hassle of burning/dodging when printing blown out negs.

I am truly amazed that any experienced photographer would consider there to be a better method than this. And it works for all types of film, even reversal, with no extra darkroom work.

 

[jim10219]

I am truly amazed that any experienced photographer would consider there to be a better method than this. And it works for all types of film, even reversal, with no extra darkroom work.

Doesn’t work for most landscapes, architecture, or other scenes with depth though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am truly amazed that any experienced photographer would consider there to be a better method than this. And it works for all types of film, even reversal, with no extra darkroom work.

I use the exposure latitude and use dodging, burning and bleaching in the darkroom.

 

[jimjm]

I am truly amazed that any experienced photographer would consider there to be a better method than this. And it works for all types of film, even reversal, with no extra darkroom work.

Absolutely agree. If you have the opportunity to control the scene using lighting, reflectors, filtration, etc at the time of shooting, there's no excuse not to learn how. Some situations like weddings or portraits are perfect for this, and gradient filters are a necessity for landscape shooting. But in many situations, such as the OP has described, this is difficult or impossible to do.

Especially with digital wedding / portrait photographers these days, I cringe every time I hear one make the excuse that he/she can just "fix it in post", i.e., use Photoshop to fix their laziness to get the lighting right the first time...

 

[bernard_L]

I am truly amazed that some photographers ignore that there is photography outside wedding/social. How do you flash fill in such a scene? (also pointed out by jim10219)
Example:

Nov-2013. Nitrate mine at Chacabuco, also a detention center during Pinochet years. GS645W. Neopan 400. D-76 1+1.

Another point. "Expose for the shadows" is broadly correct but over-simplified and slightly over-done. In the above example (among many shot using same method), Neopan400 was rated at 250 nominal; open shadows (general average thereof) was placed in ZoneIV, or, in plain language, I took a reading of open shadows, and closed the shutter one stop. The negative is nowhere near over-dense and prints without dodging. This is my usual method for mixed sun/shade scenes. Of course, do not apply to deep shadows, that are subjectively black and should be rendered the same.

I have seen a similar recommendation recently; based on incident reading from open shadows, also closing one stop ; but can't credit because I can't remember who/where.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Try to print it normally first.

Second, you can try flashing the paper if you are having trouble with the highlights.

Third, try a SLIMT bleach.

I rarely have a problem printing anything to be honest, and rarely need to use any special techniques. I like a nice thick neg too.

 

[Bill Burk]

Assuming the shadow is not the main interest, print for the queue at a normal grade, and then judiciously dodge the shadow to bring up just enough detail to lift black into mysterious form...

 

[Arvee]

In those above mentioned landscape situations, experienced/successful photographers arrange their schedules to shoot during the 'golden hour' whenever possible. This was a cardinal rule for NatGeo photogs. Never, never shoot midday in the harsh light unless you're going for the 'blown highlights, empty shadows' look. Always control the light to get a correct exposure on the neg instead of try to salvage the shot in the darkroom or post processing. That's the key.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fill in flash is useful in the right situation such as back lit portraits.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

This is really one of the classic problems in photography. Fill flash or lighting (e.g., reflectors, etc.) are ideal for situations where they can be used, but often the sheer size or distance of an architectural or landscape shot makes these impossible, even after one waits for the right light.

With transparency film, there is no latitude; you simply have to decide on a compromise: favor the shadows, the highlights or split the difference somehow.

With negative films and print controls there are a lot more possibilities, especially with black-and-white. We can alter development (tailoring our negative using the Zone System, BZTS, etc.), dodge and burn, use split-printing techniques, flash paper, mask, bleach, SLIMT, etc., etc. If you think about it, dealing with this kind of situation is precisely why all these controls and manipulations were developed, and why we need to master them. Important here, however, is that the exposure is adequate to render desired detail in the shadow area. If you underexpose (which is all too easy in contrasty situations and an averaging meter), there's no way to get lost shadow values back.

Unfortunately, blindly "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights" in cases like these (say a dark interior with a sunlit landscape outside a large window, or a dark forest with dappled sunlight), often results in a flat, muddy, contrastless failure. We tend to want detail and contrast in both the shaded an lit areas. I'll often intentionally make a too-contrasty negative knowing in advance that it's going to be a bear to print, but also knowing that if I developed so that the contrast range of the negative fit the paper, I'd end up with a dull print. Using a carefully-considered development that will give you minimum contrast to make the best print really helps here. Example: I have a contrasty scene that classic Zone System would say needs N-3 or N-4. But I really want lots of separation and contrast in the shadows and I know I'll kill that if I use such a radical contraction. So, I'll develop N-1 or N-2, depending on the subject, and then deal with the extra contrast in the darkroom, not by using a lower-contrast paper or filter setting to get the negative contrast range to fit the paper, but by using other manipulations.

My favorite tools to deal with these kinds of negatives are: dodging and burning (often using different contrast settings, i.e., split-contrast techniques), flashing paper (very rewarding at times!), bleaching up highlights, unsharp masking and, sometimes, SLIMTs for the print (I use SLIMTs for reducing negative contrast too, but that's a substitute for N- developments; SLIMTs for prints changes the contrast curve of the paper and can be great for certain subjects). If the subject allows, I'll sometimes use selective intensification of areas of the negative. This only works if you can really avoid a "halo" around the area being intensified and if you mess up, the negative is ruined (I'll shoot a back up if I think I might be doing this).

The negative the OP describes will likely be difficult to print and there's no magic bullet in the analog world. Maybe Photoshop would present more possibilities. Bottom line: fix the lighting or wait for better light if possible. If not, don't just make a soft negative; consider whether this will really get you the results you desire. If you need to make a contrasty neg, be prepared to deal with it with print manipulations. Or, recognize that the scene you are looking at just won't make a good photograph and move on to something else; sometimes discretion is the better part of valor

Best,

Doremus

 

[Maris]

There is a double exposure way of handling landscapes with deep shadows and brilliant sunlight areas but you need the perfect day. And the perfect day is one with clouds that intermittently block the sun. With the camera on a secure tripod wait for a cloud to cover the sun and then place the important shadows on Exposure Zone IV. When the cloud moves away expose again and place the bright sunlit patches on Exposure Zone VI. The combined exposure yields a negative with open shadows and controlled highlights; nice to work with in the darkroom.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And plants do wave in the wind.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ah the Fred Picker dappled forest trick.

 

[Maris]

And plants do wave in the wind.

Ah the Fred Picker dappled forest trick.

Yep, it's the Fred Picker trick and it works but perfect days are few and far between when you need them. Moving plants are definitely on the agenda. The same wind that moves the clouds in a convenient way also pushes the vegetation about. There is a theory, from Paul Strand I think, that a tree disturbed by a gust of wind will return exactly to its original configuration, leaf by leaf, when the air becomes still again.