Shadows and highlights way out of the zones

[hiroh]

What would you do if you have sometihng very dark in the scene that you want to put in the Zone 2, or 3 to be able to see the detail. Let's say it's EV 3. But then you have highlights waaay out of the zone system with EV 17, and you still want to see details in those highlights. This could be a scene of a dark room with the open window. Outside is too bright, and you want to capture details in the room and clouds in the sky.

I know film should be exposed for shadows, and recovering highlights is easier than shadows, but I'm talking here where the highlights will be blown out for sure if I exposed for shadows.

If I'm shooting digital, I'd bracket it and merge in post, but I'm curious how to achieve this on film. And, no artificial lights should be used.

I guess this is not possible, but I'm curious what would you do to achieve the best result for this scene.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

• Artificial lights to brighten the interior;
• Shoot on a really long scale film like TMX-100;
• Do an N-2 exposure/development, rate film at EI 25 or so, reduce development by 25-30%;
• Burn in the window when printing.

-Or-

• Just make a ZIII exposure for the interior and let everything fall where it may;
• Really burn in the window when printing.

 

[gone]

I would start w/ your choice of film and EI, and that will tell you whether or not the scene can even be shot to your satisfaction (keeping in mind it's always a compromise). Some films have a really wide range of exposure latitude, some don't. I'd trust Tri-X to handle things, it seems to have a huge range of usable exposure latitude.

In the end you will have to prioritize, or deal w/ something being less than ideally exposed. FWIW, I once came indoors w/ a 'blad to take a table top shot w/o resetting the shutter. It was very, very underexposed (Tri-X), you could barely see an image on the negative. But I got a decent print out of that, all things considered. There's a lot of information in a 6x6 neg whether it's well exposed or not.

 

[cramej]

Set up some white reflectors to brighten up the interior.

Stack negatives in the enlarger with proper exposure for each.

 

[GregY]

Divided Pyrocat works pretty well under those conditions

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Expose for the shadows ---- That means go ahead and place the dark parts of the interior in Zone II or III

Develop for the highlights --- This is where things get tricky; it's not really feasible to develop N-5

However, with a combination of reduced development, lower contrast paper and other tricks, you can get close.

You can certainly develop N-2 (if you haven't tested this out, now's a good time - usually you have to rate the film a bit slower than N, but only 1/3-2/3 stop). Then, you likely have a VC paper with a #0 or #00 filter. This gets you to N-4 or so.

Then there's a host of tricks:
~ Use a long scale film that holds detail with overexposure (see suggestions above)
~ Use a developer/development regime that compensates and reins in the highlights. PMK or other staining developers are noted for "not blowing out the highlights." Or use a dilute developer/reduced agitation regime to hold the highlights Again, experienced practitioners have tested this. You might want to too. (Note: you can expose the negative and then do tests before you develop it.)
~ Dodging and burning are your friends. If you anticipate having to dodge shadows a lot, be sure to give enough exposure to the negative so that they don't just end up gray.
~ Pre-flashing the paper will give it a just-under-the-threshold exposure and help hold the highlights. Burning with a #00 filter or equivalent does much the same thing.
~ Use split-grade printing techniques: there's really too much to explain here, but searching the forum will give you lots of results.
~ If you want to take the time to test things out, SLIMT techniques can be very gratifying in situations like this. It entails giving the negative a treatment in very weak ferricyanide/bromide rehalogenating bleach before developing it. Again, there is quite a bit of testing that needs to be done, but the process itself is quite simple. Search here and online for links to David Kachel's articles on SLIMT techniques. FWIW, I use, and like, SLIMTs a lot.
~ Sometimes it's not possible to keep detail everywhere; "you can't always get what you want." So make your best effort and see if it's acceptable.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

 

[Bill Burk]

Wait until dusk.

Of course this is advice from a guy who gets antsy standing in a Starbucks line with three people ahead.

 

[Oren Grad]

Beyond Doremus's excellent list, another option worth some experimentation is Phil Davis's DI-13 developer, intended exclusively for use with T-Max 100. It's available from the Photographers' Formulary, info sheet here:

https://stores.photoformulary.com/content/01-5075 DI-13.pdf

 

[Paul Howell]

Others options include using a divided developer, Dinafine, one of Barry Thorton's, or divided 76, a pyro developer, PF also sells Phenidone Extended Range, a low contrast developer that can handle up to 20 stops with slow speed film. Last is water bath development.

 

[beemermark]

OK, people will tell me I know nothing but depending on format and what type of film your shooting depends a lot on how many stops difference you can get. Typically B&W 135mm film can span 8 stops, maybe 9 with the right film and processing. ISO 125 on a sunny day that will take your exposure from F16@125 to F1.4@125. So coal mine to sunny outdoors. Don't know what 20 stops would get you. Nuclear blast on a dim day?

 

[Bill Burk]

To give a better answer, dark room and open window where you want clouds in the sky. Double expose. One shot with just the exposure for outside. Give one stop towards overexposure for the outside part of the picture.

Then wait until night, or cover the window. Make the second exposure good and proper for the interior.

Then develop normally. While printing, you will be able to “print down” that one stop of overexposure of the exterior. The interior will go darker when you print heavily, which will be what you expect it to look like. Any specific detail you want to see inside, you will be able to dodge a bit to reveal.

 

[MattKing]

I would bracket and then use two negatives to make one print.
The example of a dark interior scene with a bright scene outside viewable through a window is particularly suited to this, because it is relatively easy to register the two images.
Perhaps more importantly though, you should consider whether you actually want full detail in the extremes. In many cases, if you achieve that, it will appear quite un-natural. Sometimes having detail disappear in the shadows and highlights is actually a good thing.
In this case, it is a single negative, and the highlights have been extensively burned in, but are still more suggestions than representations:

 

[btaylor]

ND gel hung outside the window. Or reflectors (white, silver) inside the room as mentioned previously. Two bracketed exposures- you could do that with film too- scan and merge them in post.

 

[Vaughn]

Use a printing process that can eat that sort of contrast for lunch?

Thirteen measured stop difference with my Pentax Digital Spot (0 to 13) -- if your meter reads 0, can there be areas less than 0? Exposed at 2. Normal development. Straight print (single transfer carbon print).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hollywood uses neutral density filters on the windows.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What would you do if you have sometihng very dark in the scene that you want to put in the Zone 2, or 3 to be able to see the detail. Let's say it's EV 3. But then you have highlights waaay out of the zone system with EV 17, and you still want to see details in those highlights. This could be a scene of a dark room with the open window. Outside is too bright, and you want to capture details in the room and clouds in the sky.

I know film should be exposed for shadows, and recovering highlights is easier than shadows, but I'm talking here where the highlights will be blown out for sure if I exposed for shadows.

If I'm shooting digital, I'd bracket it and merge in post, but I'm curious how to achieve this on film. And, no artificial lights should be used.

I guess this is not possible, but I'm curious what would you do to achieve the best result for this scene.

Use fill in flash since the SBR is so great.

 

[hiroh]

Thanks so much everyone on responses. There's a lot of new information for me here.

Divided Pyrocat works pretty well under those conditions

Never used Pyro, but I plan to test it once. What would be the biggest advantage or dissadvantage comparing to D-76, Rodinal, HC-110. These are the ones I used.

Expose for the shadows ---- That means go ahead and place the dark parts of the interior in Zone II or III

Develop for the highlights --- This is where things get tricky; it's not really feasible to develop N-5

However, with a combination of reduced development, lower contrast paper and other tricks, you can get close.

You can certainly develop N-2 (if you haven't tested this out, now's a good time - usually you have to rate the film a bit slower than N, but only 1/3-2/3 stop). Then, you likely have a VC paper with a #0 or #00 filter. This gets you to N-4 or so.

Then there's a host of tricks:
~ Use a long scale film that holds detail with overexposure (see suggestions above)
~ Use a developer/development regime that compensates and reins in the highlights. PMK or other staining developers are noted for "not blowing out the highlights." Or use a dilute developer/reduced agitation regime to hold the highlights Again, experienced practitioners have tested this. You might want to too. (Note: you can expose the negative and then do tests before you develop it.)
~ Dodging and burning are your friends. If you anticipate having to dodge shadows a lot, be sure to give enough exposure to the negative so that they don't just end up gray.
~ Pre-flashing the paper will give it a just-under-the-threshold exposure and help hold the highlights. Burning with a #00 filter or equivalent does much the same thing.
~ Use split-grade printing techniques: there's really too much to explain here, but searching the forum will give you lots of results.
~ If you want to take the time to test things out, SLIMT techniques can be very gratifying in situations like this. It entails giving the negative a treatment in very weak ferricyanide/bromide rehalogenating bleach before developing it. Again, there is quite a bit of testing that needs to be done, but the process itself is quite simple. Search here and online for links to David Kachel's articles on SLIMT techniques. FWIW, I use, and like, SLIMTs a lot.
~ Sometimes it's not possible to keep detail everywhere; "you can't always get what you want." So make your best effort and see if it's acceptable.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

N+- is new term to me, but I get it. It seems that it makes more sense for large format where you can develop for one shot, rather than the whole roll where I have all kinds of different scenes, lighting conditions and exposures.

For now, I only digitize my negatives, so if the information is in the negative, I know how to recover it in post.

Beyond Doremus's excellent list, another option worth some experimentation is Phil Davis's DI-13 developer, intended exclusively for use with T-Max 100. It's available from the Photographers' Formulary, info sheet here:

https://stores.photoformulary.com/content/01-5075 DI-13.pdf

Hm, never heard about this developer. I downloaded the PDF for the future reference. There's a lot of developers I yet have to test out.

Others options include using a divided developer, Dinafine, one of Barry Thorton's, or divided 76, a pyro developer, PF also sells Phenidone Extended Range, a low contrast developer that can handle up to 20 stops with slow speed film. Last is water bath development.

Divided development is new to me. I read what is it about and will give it a try sometimes.

To give a better answer, dark room and open window where you want clouds in the sky. Double expose. One shot with just the exposure for outside. Give one stop towards overexposure for the outside part of the picture.

Then wait until night, or cover the window. Make the second exposure good and proper for the interior.

Then develop normally. While printing, you will be able to “print down” that one stop of overexposure of the exterior. The interior will go darker when you print heavily, which will be what you expect it to look like. Any specific detail you want to see inside, you will be able to dodge a bit to reveal.

Sounds interesting to test it out.

I would bracket and then use two negatives to make one print.
The example of a dark interior scene with a bright scene outside viewable through a window is particularly suited to this, because it is relatively easy to register the two images.
Perhaps more importantly though, you should consider whether you actually want full detail in the extremes. In many cases, if you achieve that, it will appear quite un-natural. Sometimes having detail disappear in the shadows and highlights is actually a good thing.
In this case, it is a single negative, and the highlights have been extensively burned in, but are still more suggestions than representations:
View attachment 318752

Definitely not a fan of unnatural photos that reveals all details and ranges that cannot be seen even with the bare eyes, but all this is for learning purposes. I'm into film since recently and I'm just curious how can I achieve something I can do in a second with digital.

ND gel hung outside the window. Or reflectors (white, silver) inside the room as mentioned previously. Two bracketed exposures- you could do that with film too- scan and merge them in post.

I started this thread after developing a roll from Alcatraz I visited with my family last month. It was fairly dark inside and they had a windows with the view, and it was pretty much run and gun situation with lots of people and kids runing around all the time, so I barely have a fraction of a second to take a photo, not tripod, not to mention flashes or strobes. Yes, I know the set could be light perfectly so you can capture whatever you want, but I was refering here more to the everyday situations where you don't have much time or opportunities to setup anything. That's why I said in my first post no artificial lights

Use a printing process that can eat that sort of contrast for lunch?

Thirteen measured stop difference with my Pentax Digital Spot (0 to 13) -- if your meter reads 0, can there be areas less than 0? Exposed at 2. Normal development. Straight print (single transfer carbon print).

This is very interesting. This is kind of a scene I'm talking about.

Can it be less than 0 — no, if you ask spot meter, but in reality yes. I'm sitting in my dim room right now and I'm pointing the light meter on my black jacket that hangs on the wall and it says 0, which is far from pitch black. It's dark here just because I have semi-transparent shades and because it's cloudy today, but it's day and you can see everything. Then underneath the bed is (to my eyes) much darker than that jacket, but to the spot meter it's also 0. So, what if I'm taking a photo of my room and I want my jacket to reveal a texture (let's say zone 3), but I don't want the floor under my bed to be that bright? I guess some of you would solve this by dodging and burning, but I'm talking just about the exposing here, not printing. I'm not there yet

 

[GregY]

Hiroh, I've used D-76, and some Rodinal (not a big fan of grain) & Xtol. PMK & then Pyrocat have been my main film developers for 15+ years. I find that prints from staining developers are easier to make....with lots of detail and highlight delicacy....& i largely point my cameras at mountains. I also really like the edge effects of staining developers.

 

[Vaughn]

...
This is very interesting. This is kind of a scene I'm talking about.

Can it be less than 0 — no, if you ask spot meter, but in reality yes. I'm sitting in my dim room right now and I'm pointing the light meter on my black jacket that hangs on the wall and it says 0, which is far from pitch black. It...

That is why I posed the question, my meter metered 13 stops, but there were (by looking at the negative) areas that could have been darker than 0...so the SBR could be even greater.
One to two more stops of light for the cave negative would not have hurt (while still controlling the values outside the cave), but what helps me with this image is that it is visually expected to have areas in a cave to be pure black. More exposure on the film (reciprocity failure was setting in) would have given me more control over shadow detail, but it was unneeded for this particular image as printed.

 

[nmp]

For now, I only digitize my negatives, so if the information is in the negative, I know how to recover it in post.

If that's what you are doing, why not bracket, do normal development and then blend scanned images.

:Niranjan.

 

[hiroh]

If that's what you are doing, why not bracket, do normal development and then blend scanned images.

:Niranjan.

That’s not my goal. It’s just a temporarily while I’m learning analog. I’m too long in digital, and until I learn printing in darkroom, I’m digitizing my negatives that I develop myself.

 

[snusmumriken]

Use a printing process that can eat that sort of contrast for lunch?

Thirteen measured stop difference with my Pentax Digital Spot (0 to 13) -- if your meter reads 0, can there be areas less than 0? Exposed at 2. Normal development. Straight print (single transfer carbon print).

Wooaah! That's beautiful! Makes me long for the seaside again.

 

[Vaughn]

It is an unusual way to approach scenes of high SBR...which is why I learned the process. When I was silver gelatin printing, I was photographing under the redwoods only in overcast weather as a way to control the contrast. The light changes slowly and working along creeks and near natural openings, the overcast acts as a huge softbox and I work with images made from pools of light.

But when the sun came out, the light changed -- and while it is possible to control highlights with all sorts of tricks, they come at a cost of compressing highlights or some other compromise that no longer (to me) represents the light as I want. So I usually put the camera away and enjoyed the redwoods (same as when the overcast turns to rain). I turned to carbon printing as a way to work with that light instead.

5x7 carbon print

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What would you do if you have sometihng very dark in the scene that you want to put in the Zone 2, or 3 to be able to see the detail. Let's say it's EV 3. But then you have highlights waaay out of the zone system with EV 17, and you still want to see details in those highlights. This could be a scene of a dark room with the open window. Outside is too bright, and you want to capture details in the room and clouds in the sky.

I know film should be exposed for shadows, and recovering highlights is easier than shadows, but I'm talking here where the highlights will be blown out for sure if I exposed for shadows.

If I'm shooting digital, I'd bracket it and merge in post, but I'm curious how to achieve this on film. And, no artificial lights should be used.

I guess this is not possible, but I'm curious what would you do to achieve the best result for this scene.

really difficult. You may have to pull out all the stops:
1. still expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may.
2. develop N- as much as you can.
3. burn in the highlights extensively (film is very forgiving for overexposure, even over exposure of several stops still have detail; they re very dense but, extended exposure during printing will bring it out)
good

 

[nmp]

Isn't there some sort of development gimmick (apart from N+-) like use of two developers or two different agitation regimes etc to coax the film to incorporate the whole scene DR? Or perhaps bleaching or intensification that can compensate post-development.