Shadows, shadows and shadows!

[Arvee]

In light of the recent thread "Understanding Exposure...," I am curious about the following:

"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

What is the universal definition of shadows?

I think I have read as many definitions of 'shadows' as I have exposure methods.

I see Claire Senft/Phil Davis define it as the body's shadow (I like and use this one), others define it as the area retaining just the subtlest hint of texture, others yet define it at the area retaining important subtle details in the shadows, and others want clear details in the shadows.

I know someone will be coming back with 'whatever you want it to be, etc.'

Is there a universally accepted quantifiable definition, or do the smart alecs rule?

Thanks!

-Fred

 

[Monophoto]

I look at the scene and decide which of the shadow areas I want to contain detail in the final print. I measure the light reflecting from those areas, and then underexpose about two stops from that reading.

When working in large format, I will also meter the brightest areas that I want to retain detail to decide whether the negative will required compensating development. Obviously can't do that with roll film. I have a home-made Zone dial on my spot meter that allows me to place the shadows on III, and then see where those bright highlights fall. If they are IV or above, then I note the film for compensation.

 

[jordanstarr]

If your camera had a voice I'm sure it would say "That damn area I can't get in a zone V"....or something like that. I'm not entirely sure it matters what your definition of "shadow" is? Will this help you in your work or a philosophical inquiry?

 

[Arvee]

To restate the question, perhaps I am looking for a shadow definition that might relate to the consistency of the gray card. I don't want to haul around a gray card.

I find I don't 'read' shadows well. I use my own shadow often and find it to be more consistent than trying to 'place' other shadows. I always have my own shadow with me and I do like the results.

I am wondering what others use as shadow definitions and perhaps out of this discussion I might become a better shadow 'reader.'

Is the question too esoteric for this forum?

-Fred

 

[JBrunner]

The definition of a shadow is completely subjective. Where you place the exposure (V) will determine where the "shadows" fall (I,II,III).

 

[Vaughn]

My definition -- the darkest area of the scene I want detail in -- that is the area that I let fall into Zone III, knowing that usually I will have deeper shadows that fall into lower zones to provide more contrast and nice raised areas in my carbon prints.

Just be consistant and use the feedback of your own negatives and prints to guide you. Personally, I would not use my own shadow just because it is usually quite light relative to the deeper shadows I usually want to get detail in (it is lighter due to the scattered light from the sky filling it in a bit). It is probably light enough to use as middle gray.

I have never hauled a gray card around with me, but you can use the palm of your hand -- just read it and then read a gray card in the same light...take note of the difference and leave the gray card for studio use.

Vaughn

 

[eddym]

A shadow is nothing. What counts is things in the shadows. A black cat in a shadow is not going to look the same as a white cat in a shadow. So when you meter a shadow area, just as when you measure a highlight or a Zone V area, you need to be aware of what it is in that area, and what it should look like in a print.

 

[Chuck_P]

You have asked a very subjective question (as stated earlier), noone can define it for you as it relates to your own pictures.........in terms of the film, it could be an area out of a direct source of light and therefore is reflecting less light than some other area of the scene (sorry for stating the obvious). Some areas reflect much less light and thus are a darker shadow area. The great thing about having total control over your materials and processes is that you have control over how much exposure a particular shadow area will receive.

 

[rbergeman]

it's a reasonable question, fred, and as you suspect it is quite subjective .... i also had to chuckle at your practical definition of 'your own shadow'-- easy to tell you're from the land of the sun, unlike me here in oregon and vaughn in n.calif., where we often don't cast any shadows at all in the landscape ..... anyway, i remember wrestling with this very issue back when i was figuring out the zone system some 20 years back, and the answer i came to after a while was rather simple -- it is the darkest area in the scene where i wanted to be sure to retain detail in the print ..... when shooting 4x5 for enlargements, i would place that shadow on Z3 (two stops under the z5 reading) .... now that i exclusively contact print with larger formats, i find that i must place that shadow on Z4 (whether contacting in silver or pt/pd) -- i don't know why this is the case, frankly, but have learned from experience that that's what works for me .... can anyone enlighten me why i could pull shadow detail from Z3 when enlarging 4x5, but need a Z4 for that same shadow when contact printing fromm 8x10?

rich

 

[mikebarger]

I guess the shadows are secondary in the process for me. I figure out where I want to place the most important part of the scene. After placing that, I check the highest value and lowest value I want detail and see if it is going to work.

Sometimes I move the important part up or down a zone, sometimes I mark a negative for longer/shorter development, and sometimes just walk away.

Mike

 

[Vaughn]

Mike -- the trouble with figuring out the most important part of the scene, is that for me, all areas are equally important! Even the shadow areas that will have no detail are important.

Vaughn

PS...Rich...might be because enlarging through a lens adds a little diffusion of the light that fills in the shadows a bit? And yes, there are no true shadows in the redwoods on an overcast day!

 

[Arvee]

Thanks, all, for the responses. I have a way of doing things and it sorta works for me, but I was curious about the methods others use and perhaps I can improve on my own technique.

My biggest problem here in UT is dealing with the 9+ SBR that is typical and my shadows are typically 4.5 to 5 stops below average reading. That calls for significantly reduced development and from that I get really dull, flat negs that don't look at all like the original scene.

I used to live in the NW (Seattle, Portland) and, of course, never had this problem. I now find myself waiting for less harsh light and shooting less often. Also, shooting at 5k feet elevation and higher just exacerbates the problem.

Thanks for your input,

-Fred

 

[markbarendt]

Fred,

Have you played with any filters? Polarizer? Orange? Red?

 

[waileong]

As a photographer, you have to decide which shadows are important to you and work accordingly. Same as when you decide which part of the scene belongs in the composition and which does not. No film can possibly record every single shadow and highlight detail in every possible scene, there are some where the contrast simply exceeds any film or (indeed) paper's capability.

If you can't decide what to keep and what to sacrifice, you can't be a photographer.

 

[rbergeman]

fred--
regarding your comment about shooting at 5K feet and higher exacerbating the contrast problem .... i've found this to be true also -- i assume that it is due to higher levels of uv light at higher elevations, and that meters don't pick up the uv while film does, thus leading to overexposure (unless my brain kicks in and i think to correct for it) ...... can anyone confirm my assumption about metering at elevations?

rich

 

[Ian David]

I too am from a land (Australia) where my shadow is my constant companion! The problem with metering from your own shadow is that it does not necessarily bear any relationship to the depth of the shadow areas in your shot. For example, you could be standing in the sun at the mouth of a dark cave, and wishing to take a shot which includes details inside the cave. Metering from your own shadow is likely to result in a serious exposure error. Like other posters above, I recommend simply using a spot meter to ensure you give sufficient exposure to the deepest shadows (in your shot) in which you wish to retain detail.

 

[Arvee]

rich,

I have an array of meters both silicon and selenium. The silicon blue meters don't see the UV while the selenium meter does. The selenium meter tells me it is sunny 16 2/3 to sunny 22 and gives me decent exposures. The silicon meters, which are IR sensitive, don't see the UV and I consistently overexpose unless I increase the ISO by 2/3 to 1 stop, depending on the meter. This drove me around the bend until I did some research and discovered the roles of the spectral sensitivities for each metering technology. Not such a big problem at sea level, though, where atmospheric moisture/humidity tones things down a bit. Typically, we are 7-15% on a warm summer day.

Filters tend to create stronger effects at higher elevations. I generally stick with the yellow and/or polarizer for most work. Red filtering is over the top unrealistic.

I have decided to limit my shooting to days that are less contrasty and the shadows don't go black on me. If I shoot on the typical contrasty day and meter for the shadows, I have SBRs nearing 10 and that calls for N-3 development which produces a neg so flat/muddy that I don't want to waste my time. I think this is pushing the limits of film capabilities so I will stick with the conservative approach, which is more often successful.

Or move to the coast....

-Fred

 

[markbarendt]

Or move to the coast....

-Fred

Cheap condo in Florida?