• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Snow Exposure advice needed

fatso said:
Maybe my light meter is getting overwhelmed by the snow ?
Click to expand...

That's probably most likely - it's a bit like taking an image inside a softbox - and the meter is trying to get all that white to mid grey, rather than white.

If the light doesn't vary dramatically from where you were getting normal results, I'd just use those settings - light is often much more consistent than people realise!
 
How about a reflected light reading of the brightest snow (perhaps zone VIII/+3?) as a sanity check for your exposure? For that you'll have to pay attention to the differences in brightness in the snow. Difficult because we just register it as all white. The iPhone snap might help with that.
Most of these aren't flat scenes and expansion development is not indicated. The buildings are quite dark and the show quite bright, little in the middle, where we expect most contrast. Essentially the problem, beside wonky exposure, is that you need to maximize contrast in two different parts of the curve. Our vision sort of compensates in real time, a straight print would have to be pretty low contrast/long scale to even display it all, so little of the desired contrast in the snow and very dark buildings. So I wouldn't expect prints to look great without dodging and burning. Your iPhone probably does some kind of local contrast enhancement automatically to take care of that.
 
Last edited:
fatso said:
I get the impression xtol might not be the best developer for this film under these lighting conditions, what developer are you using ?
Click to expand...

Looking at the negatives again, it does look a little like they got way to much exposure.

I had problems with getting enough density with xtol for Pt/Pd prints so I tried overexposing(EI 50) but that just makes everything too dense.

I currently use PC-TEA (so Xtol like), but at a fairly strong 1+25 Dilution. I’ve had a much easier easier time getting a longer density range, without having to overexpose.
 
I have been lurking on the sideline and while I think the neg is a little over exposed, the lack of contrast is due to lighting.
The scene appears to be cloudy and so has very flat lighting (very little or no shadow).
 
Today's a pretty dull day in the Montréal region, so I went out in the backyard and shot a test roll. Here's my logic:

- In 120, I really like HP5+ in DK-50 1+1. The developer gives me sharp images with brilliant highlights, while the film maintains good shadow details.
- My normal regimen in to expose at EI 250, and develop for 5:45. I have a couple of images of this combo in my gallery.
- Today, I set my spot meter at EI 400 so that the shadows would receive less exposure.
- I am also going to develop for 7 mins, which is 20% more time than my usual 5:45.
- When I metered, I tried to place snow as high as I could (Zone VI or VII). That's one to two stops above the meter's reading when pointed at the snow. I also checked my exposure by measuring other items in the yard (fence, table, etc.)
- I bracketed exposures, and made two series: one without a filter, and one with an orange filter (3x factor).

That's about as much as I can do in-camera. In the darkroom, I should have latitude to dodge and burn specific areas to get the detail and the tones where I want them.

Another idea that popped into my mind as I wrote this, is: if possible, why not just use flash? Of course, it doesn't work for a wide expanse of landscape, but if you're shooting something at close range, adding some fill-in flash (especially if it's offset from your camera) could give you better texture detail.
 

+1
it's just a matter of getting your flash and ambient exposure correct.
With this set up you can also shoot colour with mixed lighting (daylight & artificial) or just a different colour temperature and the off set flash, if not too dominant and in the foreground, can give the impression (trick your eye) that the colours are correct.
 
Hi Michel,

I didn't realize you were also in Montreal. Thanks for doing this! I got the tmax 100 and tmax developer yesterday - I should be able to get out Saturday and shoot a few test rolls

Flash really isn't an option - my camera has a rotating drum and records a field of view of 146degrees.

Paul

 
foc said:
I have been lurking on the sideline and while I think the neg is a little over exposed, the lack of contrast is due to lighting.
The scene appears to be cloudy and so has very flat lighting (very little or no shadow).
Click to expand...

Yes it's definately overexposed and the scene is very flat. I was hoping "expansion" would help overcome this and stretch out the tonal range.
 
fatso said:
Yes it's definately overexposed and the scene is very flat. I was hoping "expansion" would help overcome this and stretch out the tonal range.
Click to expand...

For 'expansion' to work you need to slightly underexpose as well as boosting processing - maybe EI 125-160 at most to begin with.
 
I'm just upstairs in the 'burbs, but it's still the MTL area! So I processed the film, and while I haven't printed yet, I had a good look at it on the light table. I would say that the orange filter seems to have been the most effective tool.

Looking at the bracketed exposures, even pushing the snow higher up on the film curve doesn't seem to change much. However, the filter will deepen the small shadows that make up texture and help with the impression of volume.

 
Photrio, the Forum that Answers Itself, since 2003!

I'll see if I can try to rephotograph the negatives on a light table (don't have scanner).

Yep, quite a lot of snow to test, and the light is nicer than the previous days. It's brighter, less grey.

 

I think I'm losing my mind. I found this in my parts box today - yellow AND orange





Negatives on a light box would be really helpful

I ended up not going out in the storm - conditions tomorrow should be closer to what I usually shoot.
 
Last edited:
D'oh indeed. Here's a quick shot of the negatives. On the left, no filter; on the right, orange filter.

The difference I see is with the texture of the snow, lower-right of the image.

On the left one it's near-featureless; on the right one, you can see a bit better the little pellets of snow on the ground. My picnic table is blue, so it appears a bit darker with the orange filter. Otherwise, the exposure is the same between the two (i.e. I compensated for the orange filter by 1.5 stop relative to the first one).

All the usual caveats about reproduction apply, but I can confirm on the light table that there is better tone separation with the filter.
 

Attachments

  • _DSC8015.jpg
    339.9 KB · Views: 118
Last edited:
Also, that Red 25 would probably be interesting to try as well.

fatso said:
I think I'm losing my mind. I found this in my parts box today - yellow AND orange

Click to expand...
 
It must be set first depict a very difficult subject. I think so far you did everything right. Under exposing and over developing will not decrease decrease the grain. Using a different developer might but Xtol is pretty good for what you're trying to do. In conclusion, I think you may have reached the limit of what the materials chosen able to do for the similar you have picked. Let's see you example of your photographs to see what is really that bad as he said!
 
It must be set first depict a very difficult subject. I think so far you did everything right. Under exposing and over developing will not decrease decrease the grain. Using a different developer might but Xtol is pretty good for what you're trying to do. In conclusion, I think you may have reached the limit of what the materials chosen able to do for the similar you have picked. Let's see you example of your photographs to see what is really that bad as he said!
 
As a cross-examination, here's the first negative (no filter) with base exposure (below) and 1 stop more exposure (above). Same amount of detail.
 

Interesting comparisons, thanks for posting those. So you think the difference is entirely due to the yellow filter and not a variation of the exposure ? The entire scene looks darker and I wonder if the filter factor might not be exact for that particular film and developer. When I was trying to figure out the filter factor yesterday, I noticed that both my yellow #8 and orange #21 indicate a factor of 2x (1-stop), but that the TMAX100 datasheet recommends only a factor of 1.5 (2/3 stop) - the Kodak datasheet also mentions that the filter factor value varies depending on the film. If you reduced by a full 1.5 stops could you have underexposed it by ~1/2 stop making the negative a little thinner and the image just a bit darker ? Or do you see more tonal separation and detail on the light table with a loupe? Regardless, your film and developer combination seems to produce much better tonal separation in the highlights than with my Xtol/Delta100.

I went out yesterday and shot 4 test rolls; 3 using TMAX100: 1 at box speed + normal processing, another at box speed but with the yellow filter, and one underexposed at 160 that I will develop with expansion, all 3 using tmax developer 1:4. I also included a roll of my Delta 100 processed at 80 in xtol for comparison. I'll try to develop them over the next day or two.
 
Last edited:


So if I understand the chart correctly, if i want a 40% boost in contrast, I need to use at least a development temp of 72F and multiply the base time at 1.0 at 75F by 1.7 ? So roughly 10½ minutes at 72F ?
 

Well I think as @Lachlan Young and a few others pointed out, I should be able to see a significant amount of improvement in the highlights by reducing exposure and using a film and developer combination that produces a steeper curve in the shoulder. I don't know what effect it will have on grain but I get the impression that grain becomes exaggerated in areas of very low contrast so this should improve as well.
 
You want to be nowhere near the shoulder.

Grain is created by increased exposure and increased development.

If youre seeing very low contrast and grain it means you are shooting on the shoulder where contrast drops off rapidly and grain increaes.

Its heavy overexposure ending up on shoulder thats causing the issues.

I wouldnt even be bothering messing around with films and developers when you can do all yr contrast adjustments in yr imaging software as long as yr image highlights are sitting on the straight portion of the film not the shoulder.

Just run a quick test overexposing a shot 0 +2 +4 +6 +8 and you should observe the same problem as overexposure increaes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register