Snow Exposure advice needed

[Vaughn]

My understanding of expansion is that for scenes with reduced contrast, increasing development will stretch the lightest and darkest tones to the ends of the contrast curve and increase tonal separation. Is that correct?

Almost correct...it will be exposure that will hold the shadows at their end of the contrast curve and development that will move the highlights towards their end of the curve.

Scanning has a whole different set of requirements compared to wet printing processes. I'll have to leave that to others. Grainy snow...Snow is grainy. In overcast weather, snow is not necessarily white. I think your example does an excellent job of giving us the feel of the light and the cold of the place....looks like one of the abandoned research stations of the Antarctic...definitely not a Calgary ski resort in the sunshine...

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Many, many times, also. An always-with-me Zone VI card, YHMD...

What does YHMD stand for?

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Usually in a percentage change from N...10 to 15% more per step perhaps. It has been awhile since I have silver printed regularly. My "N" varies with which alt process I will be using to print with.

OK that makes more sense. I just dug up an old copy of the practical zone system I forgot I had - it says T-grain films are extremely sensitive to changes in development times and N+1 times should be calculated by multiplying by 1.1 - instead of 1.4 for traditional emulsions.

Where was that taken? Are those fishing homes by a lake?

Those were taken in the Arctic - they are Inuit fishing shacks near the Hudson Strait.

Almost correct...it will be exposure that will hold the shadows at their end of the contrast curve and development that will move the highlights towards their end of the curve.

Got it. Expose for the shadows - develop for the highlights. So to find my own "personal exposure index", I bracket and choose the best shadow density, then determine the amount of expansion by looking at the highlights. Can't wait to try this.

looks like one of the abandoned research stations of the Antarctic...definitely not a Calgary ski resort in the sunshine

Hah close. It's an Inuit village in Nunavik Northern Quebec

 

[Vaughn]

What does YHMD stand for?

Sorry -- Your Hand May Differ

 

[Vaughn]

Got it. Expose for the shadows - develop for the highlights. So to find my own "personal exposure index", I bracket and choose the best shadow density, then determine the amount of expansion by looking at the highlights. Can't wait to try this.

With feedback from your scanning results and playing with the curves in PhotoShop and seeing the differences in your print. It's a brave new world out there!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Great eye - yes that was taken with a Noblex 150UX

So just to make sure I understand :

I shoot my test roll at box speed : Ilford Delta 100 @100 ASA (not 80 like I usually do). Then develop at +2 : so, instead of 10 minutes, a full 40 minutes ? And from there I choose the best negative. If that happens to be underexposed 2 stops my new film speed becomes 400 - developed at N+2. Should I use Delta or TMAX/TMax like you suggested?

As soon as we get some snow I'll shoot a few test rolls and report back.



I won't print the actual negatives in the darkroom. The negatives are drum scanned and printed on an Epson Inkjet converted to Piezography - so all my darkroom techniques are done in photoshop - sorry if I made anyone cringe. Eventually I plan on printing them on acetate and make platinum contact prints but I'm not there yet...

'+2' would indicate enough of a push (in my book) to shove the neg up by two paper grades or so - hence a neg that might have needed Grade 4 to look right, would if developed +2 go on to Grade 2. Your 'normal', going by Kodak's data on Xtol is about a contrast index of around 0.55-0.58, getting a 2 grade boost would need something above 0.8-0.85 contrast index - and for Xtol 1+1, Kodak suggest that CI with Delta 100 is around 15 mins. What your effective EI ended up as at would need to be tested, but would likely be about box speed or a bit higher, depending on how much you wanted to crush shadows.

Given that you are scanning, I would suggest however that you may be better off seeing if a bit of luminosity masking of curve layers (ie one curve for highlights, another for shadows) doesn't get you most of the way along. Pretty easy to do - and a good solution in my book for dealing with grey snow. Might mean you don't need to alter your process too much - and if you every really get the urge to print them in the darkroom on silver gelatin, there's plenty of methods to get those highlights kicked up.

The 6/150 Noblex's lens is ludicrously sharp (at least the 150F I put a few rolls through was) - and it it'll give you back every bit of performance a high end scan can deliver - I made a few scans & prints about 1m+ wide (from negs mostly handheld at f8!) & its performance really doesn't drop at all. I know someone locally here who's recently acquired a UX + the meter + slow exposure module, but the one I'd rather have is the basic 6/150E with the fixed focus.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

'+2' would indicate enough of a push (in my book) to shove the neg up by two paper grades or so - hence a neg that might have needed Grade 4 to look right, would if developed +2 go on to Grade 2. Your 'normal', going by Kodak's data on Xtol is about a contrast index of around 0.55-0.58, getting a 2 grade boost would need something above 0.8-0.85 contrast index - and for Xtol 1+1, Kodak suggest that CI with Delta 100 is around 15 mins. What your effective EI ended up as at would need to be tested, but would likely be about box speed or a bit higher, depending on how much you wanted to crush shadows.

Given that you are scanning, I would suggest however that you may be better off seeing if a bit of luminosity masking of curve layers (ie one curve for highlights, another for shadows) doesn't get you most of the way along. Pretty easy to do - and a good solution in my book for dealing with grey snow. Might mean you don't need to alter your process too much - and if you every really get the urge to print them in the darkroom on silver gelatin, there's plenty of methods to get those highlights kicked up.

The 6/150 Noblex's lens is ludicrously sharp (at least the 150F I put a few rolls through was) - and it it'll give you back every bit of performance a high end scan can deliver - I made a few scans & prints about 1m+ wide (from negs mostly handheld at f8!) & its performance really doesn't drop at all. I know someone locally here who's recently acquired a UX + the meter + slow exposure module, but the one I'd rather have is the basic 6/150E with the fixed focus.

I worked extensively with Cone Editions in Vermont and we couldn't get any more separation from the negatives of the snow scenes no matter what curve was thrown at them; sadly the information just wasn't there. I had taken digital proofs with my iPhone before shooting them on film - and the iPhone was able to record the subtle changes in contrast - so they do "exist" - so there must be a way of recording them on film. What do you think about using one of those very high contrast document films, or Rollei Retro 80S ? How would the extended red sensitivity effect a whiteout winter scene ? I need to brush up on my knowledge of film density and the zone system.. Do you have a link to that Xtol information?

That Noblex is outstanding. It's the sharpest film camera I've ever used. I read that article about the older Tessar possibly being sharper but that's not the case; it's the exact same lens as in the later UX - only the name was changed for legal reasons. The guy probably had a bad sample or there was something wrong with it. My backup 150UX was soft until I discovered it was focusing past infinity. The UX also gives you the shift option which can really help with composition since you usually have to hold the camera perfectly horizontal - a 5mm shift can really help offset a centered composition. My scans from Cone are 35000 pixels wide and I've printed them 2.5 meters wide - even up close they're still INSANELY sharp - that camera is BONKERS!

 

[bernard_L]

As I understand, you need to expand the highlights, i.e. a film+dev with an upswept curve. This guy:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threa...-copy-film-what-you-cannot-do-with-it.256412/
seems to have good results using the (discontinued, LF only) Kodak 4125 copy film, specifically engineered to have an upswept curve. Maybe Kodak 320TXP

Maybe placing zone II around the left marker, and zone VII around the right-hand marker would provide expansion of snow tones without excessive density range on the negative.

 

[Craig75]

High grain, unable to gain contrast digitally, and lack of detail sounds like snow is on shoulder to me and the only way its going to get there is metering error, shutter running very slow, or gross overdevelopment.

If its been exposed and developed properly (or even to lower contrast) all this could be saved easily digitally.

Personally id check incident reading vs reflected +2 stops off snow, check meter against iphone lightmeter app, and bracket an exposure to test shutter as something doesnt sound right.

Cool project though - looks a good one

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

As I understand, you need to expand the highlights, i.e. a film+dev with an upswept curve.

I was thinking that as well. Xtol is an excellent developer for midtones, but it won't give much contrast in the highlights. Especially on an overcast day, the scene contrast is already pretty flat.

I would be tempted to use a developer like Rodinal, HC-110, DK-50, D-61a, or others from the class of MQ developers that Haist call "High-energy"

This winter I'll be trying out HP5+ in DK-50. It gives brilliant highlights without sacrificing too much shadow detail.

 

[warden]

I really only want to do this for these specific shooting conditions which always give me the same unsatisfactory results : snowy landscapes with cloudy gray skies - like this :

Great shot, which reminds me of Pentti Sammallahti.

Grey skies make for grey snow, so if your phone is capturing information that your film is not then perhaps you're overexposing a bit? I suppose it could be a filtration issue but I'd suspect exposure/development first.

Another consideration would be 1+1 Xtol vs stock Xtol. For an overcast snow scene I'd be tempted to use stock, and for sunny snow scenes 1+1.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I worked extensively with Cone Editions in Vermont and we couldn't get any more separation from the negatives of the snow scenes no matter what curve was thrown at them; sadly the information just wasn't there. I had taken digital proofs with my iPhone before shooting them on film - and the iPhone was able to record the subtle changes in contrast - so they do "exist" - so there must be a way of recording them on film. What do you think about using one of those very high contrast document films, or Rollei Retro 80S ? How would the extended red sensitivity effect a whiteout winter scene ? I need to brush up on my knowledge of film density and the zone system.. Do you have a link to that Xtol information?

Xtol 1+1 and Delta 100 seem to cause quite serious highlight roll-off if you start to push your exposure up the scale - I've attached screenshots of the comparator curves available here. There are caveats - I recall finding some of the Fotoimport results have been developed for slightly wayward times etc, but they do give a useful snapshot. The other point is that as you extend development times you'll steepen the midrange and enhance the roll-off, exaggerating the results into the highlights that are already causing the muddying of details in the higher scale which you are currently dealing with. It also explains why I was a bit puzzled by the Xtol results you were getting compared to what I know Delta 100 does with D-76 and Rodinal. I would however say that my suggestion of TMax developer stands for what you are wanting to do - but that T-Max 100 and T-Max developer might together act to kick the tonal separation up a notch - again the Fotoimport results may seem a bit confusing, but if you adjust the dev time for TMax 100 so the midtones match (9-10 mins, going by Kodak's data, I reckon - see pg.8 and pg. 9), you'll get significantly stronger - even exaggerated beyond linear - highlight separation than Delta 100 and TMax developer give. It's for situations like this that TMax 100 was designed - it just requires a bit of common sense in its usage, rather than the often very casual/ outright sloppy approach people had to the exposure & processing of 100 speed films in the (now quite distant) past - TMax is older than I am!

I'd avoid the Rollei film - it's an Agfa aerial recon film that is a fair bit slower than box speed at sea level - and it doesn't seem to hold linearity through the highlights particularly.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

This is great advice, thank you. Now that we finally have snow In Montreal I'm going to shoot a few test rolls and report back!

Xtol 1+1 and Delta 100 seem to cause quite serious highlight roll-off if you start to push your exposure up the scale - I've attached screenshots of the comparator curves available here. There are caveats - I recall finding some of the Fotoimport results have been developed for slightly wayward times etc, but they do give a useful snapshot. The other point is that as you extend development times you'll steepen the midrange and enhance the roll-off, exaggerating the results into the highlights that are already causing the muddying of details in the higher scale which you are currently dealing with. It also explains why I was a bit puzzled by the Xtol results you were getting compared to what I know Delta 100 does with D-76 and Rodinal. I would however say that my suggestion of TMax developer stands for what you are wanting to do - but that T-Max 100 and T-Max developer might together act to kick the tonal separation up a notch - again the Fotoimport results may seem a bit confusing, but if you adjust the dev time for TMax 100 so the midtones match (9-10 mins, going by Kodak's data, I reckon - see pg.8 and pg. 9), you'll get significantly stronger - even exaggerated beyond linear - highlight separation than Delta 100 and TMax developer give. It's for situations like this that TMax 100 was designed - it just requires a bit of common sense in its usage, rather than the often very casual/ outright sloppy approach people had to the exposure & processing of 100 speed films in the (now quite distant) past - TMax is older than I am!

I'd avoid the Rollei film - it's an Agfa aerial recon film that is a fair bit slower than box speed at sea level - and it doesn't seem to hold linearity through the highlights particularly.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Great shot, which reminds me of Pentti Sammallahti.

Grey skies make for grey snow, so if your phone is capturing information that your film is not then perhaps you're overexposing a bit? I suppose it could be a filtration issue but I'd suspect exposure/development first.

Thank you that is quite a compliment. I love his work - especially his snowy landscapes with stray dogs.

I'm definately over exposing. I'm already exposing at 80 instead of 100 - which works really well for everything else. I'm going to take everyone's advice and now that we finally have snow will shoot a few test rolls and report back.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Now that we finally have snow In Montreal I'm going to shoot a few test rolls and report back!

We were playing outside in the snow today, and this was a pretty overcast day, so it gave me ample time to study the scene. One thing I noticed is that snow, especially on an overcast day, has very little texture, so that no matter what you do, you're always close to a featureless expanse of even tone.

Here are the things I thought about to help exposing the scene:

- Look at snow areas that have some relief or features: dunes, footsteps, texture, or at least that are on an angled slope, so that you have differentiated areas, impressions of volume.
- Use the largest format you can: the less you enlarge, the more you can show subtle tonal shifts.
- Use filters. Even the smallest shadows are blue-ish, so a yellow or orange filter will help you out delineating relief.
- Given the film/developer advice above, bracket exposures and try expanded development

Also, this might be outside the scope of practicality, but I have the impression that platinum, or pt/pd would be a great process to employ in this situation.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If the snow is all sparkly, I'd metre it directly, open a stop, them give, in zone system parlance, N+1 development. For me that's about 15% increase in my normal time. I might even stick on a light yellow filter to further separate the crystals. Of course I would also check where other elements in the scene fall in relation to given exposure... especially if there are large share areas with detail. Nice thing about snow is that it can reflect a lot of light into the shadows.

 

[Vaughn]

... (discontinued, LF only) Kodak 4125 copy film, specifically engineered to have an upswept curve...

I had missed this post -- Copy Film 4125 is a unique product...I treasure my remaining 8x10 sheets. I have used it to greatly expand the density range when photographing scenes with little range...but usually of darker values instead of snow scenes. It just does it so nice and smoothly, it seems. Exposure has more affect on contrast than development.

Wonderful film...RIP.
8x10 carbon print. Many Pools Canyon, Zion NP, 2018. This scene was not necessarily flat, my meter read 9 to 12, but I prefer much more contrast to match the process I use.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I had missed this post -- Copy Film 4125 is a unique product...I treasure my remaining 8x10 sheets. I have used it to greatly expand the density range when photographing scenes with little range...but usually of darker values instead of snow scenes. It just does it so nice and smoothly, it seems. Exposure has more affect on contrast than development.

Wonderful film...RIP.
8x10 carbon print. Many Pools Canyon, Zion NP, 2018. This scene was not necessarily flat, my meter read 9 to 12, but I prefer much more contrast to match the process I use.

I have several boxes of this stuff. Sadly it's all heavily fogged. Expiry date of 1990! I might try it with some benzotriazol mixed in...

 

[Vaughn]

Mine is fogged, too -- but I'd call it more of a medium fog, but even, and I just print through it. But I use a non-staining developer because the pyro staining of the base fog really does not help matters. The contrast that can be achieved with the Kodak Copy Film does not really need the boost of the pyro developers' stain.

If the fog is too great, a light bleach and fix can always help...especially if one's shadows are strong enough.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

- Use filters. Even the smallest shadows are blue-ish, so a yellow or orange filter will help you out delineating relief.
- Given the film/developer advice above, bracket exposures and try expanded development

Also, this might be outside the scope of practicality, but I have the impression that platinum, or pt/pd would be a great process to employ in this situation.

I hadn't thought about a yellow filter - kind of like skiing on a cloudy day with yellow goggles. Great idea.

Right now I'm printing with an Inkjet and piezography inks - the inks are beautiful and have a similar tonal range to platinum. But I do eventually plan on printing digital negatives and making real platinum prints. But I'm not there yet

 

[Paul Ozzello]

None of my local shops have T-max 100 in stock so I had to order some online. I did notice they have the new fuji neopan acros II. Would that be a good film to try? And if so with what developer?

Xtol 1+1 and Delta 100 seem to cause quite serious highlight roll-off if you start to push your exposure up the scale - I've attached screenshots of the comparator curves available here. There are caveats - I recall finding some of the Fotoimport results have been developed for slightly wayward times etc, but they do give a useful snapshot. The other point is that as you extend development times you'll steepen the midrange and enhance the roll-off, exaggerating the results into the highlights that are already causing the muddying of details in the higher scale which you are currently dealing with. It also explains why I was a bit puzzled by the Xtol results you were getting compared to what I know Delta 100 does with D-76 and Rodinal. I would however say that my suggestion of TMax developer stands for what you are wanting to do - but that T-Max 100 and T-Max developer might together act to kick the tonal separation up a notch - again the Fotoimport results may seem a bit confusing, but if you adjust the dev time for TMax 100 so the midtones match (9-10 mins, going by Kodak's data, I reckon - see pg.8 and pg. 9), you'll get significantly stronger - even exaggerated beyond linear - highlight separation than Delta 100 and TMax developer give. It's for situations like this that TMax 100 was designed - it just requires a bit of common sense in its usage, rather than the often very casual/ outright sloppy approach people had to the exposure & processing of 100 speed films in the (now quite distant) past - TMax is older than I am!

I'd avoid the Rollei film - it's an Agfa aerial recon film that is a fair bit slower than box speed at sea level - and it doesn't seem to hold linearity through the highlights particularly.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

In the meantime I was able to do a little hocus pocus in photoshop using a negative of an ice field I kept for texture. I blended some of the ice into the foreground and was able to drastically improve the image.

Paul

 

[Sirius Glass]

Use orange or yellow filters, just do not eat yellow snow.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Use orange or yellow filters, just do not eat yellow snow.

 

[Lachlan Young]

None of my local shops have T-max 100 in stock so I had to order some online. I did notice they have the new fuji neopan acros II. Would that be a good film to try? And if so with what developer?

Fuji seem to have published some data for Acros II - it looks like it does upsweep a bit in the highlights, even in D-76 (Microfine is more or less Perceptol/ Microdol-X, Super Prodol is more or less Microphen from what I recall). Might avoid Xtol as it seems to be intended to dampen highlight density to make negs 'easier' to print.

Worth noting that I don't think Sammallahti uses anything particularly exotic (I did find a reference somewhere to him using XP2 Super) - but his overall printing style tends to differ from what you are after - unless I am much mistaken?