Snow Exposure advice needed

[Paul Ozzello]

I like shooting outside landscapes on snowy overcast days (snowy scenes - not while it's actually snowing) with close to white-out conditions. My negatives always come out very flat, and the snow has no detail and is terribly grainy. I use Ilford delta 100 (exposed at 80) and processed in xtol 1:1 for 9 minutes at 20C- which gives me fantastic negatives in all other conditions.

Ideally i'de like to to capture the detail in the snow (texture) as well as features like footprints, tiretracks... With as little grain as possible.

Would I be better off underexposing and overdevelopping? And if so by how much? N-1, N-2 ? I use and incident light meter set at 80 for all my readings - which is probably worsening the situation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problem is not the developer.

1. When photographing white on white [mostly white] or black on black [mostly black] an incident meter works much better.
2. Otherwise it is counter intuitive: white on white open a stop; black on black close a stop.
3. It is hard with any film to get contrast on overcast days. Try over exposing; or with black & white use a contrast filter such as Yellow or Orange.

Experiment and see what works for you.

 

[MattKing]

Base any development decisions on the character of the light - snow scenes in flat light need more contrast, while snow scenes in contrasty light may need less.
In many cases, it is better to develop normally, and make contrast adjustments at the printing stage.
On sunny days there can be a fair bit of UV light - consider both UV and the filters Sirius suggests.
High key scenes will test the capacity of developers. If you are in the habit of using very dilute developers, be cautious about this.

 

[foc]

If you want the texture of the snow then you need sunshine or non flat lighting, preferable at a 45 degree angle to the snow. This will create texture and show contours in the snow.
As has been said, either use an incident light meter or a reflective meter (in-camera) and add at least 1 stop to the incident reading. If the contrast is too high (the lighting ratio between highlight and shadow) then I would suggest using a secondary light source to lighten the shaddows. Some thing like a reflector or fill flash.
Trying to compensate with developing is trying to correct after the fact.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I like shooting outside landscapes on snowy overcast days (snowy scenes - not while it's actually snowing) with close to white-out conditions. My negatives always come out very flat, and the snow has no detail and is terribly grainy. I use Ilford delta 100 (exposed at 80) and processed in xtol 1:1 for 9 minutes at 20C- which gives me fantastic negatives in all other conditions.

Ideally i'de like to to capture the detail in the snow (texture) as well as features like footprints, tiretracks... With as little grain as possible.

Would I be better off underexposing and overdevelopping? And if so by how much? N-1, N-2 ? I use and incident light meter set at 80 for all my readings - which is probably worsening the situation.

Incident metering is fine - especially as you're working in effectively flat light. If I'm reading your aims correctly, you might be looking at aiming for a +2 expansion. Before changing films and developers, I would suggest trying a significantly longer processing time (15 mins?) and a bracketed roll and see if that gets things heading towards a better direction. Alternatively what you might be looking for is a film that can be persuaded to bend the highlight bit of the curve upwards - possibly Tmax 100 in something like HC-110/ Ilfotech HC or T-Max developer. You'll need to zero in your EI and process times to hold both details and get adequate contrast. Delta 100 doesn't really do the same highlight curve bend - though it can be achieved on pretty much any film by making a highlight boost mask - plus all the other usual darkroom process tricks to kick up highlights.

 

[Craig75]

grainy and flat and lacking detail sounds like its overexposed by a chunk if its grainy too.

i'd be tempted to compare incident reading with reflected reading of snow in open sunlight + 2 or 3 stops and see if they match up first.

if they do then as @foc says maybe you need more dramatic lighting?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never found a filter that corrects flat lighting. Nor have I found a filter that take high contrast situations and leaves the dark areas alone while selectively muting the high lights.

 

[Vaughn]

A polarizer might do a little of that, Sirius, in the right situation, but not a whole lot of color in snow for most filters to work with.

A gray card (grey card?) might come in handy in establishing a baseline exposure -- but it sounds like a little experimentation (I hate testing, love to experiment) is in order to see what quality of negative will help one to produce the type of image one wants to make.

Here, the sun was out, but I had a full range of tonalities to play with. 4x5, no filter, 16x20 silver gelatin print. Nice texture in the snow that may not come out in this reproduction.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Any meter will work if you're familiar with it. I prefer a handheld spotmeter. Under open sun and blue sky, shadows will be blue, even the tiniest shadows. Therefore any minus-blue filter like yellow, orange, or red will progressively bring out the micro-texture and sparkle of fresh snow. But you have to be careful not to overexpose the film to the degree that the highest specular reflections don't stand out from general high values. I don't personally like polarizers. But white-out conditions are different, and you generally need to expand development enough to enhance contrast somewhat. But there are no fixed rules. The first black and white print I ever perfected was of a falling snow scene which I printed very soft on grrade 1 paper. It was a classic.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Yes - the zone system and expansion are what I had in mind - but I would like to keep it "simple". I only get 6 shots per roll - but they would all be under the same exposure/lighting conditions - so development would be roll-specific. 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?

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 :

I usually take an incident light reading but maybe I should meter the snow and place it in a different zone ? Say zone VIII ?

Incident metering is fine - especially as you're working in effectively flat light. If I'm reading your aims correctly, you might be looking at aiming for a +2 expansion. Before changing films and developers, I would suggest trying a significantly longer processing time (15 mins?) and a bracketed roll and see if that gets things heading towards a better direction. Alternatively what you might be looking for is a film that can be persuaded to bend the highlight bit of the curve upwards - possibly Tmax 100 in something like HC-110/ Ilfotech HC or T-Max developer. You'll need to zero in your EI and process times to hold both details and get adequate contrast. Delta 100 doesn't really do the same highlight curve bend - though it can be achieved on pretty much any film by making a highlight boost mask - plus all the other usual darkroom process tricks to kick up highlights.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes - the zone system and expansion are what I had in mind - but I would like to keep it "simple". I only get 6 shots per roll - but they would all be under the same exposure/lighting conditions - so development would be roll-specific. 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?

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 :

View attachment 260486

I usually take an incident light reading but maybe I should meter the snow and place it in a different zone ? Say zone VIII ?

Nice job printing that. The high lights can easily go gray and can be hard to keep white.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

You'll need to zero in your EI and process times to hold both details and get adequate contrast

How do I do that? Take and incident reading at box speed, bracket 2-3 stops up and down by 1/2 stop increments, choose the best negative and apply the stop difference as film speed? Should I do this with 3 rolls processed at N, N+1,N+2?

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Nice job printing that. The high lights can easily go gray and can be hard to keep white.

Thanks Sirius. It took a lot of effort to get detail in the footprints and shadows in the curves in the snow banks, and the snow is very grainy - the final print is far from satisfactory. I really need better negatives in the future.

 

[Craig75]

Yes - the zone system and expansion are what I had in mind - but I would like to keep it "simple". I only get 6 shots per roll - but they would all be under the same exposure/lighting conditions - so development would be roll-specific. 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?

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 :

View attachment 260486

I usually take an incident light reading but maybe I should meter the snow and place it in a different zone ? Say zone VIII ?

If its flat grey sky you will get flat negative and a flat print unless you start working it up in darkroom. You can take a flat scene and turn it into something more than that but its going to need some advanced darkroom skills.

You can get more contrast by developing longer but if you saying your snow is grainy now that will just make it even more grainy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A little bleach in the darkroom goes a long way to improve flat lighting on an overcast snowy day.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I printed a completely high-key 8x10 neg snow scene today. Had to nail it on the first try. But it was unsharp-masked and pyro developed to begin with, so getting superb highlight tonal separation was easy.
I'm having a problem getting used to the uber-concentrated Formulary Farmer's Reducer now that all my more predictable old Kodak brand Farmer's is gone. Will experiment with the new bleach tomorrow on a different print, and try to work out the proper dilution.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I usually take an incident light reading but maybe I should meter the snow and place it in a different zone ? Say zone VIII ?

Stick with the incident metering - it's what you're comfortable with, you're working in flat light, and it ignores subject reflectance (this is particularly useful when dealing with snow!). Incident metering is usually placing your highlights pretty close to zone VIII anyway.

How do I do that? Take and incident reading at box speed, bracket 2-3 stops up and down by 1/2 stop increments, choose the best negative and apply the stop difference as film speed? Should I do this with 3 rolls processed at N, N+1,N+2?

I'd do a roll at +2 process - and probably bracket in the direction of less exposure from your current working EI. Hopefully that'll outflank your needs & any refinements should be simpler from there.

Are you using a Noblex 150 or something like that?

 

[mshchem]

The problem is not the developer.

1. When photographing white on white [mostly white] or black on black [mostly black] an incident meter works much better.
2. Otherwise it is counter intuitive: white on white open a stop; black on black close a stop.
3. It is hard with any film to get contrast on overcast days. Try over exposing; or with black & white use a contrast filter such as Yellow or Orange.

Experiment and see what works for you.

+1. Also find an old Kodak Master Photoguide. Those old books have exposure info for everything.
Also this may call for a print made on something like Ilford warmtone or Fomatone then toning in classic Kodak Blue (Gold) toner. Sublime.
Definitely use a filter. Even green will darken the sky, would brighten evergreens. My default is orange, but I just shot a roll of FP4 with a medium green.
I use an incident meter for everything! If you want to use reflectance readings take a gray card.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Stick with the incident metering - it's what you're comfortable with, you're working in flat light, and it ignores subject reflectance (this is particularly useful when dealing with snow!). Incident metering is usually placing your highlights pretty close to zone VIII anyway.



I'd do a roll at +2 process - and probably bracket in the direction of less exposure from your current working EI. Hopefully that'll outflank your needs & any refinements should be simpler from there.

Are you using a Noblex 150 or something like that?

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.

Also this may call for a print made on something like Ilford warmtone or Fomatone then toning in classic Kodak Blue (Gold) toner. Sublime

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...

 

[mshchem]

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...

NO JUDGMENT HERE. I wish I had access to a drum scanner. Your subject will be wonderful in platinum, salt printing would be a nice option as well. I have a couple Canon inkjet printers for digital snaps. I don't have the skills to really do a good job on equipment like you plan to use. It's amazing.

 

[MattKing]

Ilford Delta 100 @100 ASA (not 80 like I usually do). Then develop at +2 : so, instead of 10 minutes, a full 40 minutes ?

Others with Delta 100 experience may correct me, but that seems like a long development time for a two zone expansion.

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.

If the best negative (from the bracketed exposures) is the one with two stops less exposure, your film speed going forward should be an EI of 400.
If the best negative (from the bracketed exposures) is the one with one stop less exposure, your film speed going forward should be an EI of 200.
If the best negative (from the bracketed exposures) is the one with one stop more exposure, your film speed going forward should be an EI of 50.
I rephrase that way because "underexposed" usually implies too little exposure, not less exposure.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Others with Delta 100 experience may correct me, but that seems like a long development time for a two zone expansion.

You're probably right. @Lachlan Young initially suggested 15 minutes - and then I interpreted the +1 and +2 as doubling of development times and got 40 mins - which sounds very wrong.

How are N+1 N+2 development times calculated?

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I photographed while skiing I did not have an incident light meter, so I would take off my glove and use the through the lens light meter to get a reading off my hand. I would then take that reading and open on f/stop for my camera settings.

 

[Vaughn]

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

"How are N+1 N+2 development times calculated?"

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes - the zone system and expansion are what I had in mind - but I would like to keep it "simple". I only get 6 shots per roll - but they would all be under the same exposure/lighting conditions - so development would be roll-specific. 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?

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 :

View attachment 260486

I usually take an incident light reading but maybe I should meter the snow and place it in a different zone ? Say zone VIII ?

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