under developed vs. under exposed

[dfoo]

Related to this http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88473 and to http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1302828&postcount=24

I find it difficult to tell when evaluating my negatives the difference between under exposure and under development. Both seem to me to have very similar characteristics. What I've read says that under developed negatives lack contrast. However, how can you really tell that? By printing the negative on grade 2 paper? There is still a judgement call there though isn't there? ie: is the contrast of the print low or high.

 

[Steve M.]

Right, they look similar. The sure thing is to work w/ a camera that you know 100% is exposing correctly, and know that your metering is right. Then, if you get flat, wishy washy negs it's your development.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Look for shadow detail in the negs, i.e. detail in the darkest area of the subject/lightest area of the neg. If you can't see clear detail in the areas where you were expecting it, the neg is underexposed.

If the detail is there, but thin and weak, it's underdeveloped.

Sorry to disagree with Steve M. but there is no such thing as a camera that exposes correctly. Only a photographer can do that, with knowledge of the subject, metering technique and camera. That's why there are modules on exposure on my site, and why there are separate modules for slide/digi (exposure keyed to highlights) and neg (exposure keyed to shadows).

Subject brightness range is also very important: short-range subjects have more latitude (and can be exposed at a higher EI) than ones with a long brightness range.

It's al very confusing at first but as soon as you get used to the idea that there is no 'right' EI, and that you need to meter according to the subject matter and medium (favour the shadows for neg, the highlights for tranny/digi), it falls into place quite quickly.

By 'favour' I mean metering off the darker areas or lighter areas -- not necessarily spot metering, but pointing the camera/meter in the general direction of those areas of the subject.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

I have detailed notes of the scene I was testing (the back of my house). The SBR was from EV 17 (the sky) to EV 12 (the darkest shadow). The shadows show detail in the frame I shot for ISO 400 (F11 @ 1/250), however, as I said in the referenced thread when I exposed the print for the black point of the paper though the rebate the detail didn't print. I did get some printable detail in the F11 1/125 (ISO 200) shot though. The ISO 100 shot was clearly overexposed, blowing highlights in the print.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, wet printing on grade 2 or 3 is the best guide. If you like the look of the print on one of these grades (or 2-1/2) then development is about right. If you need 4 or 5 it's underdeveloped and if you need 0 or 1 it's overdeveloped.

After that, shadow detail is a matter of how you metered and what you were hoping for.

Of course they're not ISOs, they're EIs. This may sound pedantic but it's a worth-while distinction: ISO refers to standard levels of shadow detail and contrast. EI (Exposure Index) is 'Whatever works'.

A couple of stops overexposure on a 5 EV range should not blow highlights. Cut the print exposure or use a softer grade of paper.

Cheers,

R.

 

[fixbones]

dfoo: good question...... i am wondering myself

Roger: Thanks for the informative answer..... again =D

 

[dfoo]

Thanks for the answers Roger. I'm going to do another test this afternoon and add 10% to the development time. I've read that TMAX film with XTOL should expose well at box speed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm going to do another test this afternoon and add 10% to the development time. I've read that TMAX film with XTOL should expose well at box speed.

Depending on how you're metering. On a bright sunny day, with deep shadows, 'favour' the shadows, as I say (don't go up close and try spot metering, just make sure that the camera is pointed mostly towards the darker areas when you meter).

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

Roger, I was using a spot meter from the exact spot I was taking the pictures. That is I spot metered a whole variety of places and recorded the various EV's. I then exposed at my cameras recommendation for the EI 400 shot. This happened to be the average of the spot meters reading also.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I was using a spot meter from the exact spot I was taking the pictures. That is I spot metered a whole variety of places and recorded the various EV's. I then exposed at my cameras recommendation for the EI 400 shot. This happened to be the average of the spot meters reading also.

Ah! That's important! Read the darkest area in which you want texture and then EITHER use the shadow/IRE 1 scale on the meter OR give 2.5 to 3 stops LESS exposure than the meter indicates if you use the mid-tone index.

All other readings are irrelevant for getting adequate shadow detail.

The difference between the shadow detail and the brightest highlight in which you want texture and detail is useful only if you are going to adjust exposure time to allow for subject brightness range.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

My meter is a Sekonic 558, which spot meters for Zone V. The shadow reading was EV 12.5 13. The reading I used was EV 15 (which was the the scene average and also the reading my cameras built in meter agreed with), meaning that the shadows should fall at Zone 2.5-3. Doesn't that mean they should show good printable detail?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Unfortunately spot metering Zone V is a complete waste of time, which is why the earliest spot meters didn't have mid-tone indices: just shadow (for neg) and highlight (for reversal). Zonespeak about shadows 'falling' somewhere misses the point of ISO speeds for negative films, which are tied to the minimum exposure needed to get texture and detail.

Yes, the shadows should give good, printable detail when metered at about Zone 2.5. But obviously, if the subject brightness range is 7 stops, and you meter a mid tone (Zone V) the shadows will 'fall' higher up the scale than if the SBR is 5 stops. This is why, for negatives, it always makes more sense to meter the darkest area in which you want texture and detail.

Matters are further confused by the fact that different versions of the Zone System have different numbers of zones. Partly this is a result of better materials but it is also a consequence of ever more obsessive Zonies.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

Umm... I don't think you understood what I meant 🙂 I didn't mean I was trying to spot meter zone V, I mean my spot meter gives a zone V reading. That means, if I spot meter the shadows then to get a good exposure I'd close down 2 stops (since the reading should be in Zone 2, but the meter gives a zone 5 reading). Another way of accomplishing the same thing is to set the meter to read EI 1600 when exposing the film at EI 400.

 

[dfoo]

I just went outside and exposed a few more frames. The first roll I shot I dropped on the way up the steps. It landed on the ground, and popped open ruining the damn film!! Worst luck! I shot another right after 🙂

It was a little brighter today. I exposed at F11 1/500, the spot meter read from EV 13.5 to 18 set at EI 400. I'll develop them later tonight with 10% and 20% more development respectively.

 

[monochromeimages]

The exposed film leader will give some indication of development. I always examine mine as a rough check on my developing. Hold it up to the light. If it is quite see through you have probably underdeveloped. If it is just about solid black it is probably over developed. Somewhere between is right. Not very scientific but I find this a useful guide.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hard to say something new after Roger's great answers...

About exposure: his advice is perfect: look at your negatives, and if you have detail in the shadows, exposure was OK...

About development: When exposure is correct, white subjects under scene's light must be white on prints, so they must be black on negatives (not dark gray)... Well exposed and developed negatives, show a clear, wide tonal range, with rich midtones, and reach pure black on scene's whites ONLY.

When there's underdevelopment, usually you don't get blacks on negatives even if you shoot N+1... And when exposure is right and development too, you don't get blacks on negatives by N-1, but they come just by N...

If you have overexposure and/or overdevelopment, your negatives will show blacks for white subjects and also for very clear subjects...

Contact prints for evaluation with filter 2 and black -just reached- base+fog are a nice way to get things going...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[vorgonyi]

dfoo apart from the discussion I find helpful, I must say you must have lost some weight running to the back of your house and back to the computer several times during the last 3 hours. ;-)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Umm... I don't think you understood what I meant 🙂 I didn't mean I was trying to spot meter zone V, I mean my spot meter gives a zone V reading. That means, if I spot meter the shadows then to get a good exposure I'd close down 2 stops (since the reading should be in Zone 2, but the meter gives a zone 5 reading). Another way of accomplishing the same thing is to set the meter to read EI 1600 when exposing the film at EI 400.

No, I did understand. I was attacking the meter design (Zone V index), not your use of it. I just phrased it poorly: sorry. And you're quite right about bumping up the ISO setting.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes, I don't understand why meters are designed like that either!

I developed the two test rolls I shot today. One 10% more and one 20% more. To my eye the 10% more one looks good. The 20% also looks good. Much more contrast than the original set I developed. I think 12 minutes for TMAX in XTOL 1+2 is about right for rotary processing.

I haven't printed them yet, I'll try that tomorrow night most likely.

 

[screwglue]

i just developed of photos i really like, however i underdeveloped the role, which resulted in negatives that lack in contrast.

what can i do about these photos if i would like to print these photos in the darkroom? would you guys suggest a longer printing time - shorter developing time (not sure if that would help) or possibly a red filter?

i don't have high contrast paper