Gray and white instead of black and white images

A

anitasanger

Well-known
Local time
10:34 AM
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
358
View My Gallery
With my M6 I've noticed that more of my images look grey and white rather than black and white. I've read before that camera meters want everything to look 18% grey. With my old Pentax, my images had a starker black and white look.

I'm wondering if this is because my Pentax meter wasn't as accurate, or in need of a CLA, making all of my images slightly over or underexposed creating blacks instead of grays? Does anyone else have images that are grayer looking?

I prefer the black blacks and white whites with grays in-between. I know that processing can play a role, but I've got that pretty much dialed in. I also don't quite understand why a light meter wants to make everything gray? So if i am in a controlled light area and expose the image perfectly in accordance with a light meter, would everything be gray?

Anyway, I've ordered a book on the zone system as well as Ansel Adams book trio in hopes of getting a better technical grasp on exposure, but just wanted to ask you guys for additional tips. I like a high contrast look.

Thank you,

Luke
 
Surely this is a matter of the way you're printing and choosing your print exposure times/paper grades rather than a matter of metering at the camera end? Alternatively, a scanning matter?

If wet-printing, choose a paper grade with more contrast so the blacks come in sooner while still retaining your whites. Develop the print fully.

If scanning, make sure you've picked the appropriate white and black points on the scan histogram. Sounds like the black point is too low, so whilst you're getting plenty of shadow detail, all of the shadow tones are being placed too far up the tonal scale.

Assuming negative film and a fairly flat film response curve, then your negative is effectively correctly exposed so long as the highlights aren't blown and the shadows aren't blocked. If your highlights haven't blown then you have nothing to worry about at the "camera end".
 
Well, I've currently been using my scanner primarily. And come to think of it, when doing wet prints, I don't recall having noticed it as much. But i haven't got to wet print with my leica yet. Is there a type of universal scanner software that people use with success?
 
I would say you don't have your processing dialed in. By that I mean everything after exposure. Your developing should be tuned to the way you print or scan. If you print, adjust your exposure and contrast. If you scan, adjust your contrast in Photoshop after you've scanned.
 
In printing the type and manufacturer of the paper will make a difference. Agfa paper is more contrasty than Ilford (if they still make it). There are also filters to be used in the enlarger. or a red 25 on the camera will make a huge contrast difference. I used to that with my Nikons a lot, but not as much with the M6.
 
I'd really like to know how other people "use" the meter on their M6's (and other TTL-metered rangefinders).

I imagine that the *easiest* way to shoot with a camera like the M6 would be to point your camera in the general direction of whatever you're shooting, focus, frame, and adjust exposure to the meter's suggestion (in the M6 case, so that you light up the "> <" in the finder), and then release the shutter.

That may be the *easiest* way, but I don't know if that method results in frames with the most accurate exposures.

Here's what I do: I figure out whatever object (for example, a subject's t-shirt color, or some stuff hidden in the shade, etc.) I want to call "gray" or "midtone" in my final negative. I point my M6 at that object and meter against it. Then I point my camera at my subject to focus, frame, and shoot.

So far this method has given me results I like as long as I follow recommended development times and temperatures fairly closely. My whites turn out white and my blacks turn out black, and the midtones end up around where I like them. I've also noticed that I can adjust the contrast with longer or warmer processing, in case I want less midtone presence.

After shooting this way for a few days, I got pretty good at judging a scene for grays.

A tip for portraits that's worked for me: If you want your subject's face to pop, try not to meter against the face, since they end up muddy looking in the negative. Instead you should meter against their clothes or the floor or something, just before you pull the camera up to point at their face.

I'd love to hear other photographers' techniques. Good luck!
 
Get a copy of Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop...in it he will explain the Gray look you're getting and why you're getting it...
You can find it used on ebay or new on Amazon...
It was one the first real photo books I was given back in 1980...I still have it and do refer to it from time to time...

If you're getting Gray photographs your camera's meter is working just fine...that's what it's designed to give you...you need to become smarter than your camera's meter...you'll understand this after reading Fred's book...
 
Last edited:
wintershrooms said:
I'd really like to know how other people "use" the meter on their M6's (and other TTL-metered rangefinders).

Here's what I do: I figure out whatever object (for example, a subject's t-shirt color, or some stuff hidden in the shade, etc.) I want to call "gray" or "midtone" in my final negative. I point my M6 at that object and meter against it. Then I point my camera at my subject to focus, frame, and shoot.
Click to expand...

That's what I do, too, with an in camera meter. Without one, I use an incident meter, or a little book of sunny 16 type of exposure descriptions I made. The book seems to work better than the meters for scenes with too much contrast.
 
Although a reading of the zone system will do you no harm, most good photography books will explain the way a light meter works. They meter all things to expose to the value of an 18% gray card. You can buy them at good camera shops. For most subjects, which are composed of light and dark objects, this works out OK. But if your subject is mainly white, and you want it to appear white, you have to give more exposure than the meter tells you. Otherwise it will expose as grey. If you want more contrast, you can get this by underexposing and over developing (eg. rate a 400 film at 800 or 1600 and then extend development accordingly). You can also use higher contrast film; give Pan F a whirl.
 
Lens contrast could have something to do with it too, if your lens has lower contrast and you shoot wide open a lot, things can get grey. Stopping down a stop will help.
 
The first thing I think of is that the negs are underexposed. This could be because 1. the shutter needs adjustment/compensation 2. the meter needs adjustment/compensation 3. you are not metering for the shadows 4. development too cold (therm. off) 5. not enough agitation and/or time. Or a combination of some/all of the above.
An overexposed neg will give you blacker shadows than an underexposed neg. Seems counter intuitive, but it's true. You can try purposefully overexposing everything by one or two stops, or metering the darkest part of the scene to determine your exposure. With classic b&w emulsions you won't lose the lights.
The zone system isn't geared toward 36 different scenes on one roll of film, but the Leica Manual 5 has Ansel Adams' article on zone for 35mm.
 
Last edited:
Luke,
It all boils down to "postprocessing". You have to understand, that scanning "flattens" the image on purpose, in order to record the entire dynamic range. This is just the starting point, and this scanned image HAS to be adjusted in PS or lightroom for curves, contrast and some sharpening (scanning introduces some "softness", the more lousy the scanner, the more of it). If you still cannot get a proper tonal range after processing the scan in PS, then the negative is either completely underexposed (almost clear) or overexposed (almost black). If you look at your negative against the light, and you see a normal range of densities, from dark to almost clear, then the negative is not a problem. In any case, picture contrast has NOTHING to do with the camera body, and only a little to do with the camera lens, so you can concentrate on the exposure, development and postprocessing. Different films will also have different contrast range - I would recommend that you stick to Tri X till you have everything nailed down perfectly. As to scanner software, I use Vuescan and find it excellent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom