lorriman
Established
Noticing my first rolls of tri-x having a lack of shadow detail at ei400 I have taken onboard the advice to shoot at ei200 and underdevelop by 30%. Shadow detail is much better. However how does this method tie up with the technique of metering for the shadows? It occurred to me that such metering may be the less refined equivalent of halving the rated ISO with underdevelopment; and that I should therefore not be metering for the shadows if rating at ei200? Opinions?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
What camera and lenses are you using? Because 30% is a LOT of underdevelopment, leading to even less shadow detail. And are you wet printing or scanning?
I'd suggest that metering the shadows is far more refined than any other technique, not less, because it's the only way to measure the shadow brightness directly. But what do you mean by metering for the shadows?
Cheers,
R.
I'd suggest that metering the shadows is far more refined than any other technique, not less, because it's the only way to measure the shadow brightness directly. But what do you mean by metering for the shadows?
Cheers,
R.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Stop believing your light meter is smarter than you are. It is just one of many inputs your brain can process in nano seconds to determine what you think is the best exposure.
You can take meter readings in the shadows. Take meter readings in midtones. Take meter readings at either iso 200 or iso 400. You brain can deal with all this, not rocket science, not high math.
Proper exposure is not complicated. Getting some device to read exactly the proper exposure is.
You can take meter readings in the shadows. Take meter readings in midtones. Take meter readings at either iso 200 or iso 400. You brain can deal with all this, not rocket science, not high math.
Proper exposure is not complicated. Getting some device to read exactly the proper exposure is.
lorriman
Established
Thanks for the replies.
I mean that one meters off the shadows. Whatever the meter says for the shadows is what I set my camera to. (I haven't done this yet.) The reason I say 30% underdevelopment is because the numbers I've seen give 10% for each 1/3 stop knocked of the rating and I'm shooting at ei200 for a 400 film. As much as I need to get a detail in the shadows (which I now do get) I also need to preserve my highlights. Many of my subjects are high contrast. In fact I routinely use dil h with gentle agitation for that purpose. It seems to work out.
But...I like the idea of metering off the shadows but suspect that there may be a clash of methodology if I do both. As a newbie I'm not the best judge so I would rather get expert opinions than shoot test rolls and still end up scratching my head.
"You can take meter readings in the shadows. Take meter readings in midtones. Take meter readings at either iso 200 or iso 400. You brain can deal with all this, not rocket science, not high math."
Maybe, but my issue is whether I am doubling up by setting at both ie200 and metering off the shadows. I accept already that ei400 is to fast if I don't meter off the shadows. So far I've helped the situation by setting to ei200 and underdeveloping. But perhaps the experts do this and also meter off the shadows, and would be horrified to know that I was junking that age-old method thinking that an ei200 is an adequate substitute.
I mean that one meters off the shadows. Whatever the meter says for the shadows is what I set my camera to. (I haven't done this yet.) The reason I say 30% underdevelopment is because the numbers I've seen give 10% for each 1/3 stop knocked of the rating and I'm shooting at ei200 for a 400 film. As much as I need to get a detail in the shadows (which I now do get) I also need to preserve my highlights. Many of my subjects are high contrast. In fact I routinely use dil h with gentle agitation for that purpose. It seems to work out.
But...I like the idea of metering off the shadows but suspect that there may be a clash of methodology if I do both. As a newbie I'm not the best judge so I would rather get expert opinions than shoot test rolls and still end up scratching my head.
"You can take meter readings in the shadows. Take meter readings in midtones. Take meter readings at either iso 200 or iso 400. You brain can deal with all this, not rocket science, not high math."
Maybe, but my issue is whether I am doubling up by setting at both ie200 and metering off the shadows. I accept already that ei400 is to fast if I don't meter off the shadows. So far I've helped the situation by setting to ei200 and underdeveloping. But perhaps the experts do this and also meter off the shadows, and would be horrified to know that I was junking that age-old method thinking that an ei200 is an adequate substitute.
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I hope that I did not come across too hard, sorry if I did. But there are some really simple basic concepts of exposure. You need to understand those. You can probably get by just setting your iso for half the box speed or metering the shadows (or both) when shooting negative film. But basically you are just giving yourself room for your lack of understanding concepts.
Besides exposure not being complex, there is no such thing as one correct exposure. Remember many good photos were made with cameras that had no option to choose aperture or shutter speed. There are many variables, most significant being what you personally want your photo to say.
Anyway, good luck.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Roger Hicks may not suggest that you go to his on line photo school but I certainly will. See the section about exposure It is free and contributions are not required but it is nice to contribute some amount to offset the cost.
lorriman
Established
Thanks for that. I do know plenty about exposure, but I am attempting to get a handle on b&w exposure which is new(ish) to me.
All I really want to know is whether, as a general rule, it's either one methodology or both together. I acknowledge that you think that their isn't an answer to that but hopefully others may disagree. Considering the amount of fine-tuning people do with their methods I am quite hopeful.
All I really want to know is whether, as a general rule, it's either one methodology or both together. I acknowledge that you think that their isn't an answer to that but hopefully others may disagree. Considering the amount of fine-tuning people do with their methods I am quite hopeful.
lorriman
Established
I forgot to reply to Roger's question on whether I am scanning or wet printing. I am shooting the negatives with a 450D DSLR and an old smc pentax 50/4 on a bellows. I then process the raw files with curves (rather as with levels) before reducing saturation and then adjusting curves again for contrast.
Last edited:
lorriman
Established
..an example (although this one is neopan400 ei200 and I processed a jpg not a raw file):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/midnighttoadstool/5681437277/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/midnighttoadstool/5681437277/
dfoo
Well-known
Shadow detail looks good to me... the left shoulder is a little blown out however.
Vics
Veteran
I just take a reading of the darkest value in the picture area that needs some detail, stop down 3 stops from that reading, placing that value in zone 2. My meter is set to 400 for my Tri-X film. I don't try to develop for the highlights, as there are 36 pictures on the roll, usually taken over a period of days in varying conditions. So it's kind of like half a zone system. I like the way this works for me. My collapsible Summicron lens offers low to medium contrast, so it usually works out great!
Turtle
Veteran
Understand everything that is being said about the basics of how exposure and development works. Once you have this understanding down, experiment and practice until you are able to make sense of the inputs you require to get the results you need.
There is unfortunately no substitute for your understanding and experience and you will develop your own rules of thumb that qork for you. There is no point listening to people telling you to spot meter the shadows or always take an incident reading if you are a street shooter. You have no chance! You have to work my metering in a way that works with your technique and these can vary wildly. I do almost everything thru the lens as this works for me.
For example, I generally rate TriX at 320 on my Leicas when using Xtol 1+2 or DDX and shooting in dead flat light, but at 250 when the light is a little more contrasty and 200 in strong side lighting... but I know I have to set 400 if I use an incident meter and meter in a very different way. I know that with the Leica I will always meter tilted towards the ground with an emphasis on key subject areas. I know that bright or very dark tarmac will throw the meter so I have to adjust. I know that in summer, while bright, the light can be very low contrast at mid day and I know that in winter the low sun can cause very deep shadows and immense contrast requiring a much lower EI. Rarely do I get caught out now, but that is only after a lot of practice. metering for Large Format etc is so much easier, because you have everything on a tripod and you can use a spot meter. For street work you have to be really fast and a spot meter is not practical. This is one of the benefits of B&W: you have a good deal of tolerance and if you suddenly have to compensate for a white building and end up overcompensating, you can generally still get a very good print in the darkroom.
There is unfortunately no substitute for your understanding and experience and you will develop your own rules of thumb that qork for you. There is no point listening to people telling you to spot meter the shadows or always take an incident reading if you are a street shooter. You have no chance! You have to work my metering in a way that works with your technique and these can vary wildly. I do almost everything thru the lens as this works for me.
For example, I generally rate TriX at 320 on my Leicas when using Xtol 1+2 or DDX and shooting in dead flat light, but at 250 when the light is a little more contrasty and 200 in strong side lighting... but I know I have to set 400 if I use an incident meter and meter in a very different way. I know that with the Leica I will always meter tilted towards the ground with an emphasis on key subject areas. I know that bright or very dark tarmac will throw the meter so I have to adjust. I know that in summer, while bright, the light can be very low contrast at mid day and I know that in winter the low sun can cause very deep shadows and immense contrast requiring a much lower EI. Rarely do I get caught out now, but that is only after a lot of practice. metering for Large Format etc is so much easier, because you have everything on a tripod and you can use a spot meter. For street work you have to be really fast and a spot meter is not practical. This is one of the benefits of B&W: you have a good deal of tolerance and if you suddenly have to compensate for a white building and end up overcompensating, you can generally still get a very good print in the darkroom.
lorriman
Established
Guys, my question, in the abstract, has nothing to do with exposure.
There are two methods both with broadly similar effects.
1)Shoot for the shadows
2)Downrate and underdevelope.
These are general rules of thumb, which is what I am exploring, and not the finely tuned exposure tactics and learning being recommended.
The question is: have these methods developed to solve the same problem and so are not meant to be used both together.
This may be the case because while many carefully meter off a suitable object others simply trust more to the camera's metering of the scene as a whole (especially if the meter isn't too strongly centered). The former might end up as shadow shooters and the latter as downraters. That would strongly suggest that one should not use both methods simultaneously.
I can't answer my own question because so many claim dissatisfaction with box-ratings or even that the real densitometer speed of tri-x and other films is much less in most developers than officially advertised. I can see metering off shadows going a long way to address that discrepancy. But then of course so does downrating.
Since the two 'rules of thumb' do almost the same thing then one is finds oneself asking whether using both would be in fact a doubling up of solutions to the same underlying issue (dissatisfaction with box-ratings) and should therefore be considered mutually exclusive.
There are two methods both with broadly similar effects.
1)Shoot for the shadows
2)Downrate and underdevelope.
These are general rules of thumb, which is what I am exploring, and not the finely tuned exposure tactics and learning being recommended.
The question is: have these methods developed to solve the same problem and so are not meant to be used both together.
This may be the case because while many carefully meter off a suitable object others simply trust more to the camera's metering of the scene as a whole (especially if the meter isn't too strongly centered). The former might end up as shadow shooters and the latter as downraters. That would strongly suggest that one should not use both methods simultaneously.
I can't answer my own question because so many claim dissatisfaction with box-ratings or even that the real densitometer speed of tri-x and other films is much less in most developers than officially advertised. I can see metering off shadows going a long way to address that discrepancy. But then of course so does downrating.
Since the two 'rules of thumb' do almost the same thing then one is finds oneself asking whether using both would be in fact a doubling up of solutions to the same underlying issue (dissatisfaction with box-ratings) and should therefore be considered mutually exclusive.
Dan
Let's Sway
They are most certainly designed to be used together. You're in the process of dialing in your system's variables.
Most important step is to be consistent in HOW you meter because that sets the interpretation for development, i.e. how much to over- or underdevelop. If your method of metering points in the direction of having to shoot at ISO 200 with a 10% reduction in development, then that's your way of getting the job done...go with it.
Basically, you've found out that the way you meter tends to underexpose. Now it's just a matter of applying the correct compensation.
Turtle
Veteran
Yes they are the same thing. You can:
Rate at 400 and say to yourself 'oooh, its strong side lighting and I know my meter reading will leave my shadows empty to the tune of one stop, so I will open up one stop.' OR//
I know that under this lighting I need to give one stop more exposure than my meter will tell me to get good shadow detail, so instead of rating at 400, I will rate at 200.
I used both: I set the film speed for the majority conditions I am expecting to encounter and I make adjustments from there for each exposure based around my understanding of where the film speed and lighting combo leaves me. This sounds more complicated but I find it easier.
If you rate every roll at the same speed regardless of conditions and make all adjustments from there, this would leave you making more mental and physcial adjustments. e.g. If I am shooting a bunch of rolls inside in a brightly lit room with flat lighting, I don't want to rate it at 200 and have to reduce the exposure for every single frame under that lighting because I know 200 will result in overexposure.
Film speed changes and exposure changes are of course the same thing, just different means to the same end. Whatever works for you.
PS, unless you are scanning, and possibly even so, 30% reduction in film speed seems an awful lot! While the traditional wisdom to downrate for 'fuller shadows' and reduce development 'to prevent hot highlights' this does not work for me and my technique. I tend to downrate film and develop for the recommended time because I have a very low contrast enlarger. this way I get the exposure I need and effectively push the film a little so my 10x8 colour head can generate some highlights! I often rate at box and develop for longer still if the light is flat. Again, whatever works for you, but some of those recommending heavily reduced development do so either to ensure their scanner can cope with neg density or because they have a fine grain fettish (the flip side usually being terrible tonality and muddy prints).
Rate at 400 and say to yourself 'oooh, its strong side lighting and I know my meter reading will leave my shadows empty to the tune of one stop, so I will open up one stop.' OR//
I know that under this lighting I need to give one stop more exposure than my meter will tell me to get good shadow detail, so instead of rating at 400, I will rate at 200.
I used both: I set the film speed for the majority conditions I am expecting to encounter and I make adjustments from there for each exposure based around my understanding of where the film speed and lighting combo leaves me. This sounds more complicated but I find it easier.
If you rate every roll at the same speed regardless of conditions and make all adjustments from there, this would leave you making more mental and physcial adjustments. e.g. If I am shooting a bunch of rolls inside in a brightly lit room with flat lighting, I don't want to rate it at 200 and have to reduce the exposure for every single frame under that lighting because I know 200 will result in overexposure.
Film speed changes and exposure changes are of course the same thing, just different means to the same end. Whatever works for you.
PS, unless you are scanning, and possibly even so, 30% reduction in film speed seems an awful lot! While the traditional wisdom to downrate for 'fuller shadows' and reduce development 'to prevent hot highlights' this does not work for me and my technique. I tend to downrate film and develop for the recommended time because I have a very low contrast enlarger. this way I get the exposure I need and effectively push the film a little so my 10x8 colour head can generate some highlights! I often rate at box and develop for longer still if the light is flat. Again, whatever works for you, but some of those recommending heavily reduced development do so either to ensure their scanner can cope with neg density or because they have a fine grain fettish (the flip side usually being terrible tonality and muddy prints).
Last edited:
lorriman
Established
So, one vote for using both techniques together, and one vote against (normal EV adjustments notwithstanding).
Darn.
Enjoyable replies, though. I like your thinking, Turtle.
Darn.
Enjoyable replies, though. I like your thinking, Turtle.
gliderbee
Well-known
I thought these two techniques serve a different purpose (and I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong):
- overexposing and underdevelopping is used in the zone system and meant to expand the contrast range of the film (meaning: with a high-contrast subject, you have a better change of keeping detail both in the shadows and in the highlights.
- metering is meant to establish what part of your subject will be in what zone, and you usually meter the shadows as to be sure to have enough exposure there to have detail: if there's not enough exposure, nothing will be on film, and that happens faster then that the highlights get blown (often, these blown highlights do have some detail that you could get on paper by burning, but if there's isn't anything in the shadows, there's no way you will get it on paper).
So: you can use the two techniques together, since they serve a different purpose.
Right ?
Stefan.
- overexposing and underdevelopping is used in the zone system and meant to expand the contrast range of the film (meaning: with a high-contrast subject, you have a better change of keeping detail both in the shadows and in the highlights.
- metering is meant to establish what part of your subject will be in what zone, and you usually meter the shadows as to be sure to have enough exposure there to have detail: if there's not enough exposure, nothing will be on film, and that happens faster then that the highlights get blown (often, these blown highlights do have some detail that you could get on paper by burning, but if there's isn't anything in the shadows, there's no way you will get it on paper).
So: you can use the two techniques together, since they serve a different purpose.
Right ?
Stefan.
Last edited:
lorriman
Established
So that's 2 to 1 to using both techniques. Cool.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or, to be thoroughly cynical, B+W pos/neg photography is so flexible that it delivers acceptable to good results even when it is thoroughly abused, as long as exposure isn't curtailed too much. This is all that saves some people who think they're using the Zone System with incident light metering and re-used (not replenished) developer...
Overexpose, and don't overdevelop too much, and it doesn't matter much how you meter.
Cheers,
R.
Overexpose, and don't overdevelop too much, and it doesn't matter much how you meter.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I always suggest that students do what the meter says, then do what they think will make the negative better, and if they're really indoubt then do the opposite. After a few rolls like this you'll know very well when your meter is 'smart' and when it's dumb. Key is to always make the adjustments to exposure in the same order.