"Expose for Shadows, Develop for Highlights"

[Ade-oh]

I suspect that many of the people who say it have no clue what it really means themselves, because you'll see many of them show disdain for exposure and development methods (like the Zone system or Phil Davis's BTZS system) that bring the idea into actual practice.

That'll be me then 🙂

I made a serious attempt to use the zone system - or at least a version of it - some years ago when I began to take photography seriously as a hobby. In practice it didn't actually seem to make any real difference to the results I had been achieving hitherto, with my previous system of using the built-in meter in my camera, applying my judgement to the scene I was photographing to adjust the exposure, and then using such printing skills as I had in the darkroom.

Enlarging or scanning 35mm or 120 film is not the same as contact printing 8x10, and you certainly don't have the same cost imperative preventing one from bracketing and experimenting with different exposures. Whatever one takes the phrase to mean, my personal view is that it is a needless distraction from more important elements in photography, like composition, which have a much more decisive impact over whether the final image is of any merit or not.

 

[johannielscom]

A 'hybrid' modus operandi IMHO consists of several simple steps:

• Meter my hand in the same light as the subject
• Bracket if I can
• Develop whole rolls in appropriate developing process (standard, stand, push)
• Scan, standard settings on lighting, contrast etc.
• Correct in Photoshop using Levels, Contrast, Unsharp Mask, Dodge & Burn only

I'm always in awe for people who can work like Roger and Chris, I'm just too impatient and sloppy to get it right like that😱
Still, I like my results and see room for improvement

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm always in awe for people who can work like Roger and Chris, I'm just too impatient and sloppy to get it right like that.

Dear Johan,

So am I. I do only the easy bits, and if something takes too long, I don't do it. Photographically, I've always believed in 'shoot first and ask questions afterwards'.

It's almost certainly useful to know the theory behind what you're doing, but it's far from essential, so unless you're interested, or unless you're being paid to do it, it's not worth much investigation.

As Ade-oh points out, and as your own experience shows, a lot of people get altogether too excited about this sort of thing, and lose sight of making good pictures becase they're trapped in a morass of minutiae that often, they don't fully understand.

I'd lay odds that 99% of the time, I could use any of four different metering techniques (incident, spot, broad-area reflected, in-camera), and then arrive at much the same conclusion about the optimum exposure. About 80-90% of the time, if I guessed the exposure, it would be within 1/2 stop of the optimum exposure as metered, often spot on for the optimum.

In fact, I've noticed something REALLY weird lately with my Ms. Quite a few times, I've turned the shutter speed dial and aperture ring to roughly the rght position, without reading the values I've set; put the camera to my eye; and found that the meter agrees. This is what comes from using basically the same equipment (M-series Leicas) since the mid-70s. I don't need to read the details: I'm doing it by a combination of touch, and an internalized view of what's where on the dials/rings.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

The more you shoot and print the more you will learn when to make adjustments; however, the more time you spend printing, thee more you will learn about everything. And it will save your bacon when you make mistakes in exposure and development...

For the sort of work I do I rely on in the internal meters in my cameras and have therefore to be able to adjust to the different camera metering. I therefore rate film differently in different cameras, because this way I end up with uniform exposures! I change the EI depending on the light, or make an adjustment after the reading and still make mistakes. Sometimes big ones, but rarely so. Oh, and I find clever zone TTL metering in SLRs the worst by far when it comes to reliable predictable exposures for B&W. I prefer center weighted on the canons and have no choice on the Leicas.

If shooting street or documentary, you just cant be messing about with diffferent bodies (no time) so you get used to making the best possible compromise and fixing as best you can any deficiencies in the darkroom.

PS you can deal with a much broader SBR when wet printing compared to scanning. Chris Crawford is using a 4-5 stop range as normal. I believe Chris scans and digitally prints, so undoubtedly has to aim for a slightly lower contrast neg than I would aim for in the darkroom.

PPS if you are serious about darkroom work I strongly recommend becoming competent then getting a RH designs paper flasher for about $100. This has changed 'nightmare' into 'mildly annoying' when I have very dense areas on the neg. Loooovely accessory.

 

[DNG]

A 'hybrid' modus operandi IMHO consists of several simple steps:

• Meter my hand in the same light as the subject
• Bracket if I can
• Develop whole rolls in appropriate developing process (standard, stand, push)
• Scan, standard settings on lighting, contrast etc.
• Correct in Photoshop using Levels, Contrast, Unsharp Mask, Dodge & Burn only

I'm always in awe for people who can work like Roger and Chris, I'm just too impatient and sloppy to get it right like that😱
Still, I like my results and see room for improvement

I think many of us use the above method. I know I do. AFA the Zone System with 35mm roll film... As Chris mentioned, you need separate bodies to get closer Zone Developing results for each roll.

The way I see it, if you can get good shadow & highlight details for scanning, you can tweak the tonal range in Post.

I typicaly have my roll of 25x frames at one or two locations on the same day, with the same lighting, 80% of the time, If the light changes, from Sunny to cloudy &/or Cloudy bright, I will adjust my exposure to -1 in stead of my norm of -1/3. But develop normal (for me, that is shoot @ 64, use 100 dev. times for 100 speed film), So the -1 frames will get a little more time then developimg the whole roll at -1. (Example: Delta 400 at 200 = 6m in Xtol Stock, Delta 400 at 400 = 7.5m in Xtol stock). So the 200 frames get 1.5m more time, {the less contrasty frames} where my 400/320 frames get standard developing on the same roll.

With wet printing, you have to have a negative that you know you can work with, applying paper grades, condenser or diffuser enlarger, dodge and burn techniques to tweak the tonal range.

So, I believe the negatives need to very close to optimum exposure for wet printing... (I still remember my late teens and wet printing in my Dads Darkroom).

 

[charjohncarter]

But what happens when you have a bunch of differently lit scenes on the same roll?

Chris Crawford has one solution. Another possiblity is to print with different grades of paper, or fiddle with levels and curves. I was always not finishing an overcast or indoor roll using Chris' method (which is a good one), so I gave up and either avoid low contrast shots or fiddle.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If shooting street or documentary, you just cant be messing about with different bodies (no time) so you get used to making the best possible compromise and fixing as best you can any deficiencies in the darkroom.

Hi Turtle,

I find it means no messing at all... If I have sun, I point and shoot, and if I have shadows, I point and shoot with the other camera... I don't like changing lenses either... Very fast and easy, (I don't even meter or focus) and as Chris says, you develop your rolls a) normally or b) for less contrast, and everything's fine on negatives, and all's easier and faster both while shooting and while printing...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Trooper]

I like the science but I struggle to understand it. I tried to learn the Zone system, but is seemed to be far more complicated than what was already working for me. I read the "not much of a system system", and I was almost with him until he started talking about scenes with more range than the camera can handle. I hope I don't get off topic, but if I do it is because of ignorance rather than intent...I know my system makes me happy, but am I doing the opposite of expose for the shadows?

I used to shoot some B&W, but my true love was Kodachrome and Velvia. Now I'm almost completely digital, and I'm constantly trying to replicate the look of those 'chromes. I learned photography with a Nikon FE, usually set to aperture priority and used the center-weighted meter and a Sekonic L-28 (old version of the L-398). My first roll of Kodachrome was almost entirely silhouettes, but they had great colorful sunsets. It didn't take long to determine that my composition and style required a modification to how the camera's meter interpreted what I was seeing. When I used an incident meter, my exposures were almost always what I wanted, but I knew when to adjust a stop or two based on what I wanted to emphasize in the photo.

My system has evolved to the concept that only one tone can be properly exposed on the film or sensor, and I have to determine the exposure for that. Some shadows and highlights will certainly fall beyond the range of the film or sensor, but that is a limitation of the medium, and I don't worry about it. For example, in the photo of my dining room, the candle is what I wanted to emphasize so I spot metered it with the camera. I knew I might not capture the details outside, so I bracketed. The -1/3 was my favorite because the darkness seemed to convey more of a mood when the room was dark. The candle was the one thing I wanted the correct exposure on.

Kind of the same theory on the fountain at the Detroit airport. I knew I wanted the Delta 747 to be exposed properly, and the fountain wasn't beyond the range of the camera so that was a tremendous bonus. I suspected the windows and the man would be silhouettes, and so be it. Knowing the scene had some contrast, I underexposed a little, which gave me the bright light I remember on the 747. The sensor exposed as I suspected and I am personally very pleased with this image:

The focal point on this is obvious, and I spot metered on her left cheek. I again underexposed to compensate for the overexposure on her--from the window:

I can't remember exactly how I metered this, but I suspect it was Nikon's matrix meter with the bottom of the frame just above the horizon. I then locked the exposure and composed to get yet another damned silhouette. But, the picture is of that cloud, and the horse just happened to make the composition.

Apparently I am descendent from moths, because I seem to be drawn to the light--so I underexpose to compensate. Because I seem to photograph some scenes with a wide range of luminance or high contrast (I hope I used the right terms), histograms don't seem to be of much value to me. I know everyone else loves them, but I usually get some spikes on the sides and a deep valley. This is partly why I meter for one thing in the photo, or I just trust what my assistant tells me:

Exposed on manual, f/4 1/60th just as the incident meter said. The histogram was a perfect--one that I rarely see

 

[Roger Hicks]

Slides are supposed to be exposed for the highlights, or the highlights will 'blow'. ISO speeds for neg films are 'keyed' to the shadows, and for slides, they're 'keyed' to the highlights.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Trooper]

Slides are supposed to be exposed for the highlights, or the highlights will 'blow'. ISO speeds for neg films are 'keyed' to the shadows, and for slides, they're 'keyed' to the highlights.

Cheers,

R.

So, I was doing it correctly--but by accident?

 

[Roger Hicks]

So, I was doing it correctly--but by accident?

No, no no. Not accident -- native intelligence!

Cheers,

R.

 

[gns]

Exposed on manual, f/4 1/160th just as the incident meter said. The histogram was a perfect--one that I rarely see

Either she's thinking...
"another breathalizer test? I wasn't crawling THAT fast!" or,
"Luke. I am your father".

 

[dyao]

Keeping multiple cameras in the bag sounds too heavy...I think I'll just stick with my sub-optimal negatives, thanks!

 

[DNG]

Keeping multiple cameras in the bag sounds too heavy...I think I'll just stick with my sub-optimal negatives, thanks!

If you scan, you have a little better leeway., but meter for the mid-tones and develop normally. It works for me... it should work for anyone.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Keeping multiple cameras in the bag sounds too heavy...I think I'll just stick with my sub-optimal negatives, thanks!

Reminds me of when I was in art school. Students would ask me how I got such good quality in my images, and when I told them how to do it, they either declared that it was too much work or they'd try to claim that working precisely 'destroys creativity'. Funny thing, none of them are doing any creating anymore. They've all lost interest and gone on to other things. Only three of my classmates from my photo classes still take pictures. One is a woman who does portraits of children professionally, one is a nature photographer and does glass blowing too, and the other does the kind of work I do (he moved to Portland, Oregon to do that). All three of those still photographing were hard workers.

Basically, you want quality, it takes work. No getting around it. 😛


Depending on the weather where you live, you may not need two bodies anyway. John Carter mentioned earlier that he uses one body because his body with film to be developed for overcast light never got used enough. He's in southern California, where the sun shines constantly. Where I live, the light changes rapidly. It can go from sunny to cloudy and back several times in ONE DAY, so you need to be prepared when you go out to photograph. When I lived in Santa Fe, I usually carried just one body because the weather didn't change fast and I could shoot a whole roll of the same light easily.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Reminds me of when I was in art school. Students would ask me how I got such good quality in my images, and when I told them how to do it, they either declared that it was too much work or they'd try to claim that working precisely 'destroys creativity'. Funny thing, none of them are doing any creating anymore. They've all lost interest and gone on to other things. Only three of my classmates from my photo classes still take pictures. One is a woman who does portraits of children professionally, one is a nature photographer and does glass blowing too, and the other does the kind of work I do (he moved to Portland, Oregon to do that). All three of those still photographing were hard workers.

Basically, you want quality, it takes work. No getting around it. 😛


Depending on the weather where you live, you may not need two bodies anyway. John Carter mentioned earlier that he uses one body because his body with film to be developed for overcast light never got used enough. He's in southern California, where the sun shines constantly. Where I live, the light changes rapidly. It can go from sunny to cloudy and back several times in ONE DAY, so you need to be prepared when you go out to photograph. When I lived in Santa Fe, I usually carried just one body because the weather didn't change fast and I could shoot a whole roll of the same light easily.

Dear Chris,

Spot on. But you know how some people hate to hear the truth...

Cheers,

R.

 

[dyao]

Reminds me of when I was in art school. Students would ask me how I got such good quality in my images, and when I told them how to do it, they either declared that it was too much work or they'd try to claim that working precisely 'destroys creativity'. Funny thing, none of them are doing any creating anymore. They've all lost interest and gone on to other things. Only three of my classmates from my photo classes still take pictures. One is a woman who does portraits of children professionally, one is a nature photographer and does glass blowing too, and the other does the kind of work I do (he moved to Portland, Oregon to do that). All three of those still photographing were hard workers.

Basically, you want quality, it takes work. No getting around it. 😛


Depending on the weather where you live, you may not need two bodies anyway. John Carter mentioned earlier that he uses one body because his body with film to be developed for overcast light never got used enough. He's in southern California, where the sun shines constantly. Where I live, the light changes rapidly. It can go from sunny to cloudy and back several times in ONE DAY, so you need to be prepared when you go out to photograph. When I lived in Santa Fe, I usually carried just one body because the weather didn't change fast and I could shoot a whole roll of the same light easily.

Good point, but having a look at your site it seems we do different types of photography. When I shoot I'm on my feet about 8-9 hours a day, so keeping a light kit is pretty important to me.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Very well said, Chris.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Good point, but having a look at your site it seems we do different types of photography. When I shoot I'm on my feet about 8-9 hours a day, so keeping a light kit is pretty important to me.

If you feel two small cameras are a burden for beasts, maybe you're in need of a non-photographic solution: have you tried a bigger breakfast?

Sorry, just kidding!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[dyao]

Leicas and chrome Canon lenses are pretty heavy! Chris's suggestions are impractical for me for other reasons as well; where I live I can go (and my subjects as well) from direct sunlight to open shade to closed shade to mixed interior lighting within 5 minutes of walking.