"Expose for Shadows, Develop for Highlights"

ChrisN said:
For folks who make traditional contact proof sheets from their negatives, there is a good shortcut to achieving good exposure and development - Making Contact with Curtains by Barry Thornton. In the article I was amused to find a echo of Chris C's comment about artists disdaining precision as stiffling their creativity.
Click to expand...

F--cking PERFECT! I could have written that myself. I learned the basics of what I know from master artists like Mr. Thornton and taught myself the rest from the experience of 'doing it', putting into practice the craft of photography every day, year after year, until I had mastered it myself. There is no substitute for plain hard work.
 
Juan, I don't know if you have read Arnold Gassan's book but he has a different method to get to the same place as you. If you are interested I'll scan the section and send. I would not change your method, but it is interesting. Thanks, for the detailed description.
 
The good information you guys are sharing is great. What if a person is developing their own negatives, scanning and ordering prints? I still need the best negative possible but I will not be able to make and evaluate a contact sheet?

I know you guys are operating and discussing beyond my skill level, but I am trying to learn.
 
charjohncarter said:
Juan, I don't know if you have read Arnold Gassan's book but he has a different method to get to the same place as you. If you are interested I'll scan the section and send. I would not change your method, but it is interesting. Thanks, for the detailed description.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot, John! I haven't read it, but of course it will be really interesting! I'm here to keep learning and improving, of course...

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Juan
 
SciAggie said:
The good information you guys are sharing is great. What if a person is developing their own negatives, scanning and ordering prints? I still need the best negative possible but I will not be able to make and evaluate a contact sheet?

I know you guys are operating and discussing beyond my skill level, but I am trying to learn.
Click to expand...

To be able to evaluate your negatives with a scanner, all your efforts should be directed to make the scanner scan the same way always (away from autoexpoure) no matter the range on your frames... That way you'll se the differences, both on exposure (EI) and contrast (development). If well done, it's just as precise as contact prints. I recommend you to judge from prints, not from screens...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Hi,

I use a dark bag too. As those negatives can be scratched, I treat them without care... First, with scissors I cut the first few inches of the film (what's used to load it), and the very final part at the end (close to the plastic thing). I know every third's length is just a bit more than twice the distance from the end of my thumb to the end of my pinky (?) I just don't know the word in English for that measurement taken with our hand. Take into account my hands are small... I just start rolling, sliding film's ends in a way that they are prepared for real bending being three strips one over the other two... Yes, they try to curl, but the hands finally win after a minute... When I've got to keep ends controlled on place and checked the three parts are more or less the very same length, I really bend the film in two places (for thirds) in a stronger way to have it totally bent, and on those bent marks that won't disappear, I cut. It's easy: I can't know exactly where the shot strips are falling, but the blank frames are there for covering those two blind cuts.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Just remembered another book on my shelf that will be of interest to people who have enjoyed (or at least endured) this thread.

A Zone System for all Formats by Joseph Saltzer. My copy was published by American Photographic Book Publishing Co. Inc. in 1979. It reads very much like a textbook, with concise instruction for performing tests to determine exposure index for film, and standard exposure times for paper. Like Adams, at times it is not an easy read, but if a person has the discipline to follow through I suspect you would achieve very good control over your results.
 
Adjusting exposure for flat or contrasty subject is not changing EI.

I keep low subject brightness range subject centered around the middle range. High range subjects use the whole scale.

And when you make the contacts, they all look good.

I do the same thing with a digital camera.
 
ChrisN said:
Just remembered another book on my shelf that will be of interest to people who have enjoyed (or at least endured) this thread.

A Zone System for all Formats by Joseph Saltzer. My copy was published by American Photographic Book Publishing Co. Inc. in 1979. It reads very much like a textbook, with concise instruction for performing tests to determine exposure index for film, and standard exposure times for paper. Like Adams, at times it is not an easy read, but if a person has the discipline to follow through I suspect you would achieve very good control over your results.
Click to expand...
Dear Chris,

I would however caution anyone against rushing out and buying it 'sight unseen', as another view is that it is a cynical, ill-written and heavily-padded attempt to cash in on the Zone System franchise. Yes, I have the same 1979 Amphoto edition. Everyone must decide for himself whether your praise or my denigration is more appropriate for his personal style of photograohy.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Chris,

I would however caution anyone against rushing out and buying it 'sight unseen', as another view is that it is a cynical, ill-written and heavily-padded attempt to cash in on the Zone System franchise. Yes, I have the same 1979 Amphoto edition. Everyone must decide for himself whether your praise or my denigration is more appropriate for his personal style of photograohy.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And with copies available through Amazon from $0.01 plus postage, those interested may care to risk the small investment on the off-chance that they may learn something from it that cannot be gleaned from other sources. And to save you the effort, I will make the comment that perhaps $0.01 reflects the value of Saltzer's work - again only the individual reader can decide for themself.
 
ChrisN said:
Indeed. And with copies available through Amazon from $0.01 plus postage, those interested may care to risk the small investment on the off-chance that they may learn something from it that cannot be gleaned from other sources. And to save you the effort, I will make the comment that perhaps $0.01 reflects the value of Saltzer's work - again only the individual reader can decide for themself.
Click to expand...

Dear Chris,

At a penny, who can argue? At that price, I'd even buy it myself out of curiosity, had my curiosity not been more than sated by it already.

Unfortunately, I bought mine long ago, though fortunately not at the $25 publication price -- and $25 bought a lot more in 1979 than it does today. I was labouring under the misapprehension that it might still cost $10 or more, or (worse still) that it might have become a cult book and sell for more than $25. The capacity of some people for self-flagellation is considerable!

Thanks for the information.

Cheers,

R.
 
Thanks for an interesting and informative thread.

Still being a relative novice, I must try to incorporate some of these ideas into my process. I believe that I understand the basis of "expose for shadows and develop for the highlights" and I like the idea of a simple system. Mike Johnston's "Not much of a system system" therefore has great appeal and was, I initially thought, an easy system to use, or at least must be far better than making no allowances for differing contrast scenes.
I can understand the effect of changes made to the IE and appropriate changes in development times, along the lines of the example he gives for his process using Tri-X:

For a scene of normal contrast EI.200 at "std" development time.
For a scene of low contrast use EI.400 and increase dev time by 30% over std.
For a scene of high contrast use EI.100 and decrease dev time by 15% from std.

This is good so far, but I have been thrown into confusion by a later suggestion that, on a roll used over varying scene contrasts, that one should use a middle dev time and stick to the suggested changes in EI.

This is very confusing for me, perhaps I haven't grasped this at all......

If I were to do this, I might have a new "standard" dev time (from an average of the above times) and expose thus:

For a scene of normal contrast EI.200.
For a scene of low contrast use EI.400.
For a scene of high contrast use EI.100.
Develop at "std" time

But hasn't this reversed the changes in contrast? I mean, if I were to change from EI200 to EI400 for a contrasty scene and then dev for the same time that I would have done for the EI200 (normal) scene, then I have effectively reduced the dev time for "normal development for that speed" and so reduced the contrast?

Regards, Dave
 
Dave,

That is correct. The majority of development for shadows happens in the beginning stages of development whereas the highlights continue to develop t hrough the process. Hence shortening the development time reigns in the highlights and helps keep some nice solid highlight detail.
 
fidget said:
Thanks for an interesting and informative thread.

Still being a relative novice, I must try to incorporate some of these ideas into my process. I believe that I understand the basis of "expose for shadows and develop for the highlights" and I like the idea of a simple system. Mike Johnston's "Not much of a system system" therefore has great appeal and was, I initially thought, an easy system to use, or at least must be far better than making no allowances for differing contrast scenes.
I can understand the effect of changes made to the IE and appropriate changes in development times, along the lines of the example he gives for his process using Tri-X:

For a scene of normal contrast EI.200 at "std" development time.
For a scene of low contrast use EI.400 and increase dev time by 30% over std.
For a scene of high contrast use EI.100 and decrease dev time by 15% from std.

This is good so far, but I have been thrown into confusion by a later suggestion that, on a roll used over varying scene contrasts, that one should use a middle dev time and stick to the suggested changes in EI.

This is very confusing for me, perhaps I haven't grasped this at all......

If I were to do this, I might have a new "standard" dev time (from an average of the above times) and expose thus:

For a scene of normal contrast EI.200.
For a scene of low contrast use EI.400.
For a scene of high contrast use EI.100.
Develop at "std" time

But hasn't this reversed the changes in contrast? I mean, if I were to change from EI200 to EI400 for a contrasty scene and then dev for the same time that I would have done for the EI200 (normal) scene, then I have effectively reduced the dev time for "normal development for that speed" and so reduced the contrast?

Regards, Dave
Click to expand...

Dear Dave,

Yes, the highlighted portion should work very well.

A lot depends on metering as well as subject brightness range. Spot metering for shadows can lead to a different recommendation from broad area metering and from incident (= artificial highlight) metering, according to the subject brightness range.

The trick is not to look for more precision than exists, and indeed, not for more precision than is necessary -- both of which are sometimes advocated by those who do not actually quite understand as much as they think they do.

Informed rules of thumb from good photographers are often a lot more use than the maunderings of those who believe in 'testing' rather than in taking pictures.

Cheers,

R.
 
Juan,

Thanks. Am going to use your method to test my optimal film exposure/development combination.

Ontop of Sunny and Non-Sunny rolls, I will probably use a 3rd roll for Indoor shoots.

So far I have been frivolous with my development times and exposure settings. Which is okay so far, but at some point I would like to accurately do this testing for my Plus-X and Tri-x in 135 format and also for Fomapan 400-120.

My developer choice will be xtol in -30%, Box and +30% development.

thanks !

raytoei
ps. does loading 2 short strips work for a single reel ?
 
raytoei@gmail.com said:
Juan,

Thanks. Am going to use your method to test my optimal film exposure/development combination.

Ontop of Sunny and Non-Sunny rolls, I will probably use a 3rd roll for Indoor shoots.

So far I have been frivolous with my development times and exposure settings. Which is okay so far, but at some point I would like to accurately do this testing for my Plus-X and Tri-x in 135 format and also for Fomapan 400-120.

My developer choice will be xtol in -30%, Box and +30% development.

thanks !

raytoei
ps. does loading 2 short strips work for a single reel ?
Click to expand...

Never tried that... I guess if the first one is real short, it can be gently pushed to go further into the spiral, so you'll have space for a second strip that wouldn't touch the first one by any chance...

Good luck on your tests!

Cheers,

Juan
 
I don't see anything wrong with two short strips on a single reel. The most important thing is to get a EI and a development and agitation cycle that really works (that sounds simple but it isn't; when do you really know it is right?). But I got that fairly quickly with one of my films, and I have over the years continued to fine tune that film. So, in other words, you have just started.

When I started doing a new film I would get it right for sunlight. In California (my part of CA) it is almost always sunny. So I figured I would just work with that, and then worry about shade, overcast and indoor later.
 
Juan and John,

thanks for your comments. I develop around 5 rolls a week and just started my 2nd year in development. I am consistent with my agitation, dilution and I do keep records. So from that perspective, this is covered.

In terms of learning, I have only just started and there are so many questions, eg.

a. I wonder which will look better, an overexposed overdeveloped negative (and can be corrected in print) or one which is just right ?

b. Why not 50% more development or Underdevelopment, instead of 30%

etc. I guess the only answer is to DIY and find out for myself.

cheers!

raytoei
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom