expose for shadows, develop for highlights?

infrequent

infrequent

Well-known
Local time
6:22 AM
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
864
View My Gallery
i have come across that quite a bit on the net and in books / magazines as general advice for b+w photography. the premise remains that overexpose by a stop (by decreasing the ISO) to retain shadow detail and later cut development time (20% for each stop) to prevent highlights from burning out.

now all of this is fine if i was developing my film at home but what am i supposed to tell my pro lab given i have little idea about their procedures?

also i will soon be shooting some neopan 400 film. what do you normally rate it as? what is your preferred developer? from what i have read, i should rate it as ISO 200 or 250. is this prudent advice? and should i then just tell my lab that the film has been pulled to ISO 200 and should be processed accordingly? please advise. i know film photography is one of experimentation but i think a few rules of thumb will set me off properly. thanks!
 
infrequent said:
i have come across that quite a bit on the net and in books / magazines as general advice for b+w photography. the premise remains that overexpose by a stop (by decreasing the ISO) to retain shadow detail and later cut development time (20% for each stop) to prevent highlights from burning out.
Click to expand...
Although widely disseminated, this advice is basically crap. The main reasons to give extra exposure are for tonality, or (if the subject has a long brightness range) to compensate for poor metering technique -- which means anything other than spot metering.

For the former, an extra 1/3 to 2/3 stop gives the tonality most people like.

For the latter, metering, the only way to be sure of shadow detail is to measure the shadows directly. Use any other technique, and you are exposing the shadows by inference or guesswork. Many shoot at half the ISO because that's about what you need on a sunny day to compensate for a meter designed to give good exposure for trannies (exposure keyed to highlights) instead of negs (exposure keyed to shadows).

None of this is 'pulling' -- it's just overexposing slightly (for tonality) or 'fudging' the exposure to compensate for the metering. Or in some cases, overexposing to provide a bigger buffer against underexposure.

Likewise, dev times are based on producing a neg that prints well on grade 2 or 3 without too much dodging and burning. Cut dev times too far and you'll end up with flat, lifeless prints or needing hard paper all the time. Most who advocate reduced dev times are in sunny countries (longer subject brightness ranges) and/or using large format (very low flare factors). Most of the time, I find that 10% over the starting-point dev times works best with my enlargers.

As for the pro lab, reverse the postulates. Ask them what film and EI they recommend. A lot will depend on what devs they use, and how they use them.

My wife Frances Schultz has just done a piece on 'pushing' and 'pulling' for Black and White magzine -- it'll be in next month, I think -- and you may find these free links to our site useful:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps subject brightness range.html

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps iso speeds.html

Cheers,

Roger
 
If you are sending your film out make a test roll first.
Bracket +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 a few frames and see which one you like the most.
From there you have your "speed" with the given development.

ie if you like the +1 better and the film has a speed of 400 set your camera to 200
 
Thardy said:
Look up a few articles on "Zone System".
Click to expand...
Including, for balance, this one:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps zone.html

If you decide to use the Zone System, you are not alone. But if you decide not to use it, you are not alone either.

As a matter of interest, I read somewhere that AA reckoned that when he got a spot meter, his exposures increased (on average) by a stop. Sorry, can't find a reference, but it seems very likely to me.

Cheers,

Roger
 
charjohncarter said:
Rodger, those are excellent essays. What issue will you wife's article appear? I assume December, but the way magazines are one or two months ahead who knows.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words.

The magazine in question is in production this week, so I imagine it will appear in December or January. But between lead times and month-in-advance dating, I never look at the dates on magazines any more!

Cheers,

Roger (no 'd')
 
Just out of curiosity, with a digital sensor , If you shot in RAW mode at +1EV and then in the RAW editor you cut it back, would you end up at basically the set ISO, but maybe have less noise.

Would the overexposure help to saturate the photosites to make sure you get past a S/N ratio, and let the software intelligently figure out the pixel state, rather than the randomness of quantum physics?
 
infrequent said:
now all of this is fine if i was developing my film at home but what am i supposed to tell my pro lab given i have little idea about their procedures?
Click to expand...

You tell them to develop it at n+1, n-1 or whatever else you need. If it is really a pro lab, they can do that.

Also, listen to what Roger Hicks said; he's right on track. You only do this if you are pulling or pushing your exposures, in conjunction with the zone system, to heighten or lessen contrast.
 
As always illustrative, practical and straight to the point.
Thanks Roger and Frances!

Roger Hicks said:
Although widely disseminated, this advice is basically crap. The main reasons to give extra exposure are for tonality, or (if the subject has a long brightness range) to compensate for poor metering technique -- which means anything other than spot metering.

For the former, an extra 1/3 to 2/3 stop gives the tonality most people like.

For the latter, metering, the only way to be sure of shadow detail is to measure the shadows directly. Use any other technique, and you are exposing the shadows by inference or guesswork. Many shoot at half the ISO because that's about what you need on a sunny day to compensate for a meter designed to give good exposure for trannies (exposure keyed to highlights) instead of negs (exposure keyed to shadows).

None of this is 'pulling' -- it's just overexposing slightly (for tonality) or 'fudging' the exposure to compensate for the metering. Or in some cases, overexposing to provide a bigger buffer against underexposure.

Likewise, dev times are based on producing a neg that prints well on grade 2 or 3 without too much dodging and burning. Cut dev times too far and you'll end up with flat, lifeless prints or needing hard paper all the time. Most who advocate reduced dev times are in sunny countries (longer subject brightness ranges) and/or using large format (very low flare factors). Most of the time, I find that 10% over the starting-point dev times works best with my enlargers.

As for the pro lab, reverse the postulates. Ask them what film and EI they recommend. A lot will depend on what devs they use, and how they use them.

My wife Frances Schultz has just done a piece on 'pushing' and 'pulling' for Black and White magzine -- it'll be in next month, I think -- and you may find these free links to our site useful:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps subject brightness range.html

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps iso speeds.html

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom