Exposure for very low contrast scenes

[retinax]

Hi folks,
I've encountered the following problem and not having a darkroom to try stuff out right now, thought I'd ask:

Shooting roll film, I had a few subjects with very (very! Think thick fog) low contrast that I had no choice but to shoot on a roll that also contained normal contrast scenes. So adding contrast in the development stage isn't an option. So if this happens again, how do I best expose these?

I understand I should avoid placing anything in the toe or shoulder if I will need to squeeze as much contrast as possible out of these negs, but even so there's still wiggle room. Would they print better if I placed them smack in the middle of the scale (perhaps zones IV-VI), or give more or less exposure than that (occupying, say, zones III-V or V-VII)? Assuming I want to make full contrast range prints, with real black and real white.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

In dense fog, there are no dark tones to base exposure off of, it'll be all highlights and some midtones. Don't give it a midtone or shadow exposure, they'll be badly underexposed. Place the brightest white part of the fog on Zone VIII or even IX and let everything else fall where it does.

 

[Bill Clark]

There is the darkroom where a few tricks can be played, such as VC paper.

I have a color head on my Omega enlarger with filters working with VC paper.

Be sure to have a waste paper basket close by!

 

[charjohncarter]

Chris is right, if you just use your reflective meter (without zone adjustment): disaster.

 

[retinax]

In dense fog, there are no dark tones to base exposure off of, it'll be all highlights and some midtones. Don't give it a midtone or shadow exposure, they'll be badly underexposed. Place the brightest white part of the fog on Zone VIII or even IX and let everything else fall where it does.

Thanks Chris, I'd certainly take your word for it if I had to, but can you explain why, please? My reasoning is if the whole scene has just, say, three stops, I'll record everything there is even if I let the reflective meter decide, so that's not underexposure in the normal sense, meaning that tones would fall off the scale. The information would all be there in any case. I take it would be harder to print or worse in quality, but why?

 

[grouchos_tash]

Meter reading off your palm (assuming your palm is as pale as mine haha!) and add a stop?

 

[teddy]

How about just a simple over exposure by 3 stops? This works for me using reflective metering, then just over expose by three stops. Does anyone else do that? Hope this helps.

 

[retinax]

Meter reading off your palm (assuming your palm is as pale as mine haha!) and add a stop?

Thanks, but my question is less about how to meter, I see several ways to do that, than about how to expose after I've established I meter reading, because there are several possibilities for that, too.

 

[retinax]

How about just a simple over exposure by 3 stops? This works for me using reflective metering, then just over expose by three stops. Does anyone else do that? Hope this helps.

Thanks, but why? I would certainly do something like that for slide film or digital, but for black and white I don't necessarily need to get the tones into the zones that should represent them in the final print in the case of a very low contrast scene, do I? I thought it better to avoid placing them on the shoulder, as that would reduce contrast.
Let me put it this way, and in fact that also happened on the roll that inspired this post, if there are scenes of similarly very low contrast that are of rocks and grass, how would I best expose those? Also place everything in zones V – VIII? Or somewhere lower? Even though a tree in the fog is a light scene with no actual black, as Chris noted, and the rock and grass scene is mostly dark tones in the real world, I would probably want to print both scenes to full tonal range, black to white. So I think it's not given that I'd best place them both in the zones they seem to be in in the real world, there might be an optimal placement of the few values I have in the scene, regardless of their real reflectivity? Still under the assumption that I have just three stops or so of subject contrast.

 

[retinax]

There is the darkroom where a few tricks can be played, such as VC paper.

I have a color head on my Omega enlarger with filters working with VC paper.

Be sure to have a waste paper basket close by!

Yes I'll certainly use VC paper, perhaps split grade, when I can finally try to print them. But my question is how to get the best negs possible under these circumstances.

 

[Bill Clark]

Under those circumsatnces I would either get my film scanned or capture with digital. Either way I would process with my iMac and use PS.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks, but why? I would certainly do something like that for slide film or digital, but for black and white I don't necessarily need to get the tones into the zones that should represent them in the final print in the case of a very low contrast scene, do I?

Yes, you do. If you expose whites as midtones, you have to make a very light print of it in the darkroom or subject it to serious curves/levels adjustments in Photoshop if scanned. You'll find the image you get is abnormally grainy and lacking sharpness, as any underexposed neg will. If you doubt me, try it. Next time you shoot fog, expose one the right way, as I told you, and do one your way. Then print or scan both.

Let me put it this way, and in fact that also happened on the roll that inspired this post, if there are scenes of similarly very low contrast that are of rocks and grass, how would I best expose those? Also place everything in zones V – VIII? Or somewhere lower? Even though a tree in the fog is a light scene with no actual black, as Chris noted, and the rock and grass scene is mostly dark tones in the real world, I would probably want to print both scenes to full tonal range, black to white.

In the real world, on a foggy day, rocks and grass are NOT dark tones; they're light. If you try to make a print with a 'full tonal range' you'll get a VERY high contrast print that destroys the appearance of having been shot in fog.

So I think it's not given that I'd best place them both in the zones they seem to be in in the real world, there might be an optimal placement of the few values I have in the scene, regardless of their real reflectivity? Still under the assumption that I have just three stops or so of subject contrast.

If you don't want images that look like they were shot on a foggy day, then don't shoot on foggy days.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

How about just a simple over exposure by 3 stops? This works for me using reflective metering, then just over expose by three stops. Does anyone else do that? Hope this helps.

That is exactly what placing the whites on Zone VIII does.

 

[retinax]

Thanks for your reply, Chris, please don't take my inquiring the wrong, way, I'm not questioning but asking for further explanation. I want to understand.

Yes, you do. If you expose whites as midtones, you have to make a very light print of it in the darkroom or subject it to serious curves/levels adjustments in Photoshop if scanned. You'll find the image you get is abnormally grainy and lacking sharpness, as any underexposed neg will. If you doubt me, try it. Next time you shoot fog, expose one the right way, as I told you, and do one your way. Then print or scan both.

I believe you, although I'll still want to see with my own eyes🙂. I still don't see why though, as long as all the information is on the straight part of the curve. Is a certain part of the curve grainier the other?

In the real world, on a foggy day, rocks and grass are NOT dark tones; they're light. If you try to make a print with a 'full tonal range' you'll get a VERY high contrast print that destroys the appearance of having been shot in fog.

I should have added that that was after the fog had risen to form a very low cloud cover which made for extremely flat lighting, but no fog in front of the scene, so most tones were dark to the eye.

If you don't want images that look like they were shot on a foggy day, then don't shoot on foggy days.

Sometimes, when traveling, you have no choice. And while I agree that working with rather than against the conditions you find is better, I've found it necessary to at least add some contrast to fog pictures because our vision is good at correcting for this sort of thing (accepting that the darkest value in a scene is black, no matter how dark it is in absolute terms, while in the typical viewing environment for a photograph, normal contrast references are around). So the pictures otherwise appear flatter than the scene appeared to the eye. Also, as I've added above, no fog in the picture in the second case.

 

[Steve M.]

You'll want to err on the side of overexposure, but I would go w/ 1 stop to 1 1/2 over. You also want to meter off the fog, and in camera meters are often fooled. Under exposed negs and low contrast will be a real headache. Of course, it's too late for that anyway. A lot depends on what film you're shooting and what developer you choose. That can have a big effect on how the images look dispite the fact that you have a big spread in contrast on different shots on one roll of film. So yes, developer choice and how you choose to use that developer can certainly make a difference.

In a darkroom you would use test strips and filters to get the best results after developing your film (choice of printing paper is also a biggie). You mentioned you weren't using a darkroom, so you'll have to make your adjustments in software after scanning.

The idea of contrasty fog is something that doesn't really exist. I've seen some nice shots of foggy scenes, mostly LF using long exposures and a tripod, but all my handheld shots just end up looking like........fog. Not particularly exciting. Moving to the desert solved that problem for me, as we don't get fog.

This site below has some good tips for shooting in fog. Ck out the high speed shot using a flash! Who would have thought?

http://www.canadiannaturephotographer.com/fog_photography.html

 

[charjohncarter]

and in camera meters are often fooled.
http://www.canadiannaturephotographer.com/fog_photography.html

I've found this is really a problem with fog.

 

[teddy]

That is exactly what placing the whites on Zone VIII does.

Great, thanks Chris for the confirmation too. I can be more confident in applying this technique as I've always done.