ChrisP
Grain Lover
I'm a little confused (which seems to be norm recently now that I've been playing with film).
I read Understanding Exposure and it gave a tip for side lighting that said something like underexpose slide film one stop and over expose negative film one stop if you want a real contrasty image with really black blacks.
Than I read that you expose for shadows develope for highlights and what not.
So the first statement makes it seem like over exposing should give you no shadow detail and just really black shadows (which doesn't make that much sense when I apply my limitted knowledge of physics), the second seems to say that giving more light gives better shadow detail (which does seem to make sense).
Now if I put them together I can kind of make sense of it all like this,
when you give the film more light you get a thicker, darker negative, with more shadow details (the thinnest parts of the neg still have some grey to them which would ends up as details when you put it up to an enlarger and shine light onto paper).
Than when you put this one an enlarger the thinnest parts let the most light through and this makes these parts darker (I assume paper for B&W film works the same way as the film itself? Is this correct, I know nothing about paper). Because the negative is thicker you can shine light through the negative for a longer period of time to get some parts as actual black (which is what Understanding Exposure refers to) and still have details in most of the shadows.
But if you have underexposed shadows than to keep any detail you can't shine as much light through the neg, making everything just look grey if you want and shadow details (I found out that underexposing makes everything look grey first hand with my last roll!)
If this makes sense thats awesome, if I'm totally wrong please correct me, I just got my camera back from a CLA (Eric Hendricson seems to have done an awesome job on my Pentaxes) and I just bought stuff to start developing my own film so I feel like I should actually know how film works to get the most out of the experience.
Thanks in advance,
Chris
I read Understanding Exposure and it gave a tip for side lighting that said something like underexpose slide film one stop and over expose negative film one stop if you want a real contrasty image with really black blacks.
Than I read that you expose for shadows develope for highlights and what not.
So the first statement makes it seem like over exposing should give you no shadow detail and just really black shadows (which doesn't make that much sense when I apply my limitted knowledge of physics), the second seems to say that giving more light gives better shadow detail (which does seem to make sense).
Now if I put them together I can kind of make sense of it all like this,
when you give the film more light you get a thicker, darker negative, with more shadow details (the thinnest parts of the neg still have some grey to them which would ends up as details when you put it up to an enlarger and shine light onto paper).
Than when you put this one an enlarger the thinnest parts let the most light through and this makes these parts darker (I assume paper for B&W film works the same way as the film itself? Is this correct, I know nothing about paper). Because the negative is thicker you can shine light through the negative for a longer period of time to get some parts as actual black (which is what Understanding Exposure refers to) and still have details in most of the shadows.
But if you have underexposed shadows than to keep any detail you can't shine as much light through the neg, making everything just look grey if you want and shadow details (I found out that underexposing makes everything look grey first hand with my last roll!)
If this makes sense thats awesome, if I'm totally wrong please correct me, I just got my camera back from a CLA (Eric Hendricson seems to have done an awesome job on my Pentaxes) and I just bought stuff to start developing my own film so I feel like I should actually know how film works to get the most out of the experience.
Thanks in advance,
Chris
ChrisN
Striving
Recommend you read through this thread, then come back with any further questions. 
ChrisP
Grain Lover
The Source of my confusion
The Source of my confusion
I looked into this thread, it definitely added to my confusion. I think I'm going to pick up a book on the zone system and see what I can learn from that. Until than I'm just looking for someone to confirm or deny the fact that I'm on the right track
The Source of my confusion
I looked into this thread, it definitely added to my confusion. I think I'm going to pick up a book on the zone system and see what I can learn from that. Until than I'm just looking for someone to confirm or deny the fact that I'm on the right track
ChrisN
Striving
OK, lets start.
"I read Understanding Exposure and it gave a tip for side lighting that said something like underexpose slide film one stop and over expose negative film one stop if you want a real contrasty image with really black blacks."
Let's ignore slide film for starters. With B&W film, in "normal" light conditions, "normal" exposure and "normal" development will give negs with "normal" contrast.
If you gave the film longer development time, the negs would appear darker and more dense, especially in the parts of the neg that represent bright parts of the scene. Longer development has more effect on the bright parts of the scene (the dense parts of the neg get more dense). Take this too far and the dense parts get so dense that it becomes impossible to extract any detail - the highlights have burned out to pure white with no texture.
Conversely, if you gave the film less development time, the highlights on the negs would be less dense. However, the shadow detail would not be effected very much if at all.
Shadow detail is controlled (mostly) by the exposure given to the film. Highlight detail is controlled (mostly) by the development time.
If the light conditions are very contrasty, you can record more detail in the shadow areas by giving more exposure. However, to stop the highlights blowing out, you need to cut the development time.
Conversely, if the lighting is very low contrast, you might want to give less exposure and more development, which will yield a neg with more contrast.
Really, that's about all you need for starters. Unless you want to get into using a spot meter and making careful calculations for every shot (and developing each shot individually - great for sheet film but not so good for 35mm unless you shoot the whole roll in the same light) then you are better off keeping it simple. For contrasty light, over-expose by one stop, and cut the development time 20%.
Try it! Cheers!
"I read Understanding Exposure and it gave a tip for side lighting that said something like underexpose slide film one stop and over expose negative film one stop if you want a real contrasty image with really black blacks."
Let's ignore slide film for starters. With B&W film, in "normal" light conditions, "normal" exposure and "normal" development will give negs with "normal" contrast.
If you gave the film longer development time, the negs would appear darker and more dense, especially in the parts of the neg that represent bright parts of the scene. Longer development has more effect on the bright parts of the scene (the dense parts of the neg get more dense). Take this too far and the dense parts get so dense that it becomes impossible to extract any detail - the highlights have burned out to pure white with no texture.
Conversely, if you gave the film less development time, the highlights on the negs would be less dense. However, the shadow detail would not be effected very much if at all.
Shadow detail is controlled (mostly) by the exposure given to the film. Highlight detail is controlled (mostly) by the development time.
If the light conditions are very contrasty, you can record more detail in the shadow areas by giving more exposure. However, to stop the highlights blowing out, you need to cut the development time.
Conversely, if the lighting is very low contrast, you might want to give less exposure and more development, which will yield a neg with more contrast.
Really, that's about all you need for starters. Unless you want to get into using a spot meter and making careful calculations for every shot (and developing each shot individually - great for sheet film but not so good for 35mm unless you shoot the whole roll in the same light) then you are better off keeping it simple. For contrasty light, over-expose by one stop, and cut the development time 20%.
Try it! Cheers!
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Ok. I'm not exactly clear on some of your statements, but I'll comment on them and you can take my comments for what they are worth.
I would say the first order of business is to just get the right exposure. All that overexpose/underexpose stuff, and differential developing for contrast optimization stuff is optional. Begin by learning how the film you are using reacts when normally exposed.
Specifically, overexposing makes the picture lighter and the negative darker. (The negative is light where the picture is dark, and dark in the picture's highlights.) So over exposing would bring the shadows up, show more detail and less black. It also makes the highlights and mid-tones lighter.
I don't know if you are shooting black and white or color. The underexposing slides and overexposing negatives thing is for color films. The bit about exposing to get the shadows just as dark as you want them, then developing for perfect highlights is for black and white film.
Pick one or the other for your first study. Trying to put all the rules into one 'unified film theory' will just prolong your confusion.
This is the part where I'm not following. Are you intending on printing black and white with an enlarger and silver gelatin paper? If so, then yes - that stuff works just like a negative. It's much slower, and usually not sensitive to red light. The more light you shine on it, the darker it gets. Modern variable contrast paper can be adjusted by changing the color of the light you shine on it. It is easier to adjust the contrast of the final print with variable contrast paper, rather than by changing the development of the negative.
Once you have getting the exposure right and can make a good print, it will be time to learn to adjust the film. That way, you will have the tools to evaluate the changes you make when experimenting with exposure vs development issues.
I've looked through Peterson's book, and it seems to be mostly geared toward digital, color photography. If you are shooting color film and then scanning it for digital output, then there are completely different tools and models you need to use.
ps (ChrisN: I didn't see your (excellent) post when I began typing. Pardon me if anything in my post seems like I was ignoring what you wrote!)
Last edited:
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
...What Chris said with B&W film. Exposure/taking the picture controls the density of the photo and subsequently, how much detail you have in the shadow areas. So, the idea is to meter off the area you want to have textured blacks and drop down two stops (this will make it fall into a zone 8) or 3-4 stops to get it into a zone 9-10 black. However, this will ignore the exposure of controlled highlights.
I think where you're logic is getting confused is here: You're assuming that the more you expose, the "denser your negatives will be", which isn't entirely true.
Think of it this way. When you expose your negative, you have already set the density of the shadow and highlight areas. Exposure controls density, development controls contrast. When you develop the negative, what happens is that your shadow detail will come into the negative within the first few minutes. After that it's all highlights. So if you leave it in to long, you'll blow out your highlights. If you take it out too early, you'll have dark highlights. But in both cases your shadow detail will be the same.
So, what I would recommend is to establish a personal ISO with the film and developer combination you're using by shooting photos of a white towel outside. Expose off of it (it will read 18% grey) and then open it up 2 stops, which will throw it in a zone 3 of textured white. cut the film into 4-5 pieces and develop at different times 1-2 minutes apart (around the recommended development time) until you get the proper textured white and you'll have your own personal ISO.
Different photographers have different methods of what works for them. I recommend to spend some money on film and experiment on one subject in the same light and find what works for you. Some people will rate 100 film at 80, then develop normally and it works for them. I use an "averaging zone system" for 35mm and a more precise zone system for 120 and 4x5. There's educated guesswork and calculations you have to work out depending on your style.
You will get a lot of conflicting stuff on how to "properly" expose/develop film. To add more to think about, there's the old saying that states to "expose for shadows, develop for highlights". You just need to remember that exposure controls density, development controls contrast and go from there and experiment what works for you.
I think where you're logic is getting confused is here: You're assuming that the more you expose, the "denser your negatives will be", which isn't entirely true.
Think of it this way. When you expose your negative, you have already set the density of the shadow and highlight areas. Exposure controls density, development controls contrast. When you develop the negative, what happens is that your shadow detail will come into the negative within the first few minutes. After that it's all highlights. So if you leave it in to long, you'll blow out your highlights. If you take it out too early, you'll have dark highlights. But in both cases your shadow detail will be the same.
So, what I would recommend is to establish a personal ISO with the film and developer combination you're using by shooting photos of a white towel outside. Expose off of it (it will read 18% grey) and then open it up 2 stops, which will throw it in a zone 3 of textured white. cut the film into 4-5 pieces and develop at different times 1-2 minutes apart (around the recommended development time) until you get the proper textured white and you'll have your own personal ISO.
Different photographers have different methods of what works for them. I recommend to spend some money on film and experiment on one subject in the same light and find what works for you. Some people will rate 100 film at 80, then develop normally and it works for them. I use an "averaging zone system" for 35mm and a more precise zone system for 120 and 4x5. There's educated guesswork and calculations you have to work out depending on your style.
You will get a lot of conflicting stuff on how to "properly" expose/develop film. To add more to think about, there's the old saying that states to "expose for shadows, develop for highlights". You just need to remember that exposure controls density, development controls contrast and go from there and experiment what works for you.
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
We're all Chris.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris (P),
You're conflating the negative and the print.
You can get a good black from any negative by exposing the print generously. It doesn't matter whether the shadows in the neg are totally empty (clear film) or rich with detail: enough exposure at the printing stage WILL give you a good black.
After that, it's merely (hah! merely!) a question of how to get the detail you want, in between the true blacks and pure whites.
Approach the Zone System with caution. It suits some people and not others. Those who do not care for it find it to be jargon-laden, windy, and an oversimplification in some areas while being an overcomplication in others. The naming of Zones was a work of genius. Everything else... Well, by the time you know enough about photography to understand it, you probably don't need it. (Puts on preacher voice): Today's lesson is The Evolution of the Gospel According to St. Ansel (http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zone system.html)
1 In the beginning, Sensitometry was void and without form; and the spirit of Ferdinand Hurter and Vero Charles Driffield moved upon the waters.
2 And in 1890, they said, 'Let there be the d/log E curve, which thou shalt also call the H&D curve, where d is density and log E is the Logarithm of the Exposure; and it shall also be known unto thee as the characteristic curve; for it describeth the characteristics of an suspension of silver halide crystals in gelatine, which men call also an photographic emulsion.
3 And wise men read these words, and meditated upon them; and there were giants in those days, whose names were Lueppo-Cramer, and Crabtree, and Spencer, and Henn, and Edgerton; and Clerc, and Neblette, and Glafkides, and Haist; and they interpreted and enlarged upon the words of Hurter and Driffield; and great were their works.
4 In later days there came in the land that is called California an teacher, whose name was Ansel Adams, who meditated also upon these words, and he brought forth the Zone System.
5 And the people said, See, he is a sage, who interpreteth the words of the wise.
6 But in the fullness of time they forgot he was but an interpreter, and worshipped him saying, See, This is the man who hath created all that there is to be known about exposure. And the followers of the followers magnified him, and forgot Ferdinand Hurter and Vero Charles Driffield, and knew of them not, and made as if they had not been.
7 After them came the followers of followers of followers, whose name was called Zonies or Ansel-ites, who read about sensitometry, and said, This is nought but an re-interpretation of the writings of the Blessèd Ansel; and he who denieth this knows not whereof he speaks, but is an ignoramus, or an man embittered.
8 Which is why those who of ancient days studied sensitometry and not its popularizations, and eschewed those books written by disciples of disciples of disciples of the Blessèd Ansel, waxed wroth against those Ansel-ites whose pride was overweening.
9 But they who had in time past studied these things were derided, and not heard.
10 Wherefore we have written that which is above.
11 And wherefore we apologize to he who thinketh it blasphemous to write in 16th century English, for it is nought but an poor attempt at an reminder that The Camera, The Negative and The Print are not the roots of sensitometry, nor an work of religion, though the Ansel-ites magnify their prophet never so much. Nor, save only the Naming of Zones, which is an work of Genius, is there much that is original in these books.
12 And if ye seek some of the real science that is behind photography, seek ye Haist's Modern Photographic Processing or Clerk's Photography or Glafkides's Chimie et Physique Photographique or Neblette's Photography, Its Principles and Practice. And thou shalt be enlightened.
Pax vobiscum,
Not Chris.
You're conflating the negative and the print.
You can get a good black from any negative by exposing the print generously. It doesn't matter whether the shadows in the neg are totally empty (clear film) or rich with detail: enough exposure at the printing stage WILL give you a good black.
After that, it's merely (hah! merely!) a question of how to get the detail you want, in between the true blacks and pure whites.
Approach the Zone System with caution. It suits some people and not others. Those who do not care for it find it to be jargon-laden, windy, and an oversimplification in some areas while being an overcomplication in others. The naming of Zones was a work of genius. Everything else... Well, by the time you know enough about photography to understand it, you probably don't need it. (Puts on preacher voice): Today's lesson is The Evolution of the Gospel According to St. Ansel (http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zone system.html)
1 In the beginning, Sensitometry was void and without form; and the spirit of Ferdinand Hurter and Vero Charles Driffield moved upon the waters.
2 And in 1890, they said, 'Let there be the d/log E curve, which thou shalt also call the H&D curve, where d is density and log E is the Logarithm of the Exposure; and it shall also be known unto thee as the characteristic curve; for it describeth the characteristics of an suspension of silver halide crystals in gelatine, which men call also an photographic emulsion.
3 And wise men read these words, and meditated upon them; and there were giants in those days, whose names were Lueppo-Cramer, and Crabtree, and Spencer, and Henn, and Edgerton; and Clerc, and Neblette, and Glafkides, and Haist; and they interpreted and enlarged upon the words of Hurter and Driffield; and great were their works.
4 In later days there came in the land that is called California an teacher, whose name was Ansel Adams, who meditated also upon these words, and he brought forth the Zone System.
5 And the people said, See, he is a sage, who interpreteth the words of the wise.
6 But in the fullness of time they forgot he was but an interpreter, and worshipped him saying, See, This is the man who hath created all that there is to be known about exposure. And the followers of the followers magnified him, and forgot Ferdinand Hurter and Vero Charles Driffield, and knew of them not, and made as if they had not been.
7 After them came the followers of followers of followers, whose name was called Zonies or Ansel-ites, who read about sensitometry, and said, This is nought but an re-interpretation of the writings of the Blessèd Ansel; and he who denieth this knows not whereof he speaks, but is an ignoramus, or an man embittered.
8 Which is why those who of ancient days studied sensitometry and not its popularizations, and eschewed those books written by disciples of disciples of disciples of the Blessèd Ansel, waxed wroth against those Ansel-ites whose pride was overweening.
9 But they who had in time past studied these things were derided, and not heard.
10 Wherefore we have written that which is above.
11 And wherefore we apologize to he who thinketh it blasphemous to write in 16th century English, for it is nought but an poor attempt at an reminder that The Camera, The Negative and The Print are not the roots of sensitometry, nor an work of religion, though the Ansel-ites magnify their prophet never so much. Nor, save only the Naming of Zones, which is an work of Genius, is there much that is original in these books.
12 And if ye seek some of the real science that is behind photography, seek ye Haist's Modern Photographic Processing or Clerk's Photography or Glafkides's Chimie et Physique Photographique or Neblette's Photography, Its Principles and Practice. And thou shalt be enlightened.
Pax vobiscum,
Not Chris.
Last edited:
skibeerr
Well-known
@ Roger,
much ado with revolutions in the grave.
Wim
much ado with revolutions in the grave.
Wim
Uncle Fester
Well-known
Hi Chris,
I will send you a PM with a link to a good book on Amazon dot com that does a good job of getting you up and running. This book was used in many community college beginning photo courses as text book and is well written.
ChrisP
Grain Lover
So just shoot it like digital
So just shoot it like digital
Alright to sum everything up in like two sentences, just shoot it like digital (how I learned photography). Unexposing = everything is darker, overexposing=everything is brighter, the first leads to no shadow detail the second leads to blown highlights. Get the exposure right adn we're good to go. And don't worry about "Understanding Exposure's" tips
All this makes me wonder about the effectiveness of pushing film though (I love the look of high contrast, high grain pushed film, if I want smooth tones digital is great), but I think this is a discussion that should come about 360 exposures from now!
So just shoot it like digital
Alright to sum everything up in like two sentences, just shoot it like digital (how I learned photography). Unexposing = everything is darker, overexposing=everything is brighter, the first leads to no shadow detail the second leads to blown highlights. Get the exposure right adn we're good to go. And don't worry about "Understanding Exposure's" tips
All this makes me wonder about the effectiveness of pushing film though (I love the look of high contrast, high grain pushed film, if I want smooth tones digital is great), but I think this is a discussion that should come about 360 exposures from now!
Uncle Fester
Well-known
I think that you have a fairly good understanding of the concept. The book I recommended should help you as well.
tlitody
Well-known
It's a piece of cake really. Problem is that many different ways of explaining the same thing can be confusing so I'll add another just to add to the confusion.
Firstly there are 4 main variables which when combined give the result. Changing just one of them may have a very different effect to changing more than one.
Generally speaking additional film exposure will lighten everything including shadows but is dependant on print time so you can undo the lightening by increasing print time.
But also film characteristic curves are usually not straight. They have a toe and a shoulder. The toe is where the shadows are and the shape of the toe is very significant in how shadows are rendered. By this I mean how much shadow separation there is. A long shallow toe will block all shadows up close together. A very short toe will give much better shadow separation.
Now when you give only extra exposure you shift everything up along the chracteristic which moves your shadows up from the toe. The result is that you get better shadow separation in the print. You can still give extra print time to print the darkest as black but you will retain better separation in the deep shadows.
But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Because you gave extra exposure you also shifted the hightlights up along the characteristic curve which means you may have blown out highlights. Depends on the contrast range of your subject. To correct that you reduce your development which effects the highlights more than your shadows. This brings everything back within easy printing range.
Then there is the development variable. More development increases negative contrast and shortens the toe a little. Less development reduces negative contrast and lengthens the toe a bit.
Then you have negative developer dilution. Using dilute developers tends to lengthen toe of the curve causing shadows to block up together unless you give plenty of extra exposure to compensate. HC110 is particularly bad at doing that when it is highly diluted.
Then you have print contrast which can be used to control final output.
So you have film exposure, film development (film contrast control), paper exposure and paper contrast. Its all 4 of those in combination which dictate your result.
The important thing is to have enough film exposure so that you have captured the shadow detail you want with the separation you want. To little and either the shadows block up or you don't even capture the detail.
Having said that, most standard developers such as D76 and ID11 give a reasonably short toe not too shallow so shadows are kept fairly well with reasonable separation providing you give adequate exposure.
Firstly there are 4 main variables which when combined give the result. Changing just one of them may have a very different effect to changing more than one.
Generally speaking additional film exposure will lighten everything including shadows but is dependant on print time so you can undo the lightening by increasing print time.
But also film characteristic curves are usually not straight. They have a toe and a shoulder. The toe is where the shadows are and the shape of the toe is very significant in how shadows are rendered. By this I mean how much shadow separation there is. A long shallow toe will block all shadows up close together. A very short toe will give much better shadow separation.
Now when you give only extra exposure you shift everything up along the chracteristic which moves your shadows up from the toe. The result is that you get better shadow separation in the print. You can still give extra print time to print the darkest as black but you will retain better separation in the deep shadows.
But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Because you gave extra exposure you also shifted the hightlights up along the characteristic curve which means you may have blown out highlights. Depends on the contrast range of your subject. To correct that you reduce your development which effects the highlights more than your shadows. This brings everything back within easy printing range.
Then there is the development variable. More development increases negative contrast and shortens the toe a little. Less development reduces negative contrast and lengthens the toe a bit.
Then you have negative developer dilution. Using dilute developers tends to lengthen toe of the curve causing shadows to block up together unless you give plenty of extra exposure to compensate. HC110 is particularly bad at doing that when it is highly diluted.
Then you have print contrast which can be used to control final output.
So you have film exposure, film development (film contrast control), paper exposure and paper contrast. Its all 4 of those in combination which dictate your result.
The important thing is to have enough film exposure so that you have captured the shadow detail you want with the separation you want. To little and either the shadows block up or you don't even capture the detail.
Having said that, most standard developers such as D76 and ID11 give a reasonably short toe not too shallow so shadows are kept fairly well with reasonable separation providing you give adequate exposure.
tlitody
Well-known
Pushing starts with underexposing the film and then relying on extra development to push low values on film upto relatively normal values. But the under exposing of the film means that deep shadows will capture zero detail on film so no amount of pushing will bring them back. It is therefore critical to expose the mid to high values correctly so that the push development puts them where they should be and just accept that you are going to get very black blocked up shadows because of the lack of exposure.
Chris101
summicronia
Yeah, with the exception that it is more difficult to 'blow the highlights' when using b&w negative film. It takes a LOT of overexposure to make most films completely opaque. Shadows on the other hand are completely gone when the film is clear. That's the reasoning behind the notion of overexposing negative film - it's easier to lose detail in the shadows than it is in the highlights. Digital, I believe, is the opposite of this.
ps, Roger, that was hilarious! I remember thinking something similar in the 80s, but on a Tolkien theme. Adams sat in his tower in the west and ruled by fear, while Cartier-Bresson in the East said, "Non, oui, non. Eet eez majeek!"
ChrisP
Grain Lover
dmc
Bessa Driver
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Chris you are right about that: the idea that over-exposing would give you no shadow detail in the negative is backwards. I don't know how you arrived at that.
But: if you get rid of that one idea, then everything else you said sounds accurate and logical. You seems to have a scientific, analytical mind! I think you have arrived at a good understanding of the phenomenology of film exposure, and how it relates to the print. All you need now is to boil it down to practical everyday working terms. The advice and references everyone has given should help with that.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
Use Neopan 400 or 1600 and get your rich blacks at the base level......
