Question about Developing for the Highlights

[Pirate]

I need to lean to vary my developing. I need to learn to Shoot For the Shadows and Develop for the Highlights.

I've got the Shooting for the Shadows part, I overexpose a couple stops to catch the right exposure for the Shadowed areas.

I don't know how to change the developing to bring the picture back down and have the highlights in the shadows properly exposed.

Does that make sense? I think I said that right.

I know this involves changing the developing times, and if I've got my math right, I need to add time to my developer.

Right now, shooting at box speed of 400 for Tmax-400 film, I need 6 minutes in the developer (Rollei High Speed). So, if I Overexpose for the shadowed areas of a scene, I need to add time to darken things up and make the picture look more like it was shot and developed normally. Is this right??

So, for demo purposes, if I shoot this film at 100 ISO rating, I would develop it for 8 minutes -- Is this basically how it works? I just need to experiment a little to get the times right.

???
Thanks

 

[braver]

I think it's the other way around. It's negative film, so it's all backwards: you make stuff darker by adding light and by adding development time.

If you overexpose, you're pretending the film is slower and giving it more light. To get the same exposure as normal, you develop shorter. This is pulling the film. I usually shoot Trix at 200 instead of 400 iso, and develop for 9 minutes instead of 12.

What exposing for the shadows does, is keeping detail in dark areas. Lighter areas carry more detail, so you want the shadows to be lighter. Also, negative film (especially b&w) can take a lot of overexposure and prints will look better over than underexposed. So it's safer to overexpose a stop or so. But don't adjust development, otherwise you're negating the effect by treating it like slower film.

Instead, to keep detail in highlights of your overexposed film, you use the compensating effect of some developers. If you do not agitate as mich, the development will slow down in the light areas (that are already turned dark on the film).

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's rather an outmoded concept, which dates back to the days of contact printing. .

A far better approach is 'expose for the shadows' (= enough detail in the dark areas) and 'develop for easy printing' (grade 2-3 on real paper for most subjects, an easy scan without blocked highlights).

More development = more contrast = greater likelihood of blocked highlights, so no, you DON'T want more development or it will be overexposed and overdeveloped. You probably don't want less, either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pirate]

Hmmm.... So, if I overexpose when shooting, I could try simply less agitation and get better highlights from the shadowed areas? That sounds easy enough. Thanks

 

[Ronald M]

NO, not less agitation. Less time in developer.

You will get sufficient shadow detail exposing at 400 . No need to overexpose unless you are working a very contrasty image and you need to pull back developer time.

Overexposure and over development ( longer time) will give unprintable negs.

 

[Roger Hicks]

NO, not less agitation. Less time in developer.

You will get sufficient shadow detail exposing at 400 . No need to overexpose unless you are working a very contrasty image and you need to pull back developer time.

Overexposure and over development ( longer time) will give unprintable negs.

Dear Ronald,

Same thing, in effect, though reduced agitation has far less effect than reduced time, unless it's only very slightly reduced time.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pirate]

Ok. I overexposed my roll by 2 stops to bring out some shadows. My normal development time is 6 minutes. Agitation (by dev manufacturer) is continuous first 30 seconds and once every 30 seconds after that.

So, what would you guys suggest to change for my developing?

 

[craygc]

The problem with saying "just over expose 2 stops" is that you're not really making any conscious decision about your shadows; you're hoping 2 stops will protect you. One stop is probably sufficient if going with this approach. A better way is to actually meter your shadows - darkest areas that you want detail in - then close down 2 stops. At the same time If you also make similar measurements for the highlights, then with some testing you will begin to understand how much you need to pull development to stop your highlights from blocking up.

The problem with this is that it really only works with sheet film or interchangeable backs as the development decisions apply to the entire film. Applying a general level of over exposure with reduced development is a common approach but, as I mentioned earlier, 1 stop is probably a more general amount for negatives. This also depends on the film as some have better latitude than others for doing this. while others, like Ektar, just introduce extreme colour shifts.

At other times, making these adjustments can just be useful to tame a film under high contrast conditions. Eg HP5 under bright sunlight works well with a 1 & 1/3 over exposure - ie shot at 160 - then reducing development time by about 45%.

As a bottom line I not not recommend going as far as a 2-stop over exposure as a general approach to improving shadow detail...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Everything Craig says makes excellent sense, except perhaps that 2 stops over shouldn't blow the highlights if you're wet printing -- but even so, as he says, it's grievous (and almost certainly unnecessary) overexposure. Nor would I cut development quite as far as 45%, but that can only be determined by personal testing: I'd not say he was wrong, just that it wouldn't work for me with my metering, cameras, etc.

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

I'd try reducing agitation by 50%: once per minute instead of once every 30 sec.

 

[tlitody]

You only need to over expose and give reduced development if you have a wide subject brightness range. It is called PULLING. i.e. over expose and under develop. Used for very contrasty subjects. The result is that negative contrast comes out relatively normal.

For normal contrast subjects you don't need to do it. Just expose at box speed and develop with manufacturers recommended time and temp. Result is normal contrast negative.

And for narrow or low contrast subjects you do the opposite of Pulling which is called pushing where you under expose subject and over develop. Result is normal contrast negative.

So the question then becomes, what is normal subject contrast because if you don't know that then you don't know whether you need to pull or push or use normal.
Well normal contrast is around an 8 stop range from black to white and most subjects fit that so most of the time you don't need to vary from manufacturers box speed and developing times except for personal taste. Some people like more contrast and some less and some normal contrast.

When your subjects are high contrast, maybe 10 stops or more range, then just half your film speed and reduce development time between 30 and 50%.

When your subjects are low contrast just double your film speed and increase your development by around 30% to 50%.

Thats all there is to it except you have to learn to judge what is low, normal or high contrast when you look at the subject. Experience will soon tell you that or, if you are using a spot meter, you can measure the subject contrast range.

Try it out and adjust to taste the next time. After a couple or three iterations you will have it nailed.

 

[braver]

I'd try reducing agitation by 50%: once per minute instead of once every 30 sec.

That's what I do too, but for some situations I probably should try even less. Hc110 is very flexible that way.

Anyway, two stops is a lot. One stop is even a lotl But everything depends on what you meter. You can't just take a center weighted measurement and overexpose. See the contrast of a situation, take a measurement of whats important, then decide to make an adjustment this way or that, and er a bit on the overexposure side. Really, unless you're going to make ten incident measurements or doing the whole zone thing, you need to learn to feel your way through. Then learn to judge your negatives and adjust appropriately for each situation. There really isn't a cookbook method for this unless you're shooting landscapes and have a lot of time for a shot (as in an hour).

 

[calebk]

Very interesting insights. I'm also reasonably new to this whole developing thing but from what I see, you're just ovrexposing as a means of "just in case I lose my shadow detail". Two stops is an awful lot to be overexposing for.

Rather, you need to consciously know what shadow detail in the frame you are shooting is necessary, and meter and shoot to preserve that. It's what I've been trying to cultivate, and it's practice I don't limit just to film.

For instance, after my first roll of Tri-X rated at 1600, I'm now shooting the next roll at about EI 1000-1250 (I manually overexpose based on the scene, considering factors such as backlighting, reflection, etc.) but developing for 1600. It's an experiment but hopefully it will rein in some shadow detail that I lost the last time.

 

[Tom A]

Two stops is a huge exposure correction - at least with a standard 400 bl/w. If you "aim" the meter at the deep shadow - it will tell you that this is 18% grey - highlights will be shifted into a much higher "zone" - 9 or 10 and become fried. You are better off metering the overall scene and add 1 stop over to that value. Spotmeters work well, but again, unless you shoot the whole roll according to that - you will have problems.
One of the best meters for this type of work is the old Lunasix SBC with its swing needle. It covered 6 stops (3+/3-) and if the needle stayed within that range - standard developing will give you a full range negative. You just do a "middle" average reading - swing the meter to deep shadow and if it didn't go beyond the -3 setting shadows would come out OK - the same thing for the highlights -+3 and highlights would stay within the range.
One alternative would be to go to a split developer, D76/Td 201/D23 Divided as you have less developer 'soaked up" and it would be used up before the highlights fried.
It is very much a matter of experience and experiments. We each measure slightly differently and you need to establish your own developing/measuring strategy.
Ansel Adams used an interesting way of taming excessive contrast. Classic D23 and water bath. He would immerse the film in the developer for two minutes, pull it out and drop in water for two minutes, then again two minutes in the developer, two minutes in the water and do it until the negative was fully developed. It is a bit tedious to establish the time - but once done - you can contract an amazing range on to the film.
I used to use it with 4x5/8x10 film and also with 120. Never really tried it with 35 ( rather, the result I got was inconclusive - and at the moment excessive contrast is not a problem here on the Raincoast).

 

[Bingley]

Here's a link to a thread w/ an excellent discussion on development and highlights. This thread really influenced my own development techniques, particularly w/ Rodinal. I particularly recommend the posts by charjohncarter, who's really good on this subject: "expose for the shadows, develop for the mid-tones, agitate for the highlights." Brilliant.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74334&highlight=Rodinal

 

[calebk]

Here's a link to a thread w/ an excellent discussion on development and highlights. This thread really influenced my own development techniques, particularly w/ Rodinal. I particularly recommend the posts by charjohncarter, who's really good on this subject: "expose for the shadows, develop for the mid-tones, agitate for the highlights." Brilliant.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74334&highlight=Rodinal

Just read that but can't seem to wrap my head round it. I understand exposing for shadows, but the rest of the statement?

 

[Fawley]

I need to lean to vary my developing. I need to learn to Shoot For the Shadows and Develop for the Highlights.

I've got the Shooting for the Shadows part, I overexpose a couple stops to catch the right exposure for the Shadowed areas.

What you have to remember is that your light meter gives you an exposure value that will expose the scene as if it were an 18% grey card. If you are metering the entire scene you will get correct exposure for all areas if the scene contains relatively equal amounts of light and dark areas. The meter averages; and different camera meters do this different ways. In the average scene, shadow detail will be preserved in areas reflecting back to the meter 2 f stops less light than the grey areas. If your overexpose this average reading by 2 stops, the shadows will come out looking middle grey, like a grey card, and that's probably not what you want. Worse yet if you meter just the shadows and then overexpose two stops, your shadows will come out a very light grey, if printed normally, and your mid tones will be almost white.

 

[Pirate]

Thanks gang, lotta great insight here.

Just for the record, I'm using my Leica M3 with an LTM uncoated 50mm F/2 lens and a Lunasix 3 meter.

I appreciate all the help. Of course I'll be continuing testing everything to find my own middle ground to all this 🙂

 

[xwhatsit]

I think this sort of confusion -- such as a blanket 2-stop overexposure as faux-"metering for the shadows" -- is easily resolved by using a meter such as a Weston Master, with the very useful U and O markings on the dial (U is 4 stops under, O is 3 stops over) showing the range of B&W film (modern film should have a bit more dynamic range).

Meter the darkest thing you need detail in, align the reading to the U marking (metering for the shadows). Meter the brightest highlights you need detail in, hope that they fall somewhere around or under the O marking. If not, compromise, or if you're shooting sheet film or a whole roll at the same contrast range, then you could do some zone trickery and adjust dev time.

The Weston Masters also have A and C markings corresponding to a stop over and under. Even Weston's very old literature refers to using the C mark (+1) for contrasty scenes, and the A mark for flat scenes (-1).

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Weston Masters also have A and C markings corresponding to a stop over and under. Even Weston's very old literature refers to using the C mark (+1) for contrasty scenes, and the A mark for flat scenes (-1).

Indeed, I just did a piece on 'over' and 'under' marks' on my site: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/over-under-indices.html

There is an error at the end when it comes to the I.R.E. scale (I.R.E. 1 is 2-2/3 stops down and I.R.E. 10 is 2-1/3 stops up, as you can see by looking at the meter) but that is minor.

I'd also back the recommendation of swing-needle Gossens. There are pictures of these (and many other) meters in the piece on buying used meters on my site:http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/meter models.html

Finally,meters are NOT (or shouldn't be) calibrated to 18%. This is a Zonie myth. It's about 13%. Read the ANSI/ISO standards. Not that it necessarily matters. To quote the piece on buying used meters, As we repeatedly say, just about any approach to metering can be made to work - as long as the meter works.

Cheers,

R.