kshapero
South Florida Man
How do I avoid blown out highlights shooting very sunny days in places like Florida?
Shooting B&W - question
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 5K
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
You can shoot with the lowest contrast film you can find, be as conservative as you can towards underexposure, avoid compositions with high contrast and use fill flash to reduce real contrast, but in the end only so much can be expected from photographs taken in harsh naked sunlight. Even negative film only has so much dynamic range.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I use Ilford HP5 film, rated at 400, and develop in a compensating developer such as Rodinal in a dilution of 1:50. Edwal FG7 is another good compensating developer that won't blow out highlights as well. Note, this works for me, it might not work for you. You're gonna get all kinds of advice here!
Good luck!
Good luck!
kshapero
South Florida Man
Keep it coming
MCTuomey
Veteran
acquiring some low contrast lenses would also help. i like the canon ltm 35/2.8 for this purpose.
R
rpsawin
Guest
While it is a bit tricky with a rf you might want to use either a polarizer or n.d. filter...fwiw.
Bob
Bob
DougFord
on the good foot
[FONT="]I do alright here in SoCal. I use TriX rate @ 200, I always use a yellow filter and I dev in HC110 with minimal agitation.[/FONT]
charjohncarter
Veteran
Doug has it.
Last edited:
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
For such conditions I use XP2. It is a very flat film and very forgiving. Shoot it at box speed on sunny days. If you are going to scan then I suggest shooting color "wedding film", i.e., 160iso film and convert. These films handle contrast very well.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Kshapero: here is something from down in your neck of the woods. It is Neopan 400 developed in HC110 with normal agitation, AE metered @ e.i. 320, CV 28mm 3.5 as I remember. I shoot and develop just about everything the same and never have a problem with blown highlights. Could it be everything is there in the neg but your scanner is clipping the highlights?
Just for comparison, here is another shot with the same film, same developer, same time, same agitation, metered the same, even the same lens as I remember. But this was shot with some window light and the incandescent bulbs inside.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Like DougFord says, over expose and under develop. Keep agitation minimal. Become skilled at burning and dodging, and learn to print through more than one filter for different areas of the print. Ilford makes, or used to make, a #00 filter that was VERY low contrast.
A lot of people are happy just getting some tone in the highlight areas, and a low contrast filter can do that, but it can also make the midtones lack "punch" and turn detailess white bright areas into detailess grey not-so-bright areas. Sometimes what's really needed is a LOT of long burns through HIGH contrast filters.
The shadows can also be a problem in contrasty light, and dark skinned people of African ancestry tend to have oilier skin, which can reflect light and sometimes cause burned out highlights on the same face that borders on under exposure on the shadow side.
Some single coated lenses from the 1960's or earlier can do wonders in contrasty light.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
A lot of people are happy just getting some tone in the highlight areas, and a low contrast filter can do that, but it can also make the midtones lack "punch" and turn detailess white bright areas into detailess grey not-so-bright areas. Sometimes what's really needed is a LOT of long burns through HIGH contrast filters.
The shadows can also be a problem in contrasty light, and dark skinned people of African ancestry tend to have oilier skin, which can reflect light and sometimes cause burned out highlights on the same face that borders on under exposure on the shadow side.
Some single coated lenses from the 1960's or earlier can do wonders in contrasty light.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
Great stuff, Bob.Kshapero: here is something from down in your neck of the woods. It is Neopan 400 developed in HC110 with normal agitation, AE metered @ e.i. 320, CV 28mm 3.5 as I remember. I shoot and develop just about everything the same and never have a problem with blown highlights. Could it be everything is there in the neg but your scanner is clipping the highlights?
Just for comparison, here is another shot with the same film, same developer, same time, same agitation, metered the same, even the same lens as I remember. But this was shot with some window light and the incandescent bulbs inside.
mfogiel
Veteran
There are two good routes, both mentioned here: either you shoot a chromogenic film like XP2 or BW400CN - I have yet to see blown highlights on these.... (expose at EI 200 though, else the shadows will be empty), or you use Tri-X exposed @200-250 and you develop in a compensating developer - I suggest a pyro developer like Pyrocat HD or Prescysol EF. Then , a lower contrast lens could help, providing you do not make it flare. here are a some examples:
XP2
BW400CN
Tri X in Prescysol EF
XP2
BW400CN
Tri X in Prescysol EF
Ben B.
RFF newbie
OT but I really like this place... I took photos like this one a couple of times there but not as well composed as this one.
That's one of the (many) reasons I like B&W so much : you don't have to wait for that "magic hour" to take pictures. 🙂
That's one of the (many) reasons I like B&W so much : you don't have to wait for that "magic hour" to take pictures. 🙂
AgentX
Well-known
And although expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights is a classic b/w mantra (for good reason!), if you're shooting in contrasty light and aren't developing sheet-by-sheet, shooting a highlight-biased exposure (meter highlight, add 2 stops) is a down-and-dirty way to ensure you've got highlight detail, possibly/probably at the expense of some shadow.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
mfogiel, that airport photo is awesome.
like2fiddle
Curious
I like it too.
All great advice. I've recently discovered D-23, which is well-known to produce relatively low contrast negatives, and that's been my experience thus far. I use it as a two bath process.
dshfoto
Well-known
Over expose, under develop
To determine how much, you can set up on a tripod and run a number of rolls. Then cut the film in four parts and load into 4 tanks, and develop using different times. Or, ask for a clip test at a lab.
To determine how much, you can set up on a tripod and run a number of rolls. Then cut the film in four parts and load into 4 tanks, and develop using different times. Or, ask for a clip test at a lab.
AgentX
Well-known
If your whole roll is shot in about the same lighting conditions (or you have multiple film backs for a Hassy or something), just work in a simplified zone system method.
You'll mentally divide your potential tonal range into 10 steps, each a stop apart. (think about the positive image, not the neg on film.)
Key zones are 0 (as dark as your print can go) 3 (shadows with full detail) 5 (18% gray, what your meter reads) 7 (highlights with full detail). Again, each zone is a single f/ stop away from its neighbors up or down the scale.
Meter your shadow, drop two stops to place it in Zone 3. Base your exposure on this.
(Meter says 1/1000 at f/5.6 when you read the shadow tone; shoot at 1/1000 f/11 or equivalent)
Meter your highlight and see how many stops away it is from Zone 3. (Meter says 1/1000 at f/22; you're 4 stops away.)
Add this number of stops to Zone 3 to determine where your highlights will be (3+4=7. Your highlights will fall in Zone 7)
If your highlights are in Zone 7, shoot and develop normally.
If they are lower (Zone 5 or 6), develop longer to increase contrast. (Called N+1 or N+2, based on the number of stops of compensation you get from a particular development time. If your highlights fall in Zone 5, use N+2 because 5+2 brings you to 7; if your highlights fall in ZOne 6, use N+1 to bring them to Zone 7)
If they are higher, develop shorter to prevent the highlights from blowing out. Your exposure will still ensure full shadow detail. (called N-1 or N-2)
If your highlights are more than 6 stops brighter than your shadows, you'll need to sacrifice some shadow detail by placing the shadows into Zone 2 or even Zone 1 and using N-2 developing. Quite possible it could be this contrasty at the beach on a sunny day.
Your N+ and N- times can often be found online or in some printed photo resources for common film/developer combinations, and you have try them out to see how they work for you.
This may not have helped. Or you may be working on a level far above this already.
You'll mentally divide your potential tonal range into 10 steps, each a stop apart. (think about the positive image, not the neg on film.)
Key zones are 0 (as dark as your print can go) 3 (shadows with full detail) 5 (18% gray, what your meter reads) 7 (highlights with full detail). Again, each zone is a single f/ stop away from its neighbors up or down the scale.
Meter your shadow, drop two stops to place it in Zone 3. Base your exposure on this.
(Meter says 1/1000 at f/5.6 when you read the shadow tone; shoot at 1/1000 f/11 or equivalent)
Meter your highlight and see how many stops away it is from Zone 3. (Meter says 1/1000 at f/22; you're 4 stops away.)
Add this number of stops to Zone 3 to determine where your highlights will be (3+4=7. Your highlights will fall in Zone 7)
If your highlights are in Zone 7, shoot and develop normally.
If they are lower (Zone 5 or 6), develop longer to increase contrast. (Called N+1 or N+2, based on the number of stops of compensation you get from a particular development time. If your highlights fall in Zone 5, use N+2 because 5+2 brings you to 7; if your highlights fall in ZOne 6, use N+1 to bring them to Zone 7)
If they are higher, develop shorter to prevent the highlights from blowing out. Your exposure will still ensure full shadow detail. (called N-1 or N-2)
If your highlights are more than 6 stops brighter than your shadows, you'll need to sacrifice some shadow detail by placing the shadows into Zone 2 or even Zone 1 and using N-2 developing. Quite possible it could be this contrasty at the beach on a sunny day.
Your N+ and N- times can often be found online or in some printed photo resources for common film/developer combinations, and you have try them out to see how they work for you.
This may not have helped. Or you may be working on a level far above this already.
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Kshapero: There is large latitude in iso 400 b&w film. Enough to capture everything from harsh sun outside to flat scenes inside with consistent exposure and development. While it is beneficial to tailor development, the normal situation shooting 35mm film is to have a very mixed bag of lighting on the same roll. My 35mm work consistently has frames shot from one extreme to the other. We all need to find a consistent development and workflow methodology that will result in good prints everywhere. Otherwise you will find yourself with four rolls trying to decide development for each individually by trying to decide if you want to develop for the shot made outside or inside by sacrificing the others.
Sometimes we tend to get too tricky or complex in dealing with simple problems when following the norm will get us by. We think that because Ansel Adams used the zone system, tailoring exposure and development for individual sheets of 8x10 film that it is necessary for us to do the same with 35mm. It just ain't so. I suspect that following the Kodak, Ilford, Fuji cookbook directions for exposure and development would solve your problem. Shooting photos in harsh light is not a 21st century problem. I have photos shot on the beach in the 1940's with a Kodak box camera (no exposure adjustment possible), developed at the drug store, that look good with no blown highlights.
Go back and assess those things that could have led you astray. I can't remember if you ever said if you are shooting traditional silver based b&w film or chromogenic. Nor can I remember if you are processing film yourself (if not C-41, suspect the lab as the problem) or printing. If you are not printing yourself, again a #1 suspect. If you are printing wet, you can burn through just about any density, see Al's comments. If you are scanning, make sure you are not clipping the highlights.
Just remember that shooting photos in harsh light, like at the beach, is not rocket science. Nothing special needed. Just don't screw it up and you will be fine.
Sometimes we tend to get too tricky or complex in dealing with simple problems when following the norm will get us by. We think that because Ansel Adams used the zone system, tailoring exposure and development for individual sheets of 8x10 film that it is necessary for us to do the same with 35mm. It just ain't so. I suspect that following the Kodak, Ilford, Fuji cookbook directions for exposure and development would solve your problem. Shooting photos in harsh light is not a 21st century problem. I have photos shot on the beach in the 1940's with a Kodak box camera (no exposure adjustment possible), developed at the drug store, that look good with no blown highlights.
Go back and assess those things that could have led you astray. I can't remember if you ever said if you are shooting traditional silver based b&w film or chromogenic. Nor can I remember if you are processing film yourself (if not C-41, suspect the lab as the problem) or printing. If you are not printing yourself, again a #1 suspect. If you are printing wet, you can burn through just about any density, see Al's comments. If you are scanning, make sure you are not clipping the highlights.
Just remember that shooting photos in harsh light, like at the beach, is not rocket science. Nothing special needed. Just don't screw it up and you will be fine.
Similar threads
