Jump to content

"Expose for the shadows"


WarriorJazz

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does this quote and style mean that when using my M2 with TRI-X 400, and Leicameter-M which only goes up to 200 ASA as a pre-setting, I should do no exposure compensation math (expose as though it's half as sensitive as it really is)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Expose for the shadows..." etc. refers to the Zone System. The Zone System is simple to learn and use but cannot be taught in a few lines--sorry!l

 

It is also overkill. You will find more people using a 'modified' Zone System, especially rollfilm users. I can find references if you like, but you can, too.

 

Some of Ansel Adams' prints look like crap when printed without manipulation. His concern grew from the days of horrible films. He did a great job of taming the early materials, and of exploiting the later better films.

 

Fine Art photographers usually look for subjects that are susceptible to the Zone System. Street photography is generally not like that at all. Modified ZS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also overkill. You will find more people using a 'modified' Zone System, especially rollfilm users. .

 

I agree, 35mm don't deliver as much information and in most cases will clip the highlights. Zone System has best control on sheet-film, but View camera users control everything all the way to Scheimpflug focus on what ever focal length they mount. Leica glass when it comes to shadow detail has extra edge to it's competition at it's 35mm category. Larger film format is a different discipline and that includes developing, but more forgiving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, 35mm don't deliver as much information and in most cases will clip the highlights. Zone System has best control on sheet-film, but View camera users control everything all the way to Scheimpflug focus on what ever focal length they mount. Leica glass when it comes to shadow detail has extra edge to it's competition at it's 35mm category. Larger film format is a different discipline and that includes developing, but more forgiving.

 

Sure, 35mm seems to block highlights unless you shoot a selective part of the roll to control highlights- but there remains little information there to print conventionally. So make 35mm prints at no more than 5x and be happy.

 

Leica glass when it comes to shadow detail has extra edge to it's competition at it's 35mm category.

 

Show me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me.

 

 

I don't have anything to show. However, Leica glass is usually designed to have equal amounts of contrast, sharpness and resolution.

 

If a lens has more than an equal amount of those three qualities, there will be less of the other two.

 

 

And there are lenses out there that are low in contrast that will be capable of recording more shadow detail than higher contrast lens. (of course, when photographing the same scene and everything else being equal except for the lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Show me.

 

Since you asked Pico :) Below is to be fair with VC

 

3153723643_74e03cf7e7_o.png

Cron APO 75 Asph, f/2.0

 

Below is pedal to the metal. The highlights clipped but to my taste it still look good.

4010901018_0901b0fe3a_o.png

Lux 35 Asph f1.4

 

Of course Pico, you don\'t want to mess with this drop bed tilt forward thing. This is a different beast.

5866123514_06d4049ee6_o.png

Schneider APO-Symmar MC 180mm f5.6 (Fomapan 100 4x5)

Edited by ron110n
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also overkill. You will find more people using a 'modified' Zone System, especially rollfilm users. I can find references if you like, but you can, too.

 

Some of Ansel Adams' prints look like crap when printed without manipulation. His concern grew from the days of horrible films. He did a great job of taming the early materials, and of exploiting the later better films.

 

Fine Art photographers usually look for subjects that are susceptible to the Zone System. Street photography is generally not like that at all. Modified ZS.

Hi

But if we are shooting 36x exposures in 35mm cassette you cant do better then meter for zone 1 in a shadow, if you want zone 1 detail in the shadow you are spot on, assuming meter, shutter, film and dev, are ok.

 

If the highlights were going to blow they were either going to blow more if you got the exposure wrong, or you were going to lose the shadows.

 

If the highlights were going to blow anyway, you need to be using a longer range film (e.g. XP2) and/or a softer working developer, e.g. D23 or POTA. or a compensating dev, a single coated lens will help as well.

 

If you know the range is too wide no point in using a normal technique, salvaging the cassette 36x is easier if you have not burnt the high lights.

 

The dig people have even more 'fun' with their high lights.

 

Noel

Edited by Xmas
replaced worse by better
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Testing my understanding regarding 'exposing for the shadows' as recommended for negative film:

 

Using a spot meter, lets say I meter off what I deduce to be zone III, and knowing the light meter will indicate an EV value based on what it assumes to be 18% reflectance, should I expose -2 stops from the light meter's suggestion, or should I overexpose the shadows by selecting - 1 stop from what the light meter indicated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no rationale for using the Zone System for 35mm film photography unless we sacrifice/use a whole roll for one subject, and in that case we could have used a larger format for greater tonality. Just my two-bits worth.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing my understanding regarding 'exposing for the shadows' as recommended for negative film:

 

Using a spot meter, lets say I meter off what I deduce to be zone III, and knowing the light meter will indicate an EV value based on what it assumes to be 18% reflectance, should I expose -2 stops from the light meter's suggestion, or should I overexpose the shadows by selecting - 1 stop from what the light meter indicated?

 

Exposure meters assume that they are reading 18% reflectance, which is zone V. If you meter something that you want to be on zone III, open the lens or adjust the shutter speed to adjust by 2 stops from the indicated exposure on the meter.

 

To Pico's point, with 35mm or (usually) roll film, individual negatives can't be developed to account for high or low contrast scenes. To a great extent that can be overcome with low or high contrast or variable contrast papers. But controlling exposure within the understanding of zones is very useful. 

 

When I have time to meter carefully, I look for and meter the darkest part of the scene and (usually) determine the correct exposure to place this part of the scene on zone I or maybe zone II. I then look for and meter the brightest part of the scene and determine what zone it will fall on (ideally zone VIII or IX). If the highlight falls below or above zone XIII, I have to decide where to place the highlights or shadows. If the contrast is very flat, I will expose for a middle ground where the separation will be good. If the contrast is high, I must decide between controlling highlights or shadows (can't do both at the same time). This is in practice very simple, and it really works. I rarely have an unusable negative.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pico and Michael

The earlier part of the discussion (started years ago ) talks about exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights, but that's impractical for me as all 36 frames are likely to be different and secondly I'm using a commercial lab for processing.

From what I've read for B&W film, the recommendation is to place the important shadows on zone III (because film will properly render zone III) and let the highlights take care of themselves.

Is that what is meant by the expression 'Expose for the Shadows'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much Yes.

 

With roll or 35mm film "developing for the highlights" is impractical in practice. Initially, you should make developing tests so that an average contrast scene will print well using multigrade filter 2.5 or so. (This can be translated for scans). This way you have some contrast leaway when printing or adjusting a scanned image. If you do that, you can be assured of a useful negative most of the time. There are some sophisticated tests that need densitometers etc., but a practical way is to start with the "recommended" development time. Shoot a standard scene. If adjustments are needed, shoot exactly the same scene and increase or decrease the time by 15% and see what happens. On the next round shoot exactly the same scene and adjust the developing by +/- 5%. Then stick with it. If the scene you are photographing is very flat or contrasty, there are decisions to be made as to the best compromise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exposure controls the amount of detail in the shadows.  No amount of developing will bring out significantly  more.

 

Development controls density of highlights.   Too much development and you can not print the highlights without burning them in or turning the shadows pure black.  Not enough development and the bride gets a grey dress instead of white.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could resort to using a Leitz OLEYO single frame device. I can hardly believe I was once so silly to try such when right beside me I had medium format and large format cameras. But if one is truly into 35mm, there is no better thing.

Edited by pico
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would add that using the zone system and exposing for shadows is fine with landscapes, but if you shoot portraits or people with much visible skin, you probably want the skin to be in zone VI. At least caucasian skin tones. So, how to use the zone system will depend on your subject.

 

The good thing about the zone system is that it will give a good indication on how different parts of your scene will be exposed. If you for instance place your main subject in say zone VI, then you can measure the other parts of the scene and check if your shadows will fall beyond visible or if your highlights will be blown.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

...if you shoot portraits or people with much visible skin, you probably want the skin to be in zone VI. At least caucasian skin tones. So, how to use the zone system will depend on your subject...If you for instance place your main subject in say zone VI...

 

This is also the basis for taking a substitute reading of the palm of your hand and increasing the exposure by 1 stop — and keep in mind that the palm of the hand is the same zone VI no matter what race you are. And, alternatively, you can take an incident light reading of the light falling on the subject.

 

That is for film; for digital, you can shoot with the meter's palm reading without increasing exposure by 1 stop, in order to underexpose for the highlights, and increasing exposure in post-processing.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...