a question about grain

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Noel,

 

No, I do not use the strict Zone System although I studied it in school. I use a simplified version using a limited range of N(+-) for exposure & development.

[thebarnman]

I've tried the zone system a few times, though that was a while ago. What I seem to be more concerned with today is calibration. Calibrating my lens with my camera with the film I use with my development technique.

 

I have access to a densitometer, so that makes it easy to take measurements. I like to at least make sure I shoot the film I use at it's real iso rating...even if I'm not shooting the film to get a certain "look" using the Zone system.

 

I guess doing all of the above without using the Zone system at least helps me capture images that's within the latitude of the film (within reason.)

 

And that includes transparencies. However with transparencies, the only test I know of for calibration is taking a series of images at various apertures settings to determine how much exposer variation to apply.

 

By the way, it's been a while since I've developed my own B&W film. To make it easy on myself, I've taken a series of test shots and sent them to my local lab. I then measure the results and shoot off another test roll to double check that I'm shooting the film at it's "real" iso rating. For example, I've determined at least with my local lab that shooting Delta 100 at 50 iso is correct.

 

Anyone can argue that my lab may not always be consistent. Though I will say that my results have pretty much always been consistent.

[tobey bilek]

Meter the shadows, not highlights to avoid under exposure. If they are true shadows, you can meter then and underexpose then 1.5 stops.

 

An incident meter avoids many errors when people do not understand a reflective meter is calibrated to a midtone. Measure a bright area, and you get underexposure. Meter a dark one, and you get over exposure.

 

If forced to meter whites, blacks, light grey, or near black, compensate from what the meter says. Pure black - 2.5 stops, dark gey, -1.5 middle grey 0, light grey +1 to +2. Whites + 2..5 to +3 for the meter reading.

 

If the camera and work, you will get good exposures.

 

If you get real monochrome film like Tri X, TMax etc, the loner you develope, the less you expose from normal, the more grain you see.

 

.

[adan]

On grain in chromogenic (C-41) films, whether B&W (400CN or XP2) or color:

 

These films form the final image out of dye clouds.

 

If correctly or generously exposed, the dye clouds overlap to form a relatively smooth "grainless" image (but sometimes not as "sharp" due to the overlap). If underexposed, there are bigger gaps between the dye clouds that reverse to a positive print or scan as "more grain."

 

On the Zone system: It is built around processing each image individually for the contrast range of the subject. Unless you are processing each image individually (e.g. sheets of 4x5 or 8x10 film), you are NOT using the Zone system - end of story.

 

The Zone system CAN be used with roll film if you have a way to "sort" shots with different contrast ranges onto specific rolls. I.E. - interchangeable backs (Contarex or Rollei 2000/3000 for 35mm, Hassy/Bronica/etc. for MF), or five or more separate camera bodies. Shoot all your "N+1" shots on one reserved roll, all your (N-1/2) shots on another roll in another body or back, and so on.

 

Ansel Adams loved the Hassy system, because its backs made it the only roll-film camera (for a decade or so, till Bronica copied it) that allowed Zone-system use.

[thebarnman]

Meter the shadows, not highlights to avoid under exposure. If they are true shadows, you can meter then and underexpose then 1.5 stops.

 

 

You make me want to go out and shoot some scenery! I know this technique works with the 35mm format (and any format for that matter!) and even better with the larger formats. I've seen it first hand. The reason I say it works better with the larger formats has to do with the fact there's more area of the film that's being exposed at one certain spot, and ends up being easier to see on the final print. From a 35mm format, I've seen small areas kind of get lost when comapired to the whole image.

 

Technically I think it's correct and it's probably being exposed correctly onto the 35mm film based off a reading and calculated exposer.

 

I'm just saying it seems to me the results of setting a certain portion of the image at a certain zone is easier to see the results than with a larger format than it is with a smaller format.

 

An incident meter avoids many errors when people do not understand a reflective meter is calibrated to a midtone. Measure a bright area, and you get underexposure. Meter a dark one, and you get over exposure.

 

Absolutely. I really like my incident meter, however it's normally only used for studio settings. When I'm trying to teach someone that a reflective meter only measures 18% grey, it's interesting to me to see them learn how one meter "assumes" a reflected light scene...taking in a varying degrees of intensities and averages it out to 18% grey since it assumes that's a "normal" amount of reflectance from most scenes...(and it's usually about correct)...as apposed to a light meter that simply measures the light falling onto the subject.

 

Even with a incident meter, if photographing someone wearing a white wedding dress on white snow next to White Castles, would one still not make a conscious decision to consider the type of film they are shooting before exposing at the meter recommendation? Would it not be different with a transparency? Or a negative? Or even very low ISO or very high ISO?

 

Maybe not...since that's what a incident meter is for. Then again, I'm not usually trying to photograph a polar bear eating marshmallows in a snowstorm.

 

I think I just answered my own question.

 

Accurate Exposure with Your Meter

 

 

The exposure determined by an incident-light meter should be the same as reading a gray card with a reflected-light meter. Fortunately, many scenes have average reflectance with an even mix of light and dark areas, so the exposure indicated is good for many picture-taking situations. However, if the main subject is very light or very dark, and you want to record detail in this area, you must modify the meter's exposure recommendations as follows:

For light subjects, decrease exposure by 1/2 to 1 stop from the meter reading.

For dark subjects, increase exposure by 1/2 to 1 stop from the meter reading.

 

You will notice that these adjustments are just the opposite from those required for a reflected-light meter. An incident meter does not work well when photographing light sources because it cannot meter light directly. In such situations you will be better off using a reflected-light meter or an exposure table.

 

 

Then of course there's bracketing.

 

I think I learned something. If photographing someone while using a incident meter and wearing white in the studio, I should decrease the exposure by 1/2 stop. I would not want to do a full stop since I need to consider the skin tone on the person and the fact I shoot transpires in the studio.

 

Maybe meter the part of the dress that's closest to the light source (and make sure the meter is pointed at the camera...at least according to the website.)

 

If forced to meter whites, blacks, light grey, or near black, compensate from what the meter says. Pure black - 2.5 stops, dark gey, -1.5 middle grey 0, light grey +1 to +2. Whites + 2..5 to +3 for the meter reading.

 

If the camera and work, you will get good exposures.

 

If you get real monochrome film like Tri X, TMax etc, the loner you develop, the less you expose from normal, the more grain you see.

 

That's a good review. I think zone 7 is white with some detail and zone 8 is white with little or no detail. Or is that zone 8 and 9? Anyway the same would be true like you said for the darker subjects while using a spot meter. I think zone 3 is black with full detail and zone 2 is black with little or no detail. Either that or it's zone 2 and zone 1.

[thebarnman]

On the Zone system: It is built around processing each image individually for the contrast range of the subject. Unless you are processing each image individually (e.g. sheets of 4x5 or 8x10 film), you are NOT using the Zone system - end of story.

 

Or shooting the whole roll of film the same way. Or taking a few shots, put the lens cap on the lens...expose six blank images and continue on with your next image and repeat. In the darkroom, cut up the roll in the areas not used and develop separately.

 

(We actually did that in class once)

 

 

The Zone system CAN be used with roll film if you have a way to "sort" shots with different contrast ranges onto specific rolls. I.E. - interchangeable backs (Contarex or Rollei 2000/3000 for 35mm, Hassy/Bronica/etc. for MF), or five or more separate camera bodies. Shoot all your "N+1" shots on one reserved roll, all your (N-1/2) shots on another roll in another body or back, and so on.

 

Can a neutral density filer be used to "compress" a contrast range? I'm thinking probably not since if something like that could, it would have been talked about years ago for transparency shooting. Actually when I think about it, it's the way you shoot and develop that can either compress or expand the contrast range.

 

On another note, even if you don't consider it "The" zone system, could you still not meter a part of something, adjust expose to get a certain look and do that with differently with each image...then develop normally to end up with images more to your liking? I mean, is that not a certain use of the Zone system?

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

 

Come back Pico

 

This thread is getting noisy, if you are going to use the zone system suggest you need to read the books.

 

But you can still use the exposure technique.

 

http://www.jollinger.com/photo/cam-c..._Zone_Dial.pdf

 

even if you don't vary development or have a Weston meter with the sticker on.

 

I will meter for zone one and increase exposure by five stops rather than four, cause I dev less than normal and like more density in shadows, If the weather is bright I need to use D23, have a whole roll that is softer then, this is very rare here, clouds normally.

 

This gets you some detail in the shadows...

 

If you are scanning this is not unreasonable provided your scanner can cope with the high lights, with VC paper (AgBr) the high lights normally need dodging...

 

I dont bother with the sticker BTW, that the U marker on Weston 'is zone 1' is sufficient.

 

But as mentioned calibration is most critical, unless you like salvaging your best ever negative.

 

Increasing contrast by developing longer when you underexpose only really is satisfactory when the scene is low contrast. It is nearly as effective to just decrease exposure, the film toe speed does not change much on many films/dev combinations, some fog more and the gain is poor...

 

Simpler rewind and using faster film when it is dark.

 

But all this is pretty subjective, and I'm wet printing. When I use XP2 I dont bother that much.

 

Noel

[pico]

I agree that the thread is getting noisy. It is a good analogy to over-scanning film.

 

One small thing - to address the question of using ND filters. As the poster guessed, ND filters will not change the rendering except in a case where it permits long enough exposures to force reciprocity failure, and then it requires an exceptionally long exposure. There is a gentleman in Italy who built a steel pinhole camera and took a 400-day exposure of the sky. The Pinhole Resource might have the article.

 

Another trick that I used in those horrible mid-day sun situations as a news photographer was to switch to a long lens (180mm or longer), and shoot with a very wide aperture to isolate the subject. Generally, an out-of-focus area is not as bright as the part in focus in the foreground. (In fact, early auto-focus techniques used that fact.) The outcome was that I only had to deal with the range of the specific subject. (Can find some examples).

 

[noise off]

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Noel,

 

Wild guess, most of us have played with the zone system, and I agree it is a practical tool, for photographing B&W 4x5 sheets.

 

When shooting 35mm bulk processing, the very best available would be a "abbreviated zone system" to have a idea where the zones will appear, but you do not have the required control.

 

As far as im concerned, the zone-system is kind of a fancy tech tool which made a wrong left turn and got lost in the Leica 35mm film forum because it is another tool. This part of the thread would be much more meaningful in the sinar P2 forum, or feel free to stop by my place for coffee and a few frames of 4x5 and a gainful conversation about zones and designer coffees :-)

 

You self observe, the film have enough latitude that you simply don't check the meter. Basically the important information here is that most CN films show less grain with a little denser negative, and we know how to do this, only one I don't like to overexpose half to one stop is ektar.

[Xmas]

Noel,

 

Wild guess, most of us have played with the zone system, and I agree it is a practical tool, for photographing B&W 4x5 sheets.

 

When shooting 35mm bulk processing, the very best available would be a "abbreviated zone system" to have a idea where the zones will appear, but you do not have the required control.

 

As far as im concerned, the zone-system is kind of a fancy tech tool which made a wrong left turn and got lost in the Leica 35mm film forum because it is another tool. This part of the thread would be much more meaningful in the sinar P2 forum, or feel free to stop by my place for coffee and a few frames of 4x5 and a gainful conversation about zones and designer coffees :-)

 

You self observe, the film have enough latitude that you simply don't check the meter. Basically the important information here is that most CN films show less grain with a little denser negative, and we know how to do this, only one I don't like to overexpose half to one stop is ektar.

 

Hi Bo

 

Maybe, this thread is in response to a query about exposure.

 

If I'm shooting landscapes and the scene is not average I use a subset of the zone system, and a Weston meter, when you are starting that might help.

 

When I'm street shooting, I'm less worried. I pay if I need to print from a bad negative.

 

Noel

[thebarnman]

Would it be correct to say you can also "flash" the film? (to reduce contrast)

[Xmas]

Would it be correct to say you can also "flash" the film? (to reduce contrast)

 

That is what you are supposed to do when copying slide film as a duplicate, as other wise the result will be 'soot and whitewash'.

 

If you are taking scenes which are too contrasty you can reduce development time or use a soft working developer like D23 or POTA.

 

Digitaltruth Photo: Technical Data & Photographic Formulas

 

Noel