exposure wrong or development wrong?

Discussion in 'Exposure Discussion' started by fralexis, Feb 3, 2014.

  1. fralexis

    fralexis Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I have been having difficulties in being consistent with exposure.Last week I shot a role of 120 and used only a handheld meter (Sekonix Flashmate). I took an incident reading with the dome facing up, toward the sky. The resulting negatives were very dense (certainly couldn't read a newspaper through the highlights) and seemed overexposed. It was a terribly overcast day and the light very flat. Since I am not so experienced, I wonder if they are improperly exposed or if I make a mistake in development. I tried to be as exact as possible with the meter reading and development.

    The film was HP5 shot at box speed and developed in Ilford Ilfosol 3 at a ratio of 1:9 for 6 minutes and 30 seconds according to the Massive Development Chart. I have attached two scans (disregard the line in the center?!?). The first is a frozen lake with a mountain that is somewhat backlit. The mountain lacks detail and the sky is blown out. The foreground and grasses seem ok. The second is a church in snow where the sky is blown out as well. The negative for the church is particularly dense. Please disregard the dust and bad scan. The scans don't reflect the negative I feel. I never scan negatives, but only do wet prints.

    Do any of you have any ideas? (As a side note, I did a couple of interior shots using the same method and they turned out relatively well.) Thanks!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Rick A

    Rick A Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,463
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    northern Pa.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    When using your incident meter, aim the light dome back toward the camera. This is usually done from just in front of the subject, but if that isn't convenient, hold the meter in the approximate light as the subject and aim at the camera. If I want to expose for shadow, I shade the meter with my hand to simulate the shadow area. If the subject is in full sun, then just hold it in the sun, but always aim the meter at the camera.
     
  3. ntenny

    ntenny Member

    Messages:
    2,282
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    To add to what Rick A says above, your incident readings might have worked indoors because of relatively uniform light; if you have the meter in the same lighting conditions as the subject, the reading will be fine.

    Your first negative, where "the mountain lacks detail and the sky is blown out"---that in itself says you can't fix the whole problem with exposure, because if you exposed less, the mountain would lack even more detail, and if you exposed more, the sky would still be blown out. You've got more dynamic range in the scene than the film could capture; because you were metering up towards the sky, your meter got a fairly high dose of light and you made a relatively low-EV exposure, which is why the ground is dark---but it was an overcast day, so there was a lot of dim area in the sky contributing to the reading, and the resulting exposure was still enough to make the hot spots in the sky blow out.

    If you look at the bright part of the lake, where it isn't shaded by the mountains, it looks like you got a very good exposure for that part of the scene---which seems consistent with how you metered.

    As for the shot of the church, I don't think it's so bad. The sky is featureless, but I see detail in the snow and the church itself looks well exposed. (Again, that makes sense for how you metered; if you were pointing the dome up at a fairly uniform sky, you were reading basically the same light that was falling on the church.) The usual rule of thumb is to add about a stop of exposure for snow, but in this case I think that might have been too much---anyway, IMHO that one isn't an exposure error, it's just a tough exposure problem and you came up with a reasonable solution.

    -NT
     
  4. phelger

    phelger Subscriber

    Messages:
    109
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It looks IMHO as a classical example of under-exposure and over-development. In fact, by taking an incident reading of the sky you very easily get too much light into the meter and that gives underexposure!. F. Ex. the mountain/lake photo, I would have turned my back to the subject and from there measured the incident light on a horzontal plane.
    Ilfosol? I don't know. Maybe somebody else can tell more about it.
    Peter
     
  5. Regular Rod

    Regular Rod Member

    Messages:
    671
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Do you have a different type of exposure meter? I honestly believe that negatives correctly exposed when using an incident reading are the result of luck or extensive bracketing.

    If you eschew the incident readings and instead read the light that is coming off the subject you have much more chance of getting the exposure right. Even better is to use a spot meter to read those shadows and position their values where you want them.


    RR
     
  6. baachitraka

    baachitraka Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,444
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Location:
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That said, Incident meter will measure the illumination. If you face the dome towards the sky then it means that you are measuring more or less the light falling on you rather than the subject.

    On overcast day, incident metering is a bliss(second example) which lands you in proper exposure but then dome need to be pointed towards the camera.

    For first example, I personally suggest to place the incident meter dome facing the camera in shade. If no shadow is found you can follow Rick A suggestion to simulate one.

    Don't give up, I always got what I want from Incident metering.
     
  7. fralexis

    fralexis Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Thanks to all for good advice, I will shoot another roll using your directions. That being said, in the posted photos, I am wondering why they are so dense. The highlights are so dense nothing is visible through them, particularly the photo of the church. Is it that it just is terribly overexposed? Or, do you think it is developed improperly. I followed the manufacturers directions. Is the negative over or underdeveloped? Thanks.

    Alexis
     
  8. ntenny

    ntenny Member

    Messages:
    2,282
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, the one of the church is going to look dense, because it's basically a bunch of highlights with a church in the middle---and you may have overexposed a bit, which of course makes it denser. I don't think there's really any way to distinguish overexposure from overdevelopment by looking at a scan.

    You said you wet-print---can you print through those dense highlights, or are they simply too bulletproof? I think that's your real answer. (We know there *is* some information in the snow in the church image, because the scanner got a little bit of texture there, but sometimes it's easier to get marginal detail out in a scan than optically.) I mean, if you can get the print you want, who cares if the negative looks funny?

    -NT
     
  9. Regular Rod

    Regular Rod Member

    Messages:
    671
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    In the absence of being there with you, if you put me on the spot, I'd say the negative was under exposed and then over developed. An easy remedy when using roll film is to expose using part of the Zone system discipline and then develop using a compensating developer with a stand or semi-stand agitation regime. Basically try placing the shadow texture on Zone III by metering on the shadows where you want to retain some texture and placing the reading you get on Zone III. So if your meter, when pointed at the shadow texture you want to show up in your photograph, reads for example 10, then instead of putting the 10 on the scale at the mid point (Zone V if you have put a Zone scale on your meter) you would put it two places underexposed (Zone III) in fact putting 12 and not 10 on the mid point of the scale, but you would not be underexposing, you would be giving the correct exposure to replicate the shadow texture. This might make your highlights over exposed but this won't matter if you use a compensating developer and use a stand or semi-stand regime because that will stop the highlights form being over developed but your shadows will still develop fully. Using sheet film is different in that you can use the Zone System in full rather than the partial use necessary for roll film.


    RR
     
  10. David Allen

    David Allen Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    Berlin
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    Hi there,

    no one here will be able to give you a comprehensive answer because we can't see the negatives and there are so many possible variables to consider. Also, if a scene has a lot of highlights and mid-tones (such as the church image) the negative will look far denser than a negative with a wider spread of tones. With the image of the mountain, it would be very unlikely that you could ever achieve the desired result with a straight print (or straight scan). Most likely you would need to print for the dark shadows and mid-tones and then burn in the highlights (very normal practice for such scenes).

    If you want to save yourself a lot of time, film and frustration, the best idea would be to put aside an afternoon to carry out some tests that will, once and for all, determine the correct Exposure Index for a particular film in your equipment, with your way of processing, your enlarger, etc. When undertaking the tests it is important to use direct metering (metering directly from part of the scene) so you know exactly what you are metering rather than the vague averaging that an incident dome will give you.

    The real key to testing a film/developer combination is to use a consistent and repeatable system. For your information, the following is the testing system that I have taught for many years. It is not the only way to approach testing or exposure BUT it is a system that reliably puts photographers (even novices) quickly in control of their exposure/development regime. It does not require densitometers but rather relies on doing things in a practical manner and relies on using your own eyes to achieve results that suit you.

    So on to the testing regime. The key to achieving consistently good negatives is the correct placement of your shadows when exposing the film and ascertaining the correct development time for achieving good separation without losing the highlights. A simple and relatively quick way to way to pin all this down for the future is to do the following (WARNING: reading these instructions is more time consuming and a lot more laborious than actually doing it!!):

    1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones
    2. Using the box speed, meter the darkest area in which you wish to retain shadow detail
    3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this shadow area
    4. From the meter's reading close down the aperture by 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by two stops and then expose 6 frames at: the given exposure then +1 stop, +2 stops, -1 stop, -2 stops and -3 stops less than the meter has indicated

    5. Process the film

    6. Using the frame that was exposed at -3 stops less than the meter indicated (which should be practically clear but will have received lens flair and fogging - i.e a real world maximum black rather than an exposed piece of film that has processing fog) and do a test strip to find out what is the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black - Print must be fully dry before assessing this
    7. Do another test strip with the first exposure being what you have selected for achieving maximum black minus your dry-down compensation then plus 1 second, 2 seconds, etc
    8. The time that achieves full black inclusive of compensation for dry-down is you minimum exposure to achieve maximum black for all future printing sessions - print must be fully dry before assessing
    9 You now know the minimum time to achieve full black inclusive of exposure reduction to accommodate dry-down
    10. Using this minimum exposure to achieve maximum black exposure time, expose all of the other test frames.
    11. The test print that has good shadow detail indicates which exposure will render good shadow detail and achieve maximum black and provides you with your personal EI for the tested film/developer combination

    12 If the negative exposed at the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 400)
    13. If the negative exposed at +1 stop more than the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/2 the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 200)
    14. If the negative exposed at +2 stops more than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/4 box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 100)
    15. If the negative exposed at -1 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) double the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 800)
    16. If the negative exposed at -2 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 4x the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 1600)

    You have now fixed your personal EI but there is one more testing stage to go.

    1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones
    2. Using your EI, meter the brightest area in which you wish to retain highlight detail
    3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this highlight area
    4. From the meter's reading open up the aperture by 3 stops or decrease the shutter speed by three stops
    5. Expose the whole roll at this setting
    6. In the darkroom, process one third of the film for recommended development time

    7. When dry put negative in the enlarger and make a three section test strip exposing for half the minimum black time established earlier, for the established minimum black time and for double the minimum black time.
    8. Process print and dry it.
    9. If the section of the test strip exposed for 1/2 the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% more development
    10. If the section of the test strip exposed for the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film is correctly developed
    11. If the section of the test strip exposed for double the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% less development
    12. You can use the rest of the exposed highlight test film to fine tune the development time.

    YES - it is VERY boring but . . .for the investment of minimal materials and a few of hours you will have pinned down so many variables that it is really worth doing.

    Back in the real world, all you need to do in future is meter the shadows that you wish to retain good detail with meter set at your EI and then stop down the aperture 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by 2 stops. In the darkroom start your first test print with the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black (inclusive of dry-down compensation) and go from there.

    Best,

    David
    www.dsallen.de
     
  11. fralexis

    fralexis Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    David,

    Thank you so much. I am going to try this method. I am, however, confused over one point. You write:

    "7. Do another test strip with the first exposure being what you have selected for achieving maximum black minus your dry-down compensation then plus 1 second, 2 seconds, etc"

    Does that mean to use the same negative as in number 6, or does it mean to use the negative as " the given exposure" mentioned in number 4? Which negative am I using?

    Also, there seems to be a variable in print dry down. If I am evaluating a dried print test strip, then the dry down factor will sort of automatically be there, right?

    Thanks again!
     
  12. David Allen

    David Allen Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    Berlin
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    Yes you use the negative as per number 6. Number 7 is purely a double check that you have really found the correct exposure to achieve maximum black (i.e with number 6 you believe that you have the correct time for maximum black but with number 7 you are simply double checking whether another second or two or three would give a richer black).

    Sorry for not being clearer.

    Yes, by ONLY assessing dried test strips you are automatically compensating for dry down factor. I just wanted to emphasis that a dried test print MUST be used for all evaluations.

    Best of luck with pinning down all of these variables and let us know how you get on / don't be afraid to get back to me if something is confusing during the testing regime or when applying in use for making actual photographs - which, after all, is our ultimate aim.

    Bests,

    David
    www.dsallen.de
     
  13. jcc

    jcc Member

    Messages:
    495
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Location:
    Norman, Okla
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Proper exposure on prints and scans are hard to judge, but take a look at your negative's registration marks (numbers around the sprockets). A properly developed negative should have those at Zone V (middle gray) density; too thin means underdeveloped, and too dense means overdeveloped.
     
  14. JW PHOTO

    JW PHOTO Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,159
    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    Lake, Michig
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Try that with some of the Foma's 120 films and you'll be in trouble. Other films are different also and edge numbers are not etched in stone. If you use Kodak Tri-X 100% of the time and D-76 100% of the time you might be able to judge by edge makings since you know the film and developer. Somebody just playing with a new film/developer has nothing to rate the edge markings/numbers against. Just my 2 cents!
     
  15. David Allen

    David Allen Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    Berlin
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    Precisely why I advocate spending a little bit of time doing some tests. One person's mid-grey can be widely different from another person's idea of what mid-grey is. If you pin down your EI, deep shadows and highlights then the edge markings are irrelevant if you are achieving the results that you require.

    It reminds me of that other old chestnut: "a correctly processed film should give you highlights that you can read a newspaper through". Well, apart from the fact that this advice stems from a time when films were very different and almost everyone used condenser enlargers, how bright is the newspaper illuminated? / how near are you to the newspaper? / does the negative have large enough highlight areas to actually judge if you can see through them?

    The best 'rule of thumb' in my opinion is the one that you have developed for yourself by obtaining results optimal for your needs.

    Bests,

    David
    www.dsallen.de
     
  16. jcc

    jcc Member

    Messages:
    495
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Location:
    Norman, Okla
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Except the OP said HP5, shot at box speed, and developed at N+0.
     
  17. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,296
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The mountain picture looks great to me. a little burn-in to the skyand the Ansel Adams trust is in trouble!I really like it Is it for sale./ I/m interestedin an 8x10.:confused:
     
  18. fralexis

    fralexis Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    David,

    Perhaps I can pick your brain just a little more. I followed your directions. I shot a scene at meter value, then 1 and 2 stops over and 3 stops under. I found maximum black to be f11 at 21 seconds. I printed all the tests and the overexposed shots were still too dark. The scene probably is problematic. It is snowing here and the ground is covered with snow. The scene had a small mill stream with very dark stone walls and a brick barn in mid ground and trees and barn in the distance. It is high contrast. I was using a Mamiya 7 with HP5. Just for fun, I shot the same scene with a Sinar f1 large format. That was somewhat better, but still too broad a range of tone (snow with no texture and dark stone wall with no texture, but the stone barn looked great). Perhaps the scene is just too difficult.

    In any case, my question might be, "What is the shadow I need to meter?" Perhaps it is rather subjective and there is no real answer. Maybe I am trying to meter too dark a shadow. How does one know what shadow to meter? I know that instructions always say to meter the shadow where you still want texture, but what exactly does that mean? Am I making any sense here?
     
  19. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    3,579
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  20. David Allen

    David Allen Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    Berlin
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    Hi there,

    First a couple of questions so that I can understand exactly where you are:
    • Where did you meter in the scene to do your personal EI test? - perhaps you can post a scan
    • What was the person EI that you found to be nearest to what you want (i.e. your film is nominally 400 and your tests would have given you values of 400 | 200 |100 plus the three stops underexposed would have, probably, given you the negative that you used to do your black tests.
    • Did you follow these steps 'From the meter's reading close down the aperture by 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by two stops and then expose 6 frames at: the given exposure then +1 stop, +2 stops, -1 stop, -2 stops and -3 stops less than the meter has indicated' including stopping down 2 stops at the start?
    By the way, snow should pose no great problems, if the snow has no texture then this would suggest to me that you are overdeveloping which should not be the case if you have followed stages outlined for the second testing phase to determine correct development time for achieving bright highlights with a trace of texture.

    Finally, when people say "meter the shadow where you still want texture" they mean a dark area of the scene where they want to retain enough detail of the final print but which will also look pretty dark. In the example below, I metered the shadow on left-hand side of the tree as being an area I wanted dark but with shadow texture (the scan may vary on different monitors of course). At the bottom left of the scene is the edge of the curb which is black. I could of metered here but did not feel that it was important to achieve texture here as it is such a small area and the detail would not add anything to the image.

    dsallen | Parkstraße | 2012.jpg

    Get back to me so that I can advise further.

    Bests,

    David.
    www.dsallen.de
     
  21. David Allen

    David Allen Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    Berlin
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    By the way, in the example image I just posted, the first tests to determine personal EI would be done by photographing close-up only the left shadow are of the tree and the second tests to test for correct developing time would be shot close-up on the bright white wall in the background.

    Bests,

    David.
    www.dsallen.de
     
  22. fralexis

    fralexis Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    David,

    Thanks for your response. I metered in a very dark window. When I look at your example, I am thinking that I metered in a far too dark selection. The scan doesn't look bad perhaps because the scanner software tries to make things right. However, when wet printing, using my maximum black, the print is almost completely black. Obviously I would have to expose the negative in my enlarger a way shorter time than my maximum black. The negative scan was two steps over my meter reading...in other words my box rate is 400 but in order to get what I did would be iso 100 and even that is way too dark.

    Yes, I did follow the steps, closing down two stops then exposing the meter reading, two shots +1 and +2 then -1, -2 and -3.

    I have not yet gotten to the experiment with development. That should be next I am sure, but I wanted to see if I could get a handle on exposure first.

    Thanks again,

    Alexis
     

    Attached Files: