APUG - View Single Post

bowzart · 07-09-2008, 07:36 PM

We've been discussing, over on another thread, a developer that was specifically designed for that kind of light situation: Edwal 12. It has a way of allowing local contrast to have a much enhanced appearance, "snap" even if the overall contrast is soft. Neat stuff. It was the bread and butter of many of the old timers who used it when Harvey's 777 wasn't right for the situation. It loves to make contrast. Germain's formula is a variant, and does the same thing.

I live in the Pacific NW south of Vancouver BC. It is flat here, too, so I've done lots of shooting in dull situations.

Metering. I'd be careful of applying generalized formulae. The first thing I'd look at is how I'm metering in the first place. If I include the sky in a general reading, even if it is abysmally flat, it will result in underexposure unless corrected. So, I would exclude the sky in the reading even if including it in the scene. The sky, however dull, is the light source.

If I feel the need for precise readings, I will go to the trouble to create a shadow with my body that simulates those that are under things, read that, and place as appropriate, then develop to produce the highlights I want. The aforementioned increase of density in shadow areas is an important point to consider. Familiarity with the particular curves that my film and developer produce can be very helpful. It is important to keep the middle tones out of the toe area, because the best separation is in the midrange "straight line" part of the curve. Enough exposure is important because unless it is given, the sky will fall in the straight line rather than on the shoulder where it belongs, and it would be very hard to get detail in it. If it is in the right part of the curve, chances of saving the detail in clouds, etc, are much improved.

It is surprising how dark shadows can be in those "revealing light" situations, where most shadows are cancelled by overcast. In general, I'd suspect that even a straight reading wouldn't be at all bad. I'd avoid too much low placement, i.e. placing the whole scene at z3 as mentioned. I'd fear having too much of the scene down in the toe, which would give a real strange look and the sky would rocket out of sight, since it would be in the midrange to begin with.

Play with some brackets. That ought to help.

07-09-2008, 07:36 PM	#9 (permalink)
bowzart Join Date: May 2008 Location: Anacortes, WA Posts: 512	We've been discussing, over on another thread, a developer that was specifically designed for that kind of light situation: Edwal 12. It has a way of allowing local contrast to have a much enhanced appearance, "snap" even if the overall contrast is soft. Neat stuff. It was the bread and butter of many of the old timers who used it when Harvey's 777 wasn't right for the situation. It loves to make contrast. Germain's formula is a variant, and does the same thing. I live in the Pacific NW south of Vancouver BC. It is flat here, too, so I've done lots of shooting in dull situations. Metering. I'd be careful of applying generalized formulae. The first thing I'd look at is how I'm metering in the first place. If I include the sky in a general reading, even if it is abysmally flat, it will result in underexposure unless corrected. So, I would exclude the sky in the reading even if including it in the scene. The sky, however dull, is the light source. If I feel the need for precise readings, I will go to the trouble to create a shadow with my body that simulates those that are under things, read that, and place as appropriate, then develop to produce the highlights I want. The aforementioned increase of density in shadow areas is an important point to consider. Familiarity with the particular curves that my film and developer produce can be very helpful. It is important to keep the middle tones out of the toe area, because the best separation is in the midrange "straight line" part of the curve. Enough exposure is important because unless it is given, the sky will fall in the straight line rather than on the shoulder where it belongs, and it would be very hard to get detail in it. If it is in the right part of the curve, chances of saving the detail in clouds, etc, are much improved. It is surprising how dark shadows can be in those "revealing light" situations, where most shadows are cancelled by overcast. In general, I'd suspect that even a straight reading wouldn't be at all bad. I'd avoid too much low placement, i.e. placing the whole scene at z3 as mentioned. I'd fear having too much of the scene down in the toe, which would give a real strange look and the sky would rocket out of sight, since it would be in the midrange to begin with. Play with some brackets. That ought to help.