Spotmetering and visualization

Ok, here's the score: Horribly-exposed, unprintable negatives: 75,

Photographer: 0.

 

I've just finished exposing and developing my 3rd box of film today,

and I'm still not 'getting it'. I'm having a really hard time using

my spotmeter to look at a scene and know what zones things should be

falling on. I saw the pictures that Jim Galli posted a few days ago,

and they were terriffic. What's the trick to looking at a scene, and

knowing about where each subject should fall? For instance, suppose

I'm taking a picture of a distant, evenly-illuminated mountain. How

could I accurately meter that scene? I guess what I'm looking for

are some tips on how to approach a scene and determine a correct

exposure using a spotmeter.

 

By the way, I've standardized on a film/developer combination, and

run tests to determine EI and development time, but given my track

record, the results could be suspect.

 

Thanks

 

Curtis

By the way, I've read AA 'The Negative' and Fred Picker's 'Zone VI Workshop'.

I am not sure what the problem is.

 

If you follow the instructions that Adams gives in The Negative, you should get reasonably exposed printable negatives. Let me review what he says. Determine which shadows you want to show some detail, measure them with your spotmeter, and then place that exposure value at Zones II-III. That will determine your exposure. Then decide which high values should still show some detail, determine the corresponding exposure value with your spotmeter, and see which zone those end up on. You want them to be Zone VII-VIII in your print. If they are above that, you need an N-something development and if they are below that, you need an N+something development. Even if you get the development wrong, your negative won't be underexposed and you should be able to print it using variable contrast paper.

 

But perhaps you are talking about something more subtle than that.

Here is what I did to get used to using my spot meter.

 

First make a bunch of worksheets similar to the one on pg 65 of the Negative. Use

slowly and carefully. Start by picking the darkest point where you think you want to

retain deatil -- place that on zone 3. Then take a measurement of one of the

brighter points in the scene. How many stop brighter is that -- what will the print

look like if that point is on zone 7 (for example). Make lots of notes on the exposure

record. If you want I'll mail you the one I use.

 

Second, carry around a good SLR with a multi segment meter and use it to check that

exposure you figured out -- I used my N80.

 

The first step helps you learn to read the scene. You can look at the notes on the

exposure record after development to rethink the decisions you made. The second

step gives you a little sanity check in the field and help reduce the frustration.

 

Lastly, relax. Unless you are the ultimate perfectionist you can miss by a stop and a

half and still print the negative. Go out, shoot lots, make notes and have fun!.

As for a generalization, I expose to place significant low-value

areas in Zone IV, and develop so that significant highlight values

fall high in Zone VII. The best way I have heard it said is John

Sexton�s �Nothing lives in Zone III.�

 

Jim Gallis photos are great, and great examples for discussing

the Zone system. Thanks Jim Galli.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AncientBristlecone.html

 

For his top photo, I would place the shadow side of the trees in

the lower right hand corner in Zone IV. The majority of the rock

surfaces I would develop to fall in Zone VII, the highlights would

fall in Zone VIII.

Curtis: can you describe "Horribly-exposed" and "unprintable" in more detail? I didn't find those words from the Index of "The Negative" ;-) I mean are your negatives underexposed or overexposed, too contrasty or too flat? Or are they very random having all those characteristics?

I know what you mean. I had the same type of problems. But, once I started photographing more, decent "zoning" came kind of naturally.

 

Have you tried taking multiple negatives of the same scene, one that would lend itself to a full-bodied (dark to light) print that you want? (Not that a full-bodies print is always the best.) Take them all at the same exposure, exposing for Zone III. Develop one, and then use the others to optimize the development time. You wouldn't want to do this all of the time. But, it might help to isolate the problem you are encountering. It also makes it easier to obtain the results that you want. Versus a landscape where you are shooting off into the distance, choose a city-scape or something with things up closer, but where there's a variety of tones in the scene, from dark to light.

 

Forget the 35mm camera that you've been using. Leave it home. It might influence your decisions. No automatic camera can zone for you.

 

If you wouldn't mind, some questions:

 

1] What film/developer combination are you using? What's the stated ASA and what ASA did you obtain from your tests?

 

2] What are you doing to maintain consistent film development? For example, are you using a water bath during film development?

 

3] What are the times at which you arrived for N, N+1, N-1, N-2, N-2. Or, those times that you've obtained?

 

4] Are you using, or do you have access to a densitometer? If so, what are your readings for a Zone III and a Zone VIII?

 

5] What paper are you using during your tests? At some point, you need to determine what you want to have for a Zone VII or VIII. (And for a Zone III.) What paper did you use to accomplish this task? If it was VC paper, what contrast did you use? If VC, how does your enlarger work to obtain different contrast grades? Is it through the use of filters? My enlarger is infinitely variable over contrast grades without any indication of a grade "2". So, I used Gallerie Grade 3 for this part of my tests. (Gallerie grade 2 tends to be a bit soft, and I like using slightly higher contrast grade papers. So, I chose Gallerie Grade 3.) Then, I select the contrast on VC that gives me the best results. I don't use much more than about a two grade span when I print.

 

6] What process do you use in exposing for Zone III? I determine the area in the scene that I want for Zone III, I meter it, and then I expose by reducing the exposure by two stops from the reading that I obtained on the meter. How do you do this?

Curtis - if there is a trick it is simply judgement in placing the low values and experience in evaluating contrast. But how do you develop judgement and experience. Through feedback. And Polaroid provides instant (almost) feedback and that is exactly what you need right now. Exposure problems become immediately obvious and if you use Type 55, development issues are eliminated. Because 55 is such a short scale film it will quickly help you anticipate contrast problems. Buy, borrow, rent or steal a holder and go to it!

As someone else mentioned, for a scene that you intend to print normally I'd suggest placing the darkest area in which you want detail on Zone IV rather than Zone III. For me, using Zone III led to underexposed negatives much of the time.

 

Also, you don't need to meter eighteen different things in the scene. To determine exposure just look around, see what important area in the scene looks the darkest, meter it, if there is another dark area or two meter them, see which is the darkest. Place it on Zone IV (i.e. one stop down from the meter reading) and proceed to meter the brightest important area.

 

In determining exposure (i.e. in placing the shadow area) be sure that you select the darkest IMPORTANT area in the scene, not necessarily the darkest area. For example, if you're photographing a grouping of rocks there usually will be black or almost black crevices between them. The crevices usually aren't important in determining exposure, it's the rocks in which you're interested. Ignore the crevices, they may be on Zone I or II, it doesn't matter, the crevices will just show up as accent blacks in the print which is fine, it's the darkest rock or the darkest portion of an important rock in which you're interested for exposure purposes. Or you're photographing trees in a forest, one of the trees has a small patch of black on it, the rest are dark but not black. Ignore the black patch (probably), meter the darkest area of bark on the darkest tree and place it on Zone IV (assuming you intend to make a normal as opposed to a high key or low key print) because the small black area or areas on one of the trees probably isn't important.

 

Sometimes from reading about the zone system you'd think you were aiming for absolute precision and perfection. The zone system doesn't give you that, all the zone system does is give you a negative that puts you in the general ballpark of where you want to be but, to quote John Sexton again, it's the "zone system," not the "pin point system." The whole thing is a fiction, film doesn't really have only ten zones separated by one stop each, it has an almost infinite number of zones if you were to count each possible change in density as a zone. But doing that would be unnecessarily complex and also pointless since, among other reasons, lenses don't have an infinite number of stops. So the fiction of film having ten zones, each separated by a single stop, was created. But it is a fiction. Everything in a single zone doesn't have the same density. Just as New York city and Albany are both in the same state but are hundreds of miles apart, so there are different densities within a single zone (e.g. a low zone IV is quite a lot thinner than a high Zone IV but we call both "Zone IV") and there is very little difference in density between say a low Zone IV and a high Zone III. All of which is just intended to suggest that you not get too obsessed with all this, he zone system is just a guide, not a topo map.

Brian, actually Adams didn't even claim there to be 10 distinct values - that is why they are called zones. One zone consists of different densities or gray shades and Adams clearly pointed this in his books (The Negative, page 52). So Zone system, if corrctly understood, is not fiction at all. Basically this means (as Adams said) that when we place something on Zone V, we place it _in the middle of Zone V_. This means, of course, that the difference between high Zone IV and low Zone V is (or actually approaches) zero. Of course one can use half or third or tenth zones if needed.

 

In a nutshell Adams' Zone System is a way to fit a 10 stop subject luminance range to cover all paper densities and to be able to anticipate the print values during exposure. And different luminance ranges can be handled via development.

Curtis, I took Bruce Barnbaum,s workshop about 10 yrs ago and it made all the difference in the world. If you can't take the workshop I strongly suggest that you buy his book and read it carefully. The Art of Photography, An Approach to Personal Expression. ISBN 0-7872-6316-8. Be patient, it does take time and effort. Good luck. Guy Boily.

www.guyboily.com

Hi Curtis,

 

Your use of the spot meter reminds me of my first try with mine. I had been using a Nikon FM and was getting good results. Made the move up to 4x5 and found I was at a complete loss to understand what those little numbers were and how to use them (Pentax digital spot). It has taken some time for me to realize how simple this fiendish device is to use.

 

All of this blather will be used to represent a landscape's light. Do not think this will work in a studio setting (light falls off, inverse square law, technical things at work, blah, blah, blah). Use an exposure sheet to write down the information. Mine has a row across the top with zones and a column at the left for different things (cactus, north sky, gray card, plam, rocks, shadows, trees, etc.)

 

My first suggestion is to meter a gray card. Place it exactly in the correct attitude to be in line with the lens and at the subject's relative location in the print. Turn the card to represent the type of light being photographed on the subject. Does it face the sky? Is it in full sun or shade? Make sure you are not exposing for a reflection or glare, but of the light falling on the subject. Remember, the card can be used in a near location, even if your subject is far away (outdoor light). Far away shadow, just find a near shadow to use, far away bright light, use a near bright area to place the card at the correct angle.

 

Now that the subject has this exposure, how the heck do you use it and what does it all mean? Look at the relative difference between the card (your subject) and those parts of the scene which are brighter than zone V and lower than zone V. That snow glinting at the top of the peak is probably the brightest spot. Which zone is it, mark it down. The river in full light is not as bright, the trees are bright, but they are darker than the snow. The trees in shadow are much darker than the river, the snow, the sunlit trees or the sandy banks. Make a note of the values of each of these things and the zone they should fall on in the final print.

 

Now you have the hard part. You have to decide where to place that subject, make the exposure and translate it into the actual print. I normally use zone V on the gray card to fall on zone V in the print. Any variation from this point onward will change highlights and shadows. Which one is more important in your print (and please don't say both or I will just get confused again).

Remember, you already have the shadow values well placed in this shot because you have the correct film speed worked out from previous tests (I say, you do have that correct film speed in this shot, don't you?). You have zone V already as well, because your tests reflect the correct developing time to get that zone V in the print. The only thing left is the high values. Don't even bother to alter development times yet on this shot, because the tests you have done have given a result for high values.

 

Now, process the film and do a proof sheet with the unexposed edge of the film printing as true black (zone -0-). Compare your notes with the proof sheet and the values of the print against the notes you made and your zone chart. I use a Stouffer strip because I don't have a densitometer.

 

Congratulate yourself. Drink a beer and reflect on the soothing qualities of the zone system, the miracle of light captured on a strip of film rendered on paper and the miraculous composition of your creation (Ansel, eat your heart out). Look at the drama, mood, and emotion.

 

1) Film speed = shadow detail (unaffected by developmemt)

 

2) Exposure = all values in the scene on the film

 

3) Development = high values falling as placed

 

4) Print = this representation of the film, which cannot possibly retain all of the values in the scene anyway, on a piece of paper (but we do it anyway).

Curtis,

 

I would suggest that you start by taking an incident light reading of the scene that you plan to photograph. The incident reading will probably be fairly close to the exposure that you end up using and will give you a useful gage. If further metering produces an exposure that is very different from the incident reading, them something may be amiss.

 

Once you have a basic incident reading you can start to meter the shadows and brightest areas in the scene. These data, when processed in the computer behind the camera, will almost always result in a well exposed negative. It is important to understand that some scenes have an illumination range that is beyond the capability of most films. In that case, you will have to decide which end of the light range to give up.

 

Good luck,

 

Joe Stephenson

Hi Curtis,

 

Since there are so many places where things that can go wrong, please provide more details: spotmeter readings, zones where the readings where placed, aperture and shutter speed, any filters used, film and developer used, development time and temp, development method. I'm sure there is a sensible explanation.

Apologies in advance if any of this is insultingly obvious to you but aproaching the problem from a different angle to the excellent answers you have already had...

 

Are you sure it is the negatives that are the problem, or is it your printing skills (or scanning, Photoshop skills and type of printer you are using if digital) that are causing you problems?

 

When you calculated your EI, did it come out somewhere between the manufacturer's ISO rating and half that value (one stop lower)? If not, you probably have the wrong EI.

 

When you measured your personal N value for development did the time come out somewhere between 15% and 35% less than the recommended time? If not, you probably have your N time incorrect. Ensure your processing time & temperature & agitation style are correct and consistent.

 

If all the above look OK, then at least you have dismissed two sets of variables. If wildly out, try rating the film at 2/3 of a stop lower than recommended and develop for 20% less than recommended by the manufacturers - that should get you in the general ballpark for the correct EI and N development time. If you still get "rubbish" negs, then it is indeed most likely your metering, so try out the suggestions already made above. I certainly still get caught every time I go out after about a year at this game, but that is usally forgetting to add filter factors or similar self-inflicted stupidities.

 

Good luck,

Curtis - �By the way, I've read The 'Zone Workshop'� - perhaps you should not.

Forget about your spot meter, just take average metering, expose and process accordingly. Do not worry about the �zones�. Shoot few negatives at one time and make notes. Gradually your work will improve.

 

 

--- This is another forum of 12 �zone� experts so far, but only 3 have decided to show us any photos. Long live the theory!

Hi Curtis. First, let me offer my sympathies for what must be an unfuriatingly frustrating process. Second, I must confess to some bewilderment as to how such circumstances are possible. It seems to me that within a 75 exposure series, there must be some negatives that were at least accidently exposed correctly. I am no zonie, by any means, but I do respect the theory, and the logic behind it. That being said, I suggest that you leave your meter home and use the sunny 16 rule for exposure and manufacturer's recomendations for development. Blasphemy? I don't think so. If you apply the same logic that spawned the zone sysytem, you will see the number of variables that this approach eliminates. Next, perform the max black paper printing test to determine your basic printing time with your paper/ developer/enlarger combination. This will give you a benchmark by which your negatives can be judged independently of any metering technique/zone placements. If you're not aware of this test, I will be glad to describe it in greater detail privately. From this point forward, all you should need to do is fine tune your process based on the feedback you get from your basic printing time. Keep good notes and proceed in a logical, methodical manner and your printing problems will disappear. As for your metering technique, it will be much more manageable once you have a benchmark. I know this might sound like heresy to an adherent of the zone system, but before you dismiss the suggestion, think it through in zone sytem terms, and I think you'll find it simply a more intuitive back door approach to the same ends; scaling your negatives to your paper. There are some real advantages to going backwards from paper to negative, and the sunny 16 rule has been the standard since sun met f/stop. Good luck and "endeavor to percevere".

I feel a need to reinforce. You are on the right track! You should indeed be using a spotmeter to read reflected light. Perhaps through this exchange, you can determine why you are not getting the results you want.

Curtis it's back to the basics. Shoot the film at it's rated speed regardless of

your testing using either an incident meter or a reflective reading, or if you

must spot meter, meter something green; Don't compensate the reading.

Develope it according to the chart in The Film Developiing Cookbook for your

developer and don't over agitate. Personally Diafine is quite good for idiot

proof developing since you have a wide temp range to use. If you get a neg

that can't be printed I'd be astounded and say your developing procedure is

wrong or you have a real bad light leak effecting the whole neg. Btw, bracket

your exposure's so you don't have to do it again. Let us know what happens.

 

You can always spot meter a clear north sky for zone V or meter the brighest

and darkest and average. You might not get a perfect neg but you'll get a

printable one. Second thought, maybe your negs are for PT/PD ( ^ : and you

didn't know it!

Thanks to everyone who contributed an answer. I went nack at it again today with a renewed committment to doing things right. I just finished developing a couple of negatives and things are looking better.

 

To answer a previous question, not every one of the 75 was a complete flop, but the 'good' shots are definately in the minority.

 

Thanks again for everyone's help.

Curtis, don't hang up yet ;) Good that the results are now better. But I just would like to know what actually was wrong with your negatives and what did you do to change it?

Curtis, learning how to recognize the tonal values in a scene does take some practice. Here is a simple solution. Take a 18% gray card and meter on it and see what value your meter assigns it. Then look and see if there is something in the scene that looks to be the same tonal range. Meter that and see if has the same value that the gray card had. If so then the gray card and that tonal range will represent zone v. Then start metering the highlights and shadow areas in the scene. The different areas in the scene will increase or decrease compared to the gray card reading. An increase/decrease of one full number is the change in one zone. Two full numbers is two zones and so forth. After awhile and practice you will learn to recognize the difference in the tonal ranges. Good luck and happy shooting.

I'm still learning to see things in terms of what zone they fall in, especially the middle areas IV-V-VI. I find that it helps me to stay in the ballpark if I take an incident reading before I start spot metering, just as a check on myself.