exposing for shadows

<p>In my travels trough the great world of photography, I have come across a statement " Expose for shadows ,develop for highlights" After doing quite a bit of research on this, I am more confused than I ever was. Here is how I see it. I meter a scene with spot meter. I chose a shadow area that I was to retain detail in. I meter it and get X value. In order to get shadow with details I drop down the exposure by 2-3 stops to put my shadow in zone 2 or 3, so X minus 2-3 stops. Now I meter my highlight that I want to keep details in I get Y value so I add 2 stops more exposure to put it in zone 7 and get details there. Now the difference between shadow details and highlight details is 2 - 4 stops lets say, so I develop my film as per developing chart and films box speed because the difference (contrast between darks and highlights is not that big) If the difference was 5 -6 stops , let's say I would add one stop to the exposure, let's say it would be f/5.6 to retain shadow details, so now it would be f/4 and I would cut the developing time given by the chart by about 15-20%. This would keep my shadows happy and important highlights not blown. Am I getting it right?<br>

Can anyone please put me out of my misery?<br>

Thank you</p>

<p>When they say develop for the highlights they mean the paper not film. You expose and develop the film for the shadows and then develop the paper for the highlights since that's where paper works best.<br /> There was a thread here (in the photo discussion forum) a while ago talking about how this approach is a bit outdated since most people use scanners.<br>

The new mantra is "Shoot to the right"</p>

<p>I realize that it would be to the right with the digital, but then who do I tweak my developing to retain shadow details? Do I just meter, shoot and develop per manufacturers instructions?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"When they say develop for the highlights they mean the paper not film."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this context - film exposure and development on the b&w film forum - it refers to film, not paper.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You expose and develop the film for the shadows..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the accepted convention.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...and then develop the paper for the highlights since that's where paper works best."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not usually. Normally, paper is developed to completion, regardless of the negative. During printing, dodging, burning and other techniques may be used to accommodate a difficult negative. But the print is usually developed to completion.</p>

<p>With extremely difficult negatives and/or prints, other techniques may be used after printing: bleaching, intensification, etc. This usually assumes negatives that are too small for direct retouching. Some darkroom wizards may prefer to directly retouch large format negatives for consistent results, especially if they're contact printing.</p>

<p>An exception might be lith printing or other specialized techniques. But conventional film exposure and processing methodology is usually summarized as "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." Conventional print processing is usually "develop to completion", rather than snatching prints early or attempting extended development in hopes of affecting the outcome (which rarely seems effective).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There was a thread here (in the photo discussion forum) a while ago talking about how this approach is a bit outdated since most people use scanners."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a proponent of avoiding excessive development of film if the primary use of the negatives will be scanning. Scanners usually handle thin negatives well but struggle with dense highlights. And extended film development often produces more grain before it produces any other beneficial results. I'll routinely push film for conventional optical enlarging but for scanning I tend to curtail development a bit.</p>

<p>Some folks advise the simplest method is to develop film as you would for a condenser head enlarger, rather than the slightly longer development usually recommended for film intended to be printed on a variable contrast diffuser head or dichroic head enlarger. Sounds about right to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The new mantra is "Shoot to the right""</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ETTR is often advised for digital camera captures, not for film exposure or scanning.</p>

<p>I think a somewhat different conceptualization would be helpful, and I'd put it in terms of place, fall, and consequent desire for expansion or contraction.</p>

<p>You spot-meter the darkest shadows you wish to retain detail, and the meter (set to the appropriate setting for the film speed <em>as you expect / intend to develop it</em>) says, e.g., 1/60 s @ f/8. Now you don't want to capture the shadows as middle gray, and you decide that you want to <strong>place</strong> them in Zone II. Assuming the meter is calibrated to read Zone V (and it may or may not be, and serious Zone System users calibrate their meters), you need V - II = 3 stops less exposure, say, 1/500 s at f/8. So you can plan, or make a preliminary setting, of 1/500 s at f/8.</p>

<p>Then you check where the highest highlights you want to retain detail. Suppose the meter reads, e.g., 1/2000 s at f/8. There are a couple of ways you can think about this. One is that you've set the camera to 1/500 s at f/8, so areas where the meter says 1/2000 s at f/8 will be exposed for two stops over middle gray, which is two stops over Zone V, which is Zone VII. Another way to think about it is that the shadows metered 1/60 s, and the highlights metered 1/2000 s, and that's a difference of 5 stops, so insofar as you placed the shadows in Zone II, the highlights will be 5 stops above that, i.e., Zone VII. Either way, if you place the shadows in Zone II, the highlights in this example naturally <strong>fall</strong> into Zone VII.</p>

<p>If you are happy with having the highlights in Zone VII, you can develop normally (N). However, suppose you want the highlights to be brighter than Zone VII, maybe Zone VIII. In that case, you expand the tonal range of the negative (N+1), generally by developing somewhat longer (and maybe by exposing <em>slightly</em> less). On the other hand, if you want those highlights darker (either for aesthetic reasons or because they fell into a zone that would not provide them with adequate texture / highlight detail retention), then you want to contract the tonal range of the negative (N-1, N-2, etc.), which generally means developing for less time (and maybe exposing slightly more).</p>

<p><em>When they say develop for the highlights they mean the paper not film.</em><br>

<br>

Incorrect. That pertains to film. Paper is developed to completion.<br /><br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...do I tweak my developing to retain shadow details? Do I just meter, shoot and develop per manufacturers instructions?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no single bit of advice that is applicable for all scenarios. For example, it the scene consists primarily of middle gray tones - let's say, dessicated leaves against a weathered wooden fence in diffuse lighting - there would be no real shadows or highlights. There wouldn't even be any shadows cast to emphasize the textures of the leaves and boards. In that case it would probably be simplest to incident meter or use average reflective metering of the scene, and give a little extra development to emphasize contrast. And I'd probably rate the film at the manufacturer's ISO.</p>

<p>After that you might even want to add magenta filtration during printing on variable contrast paper. If scanning, simply scan for the optimal middle ground results without clipping and adjust in post processing editing.</p>

<p>With an extremely contrasty scene with a full range of tones and direct sunlight, the "best" approach would be a compromise no matter what you choose. If you spot meter for shadow detail and adjust, and spot meter for highlights and adjust, then average the two, I'd bet that most of the time you'll get exactly the same reading as you would if you used a single incident meter reading.</p>

<p>In the latter case, I'd almost certainly curtail film development up to as much as 25%. And, depending on the film, developer and format (I typically use 35mm and 120, not large format), I might adjust the exposure index to half the manufacturer's ISO. This is typically how I'd use films like FP4+ in bright Texas sunlight. I'll generally rate the film at EI 64-80, and develop in ID-11 at 1+1 dilution for around 9 minutes, more or less. That ensures good shadow detail and highlight detail, without too much acrobatics needed in dodging and burning.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I should emphasize that I only use 35mm and medium format, not large format exposed and developed as per the Zone System. And while I have a Pentax Spotmeter V, I seldom use it. I've found that an incident meter reading usually delivers exactly the same exposure recommendation as I'd get with spot metering and calculating multiple other considerations, including anticipated contrast challenges during printing.</p>

<p>I've shared another anecdote before: My old Olympus C-3040Z P&S digicam inherited the OM-4Ti's multi-spot reading/averaging capability. I've often used the C-3040Z in place of my Pentax Spotmeter V. In most situations the averaged multi-spot reading is identical to a single incident meter reading.</p>

<p>There will be exceptions, of course, notably distant scenes under different light from our immediate area. An example would be shooting from the South Rim of the Grand Canyon in daylight, while the North Rim is under a thunderstorm (yup, I witnessed that situation years ago). An incident reading would have been wildly inaccurate, so in such a case you'd want to meter for the actual scene being photographed, not for the immediate ambient lighting.</p>

<p>Thank you for quick responses. Dave's way falls very well into my thinking. It seemed to have enlighten my brain a bit. Thank you.</p>

Kris,

 

Read this:

 

http://jdainis.com/zone.html

<blockquote>

<p><em>I chose a shadow area that I was to retain detail in. I meter it and get X value. In order to get shadow with details I drop down the exposure by 2-3 stops to put my shadow in zone 2 or 3, so X minus 2-3 stops.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So far, so good. <em><strong>You're exposing for the shadows.</strong><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> Now I meter my highlight that I want to keep details in I get Y value so I add 2 stops more exposure to put it in zone 7 and get details there.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. You don't change exposure. You've already set the exposure. What you do here, is note how far off your highlights are from where you <strong>want</strong> them to be. Say you meter your highlights as Zone VII, and you want them to be Zone VIII. So you're one stop off. Then, you develop this film using your N+1 development time. You develop the film more, so that the Zone VII exposure becomes a Zone VIII density on the film. <em><strong>You're developing for the highlights.</strong> </em><br /> <br />More explanation than this exceeds what can be done in a posting. Find a copy of Fred Picker's <em>Zone VI Workshop</em>, or if you want a fully technical explanation, read the granddaddy text from Adams, <em>The Negative</em>. There are countless other books that try to tackle this subject as well. One or more of them likely will explain it to you in a way compatible with how you want to learn it.</p>

<p>It's not bad to have an idea of how the Zone System works. The concepts are useful to understand. Most photographers do not use the Zone System and have never used it. The first thing someone should learn about exposure is that light meters are calibrated for 18% gray. If you meter off of an 18% gray card then the other tones should fall into place correctly. When someone asks whether, in a given scene, a light area needs a different exposure than a dark area, that's how I know the person does not understand the basics of exposure. Once the basics are understood then more difficult lighting situations can be addressed. Ansel Adams did not have Photoshop. He used such techniques as split or variable neutral density filters, burning, dodging, and matching exposure and developing to get negatives with the desired qualities. Higher contrast situations sometimes called for increasing exposure and decreasing developing times. Lower contrast situations sometimes called for decreasing exposure and increasing developing time. There are also divided developers which can be used to handle contrasty situations.<br>

As has been pointed out, these techniques involving varying exposure and developing times work best with sheet film. If I want to I can use a medium format SLR with interchangeable backs, as long as I am careful to record what was shot with each back. Having a spot meter or a center weighted meter or an averaging meter by itself will not solve my exposure problems. I need to know what to point the meter at and to adjust my exposure accordingly. General purpose black & white negative film gives the user a decent amount of lattitude. If developing can be done in a consistent way then varying exposure will solve most exposure problems and more advanced ways of handling exposure and developing can be attempted later. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00c00V"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=502260">Jeff Adler</a>, Sep 16, 2013; 10:15 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's not bad to have an idea of how the Zone System works. The concepts are useful to understand. Most photographers do not use the Zone System and have never used it. The first thing someone should learn about exposure is that light meters are calibrated for 18% gray. If you meter off of an 18% gray card then the other tones should fall into place correctly...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say yes, except the operative word in the above is "should" (fall into place correctly). If the scene is predominantly dark/shadowy, a typical night scene, then I think you meter that grey card, but underexpose relative to that reading, by one or two stops.</p>

 

<p>The way I learned was you expose for shadows and develop (the film not paper) for the highlites. The reason being that in silver halide film, the darks develop in the solution first and the high-lites last. Therefore you expose to get the detail you want by metering to make sure that the darkest tone you want to have detail in will have detail. You then meter to see where the lightest tone you want to have detail in and note the difference in stop or exposure value. You then have to be aware of the latitude between them and the capabilities of the film. There will be many instances, especially on a bright sunny day when normal processing will not let you get both the shadows and the hi-lites you want. If you know how much higher the lights are going to be, you pull the development time of the film to try to pull those hi-lites down. Why? Because the shadows develop to their max in the early stage of development and the hi-lites last, so you don't want the high-lites to fully develop. If you develop film and get blown out hilights, there is no way to bring back any detail in it, its gone. In print development you perform some tricks to put some tone into blown out areas, but you will not get any detail.<br>

Is that clear as mud now??:)<br>

Now when you talk to positive film and digital, it can be a whole different matter.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your time. It is a bit clearer now. James, I read your article and it was very easy to understand. There is one question, however, most articles I read on this subject talk about adding an additional stop of light when developing N+1 or N+2. You don't mention that, is it because it is up to an individual photographer to do so?</p>

I have never heard of adding an extra stop of light when developing N+1. You may have misunderstood. Adding one stop moves all the zones up one zone. Zone 3 becomes zone 4, zone 5 becomes zone 6, zone 8 becomes zone 9.

 

If the range of a scene is from zone 3 to zone 8 and you want a purer white zone 9 with some detail, you would give N+1 development and zone 8 would move to zone 9 and zone 3 would stay where it was. Perfect.

 

If you were to give one more stop of light, zone 3 would move to zone 4 and zone 8 would move to zone 9. Now when you gave N+1 development zone 9 would move to zone 10, pure white, no detail, and zone 4 would stay at zone 4.

 

Instead of zones 3 - 9 you get zones 4-10. Not good.

<p>The reason why most photographers don't use the zone system is that it was really designed to use on single exposure view cameras generally speaking. Unless you shoot a roll of MF or 35 in the exposure, it generally can't be applied. You will still be able to understand what's going to happen from the meter readings, but you can't correct it in development.</p>

<p>Barry, I normally shoot MF and 35, but this whole concept was bugging me. Now I know what I am looking at. Thank you Barry and James. In a nutshell when shooting roll of film in various situation, one can still meter for shadows, but the highlight will fall where they fall and one cannot do much about it, since all the frames will be affected, meaning, some will be "correct" and others not.</p>

<p><em>[M]ost articles I read on this subject talk about adding an additional stop of light when developing N+1 or N+2.</em></p>

<p>I'm going to take a stab at what may be the source of confusion. N+1 (or N+2 or ...) development means the highlights get brighter by one stop, <em>as if</em> you had added one stop of light (or two stops or ...), which of course is <strong>not</strong> what you actually did. The shadows don't also get brighter by one stop--but they do get brighter, maybe by a third of a stop or something. You may well find--if you get a sensitometry analysis to get this sort of information, which hard-core Zone System folks will--that if you have, say, ISO 400 film and develop N+1, you need to 'rate' the film at, say, EI 500 for shadow-exposure purposes. Conversely, if you're using N-1 development, you may need to rate the film EI 320 for shadow-exposure purposes.</p>

<p>I don't think it's exactly about the shadows or the highlight developing 'first' or 'last' (because I think both develop somewhat throughout the time, and in normal circumstances virtually no part of the film develops to completion). Instead, its about the highlights being proportionately more affected by the length of developing, compared to the shadows. You can sort-of think of it as: more exposure means more density <em>if</em> there's enough developer concentration, developer amount, and development time to get the job done. Now local exhaustion, adjacency effects, etc.--there are all sorts of complications. But for practical purposes, remembering that development time affects highlights more than shadows, but does affect shadows, will get you headed in the right direction.</p>

 

<p> I am admittedly no expert on the zone system, and I couldn't get through Adams books, but I did have some view camera in school and we basically were using a simplified system. Its good to know for all your photography because the basic principals is one very good way of understanding exposure, and development and even carries over into understanding digital, Its a good concept to try to understand. :)</p>

<p>Shadow values typically develop to completion in about one half of the "manufacturers recommended development time." Highlights, however, generally keep developing much longer.</p>

<p>Thus...exposing for shadows makes sense, in that if exposed and placed correctly as shadows, their degree of density in a negative will closely approximate the exposed/placed values, given that this portion of the developing time is sufficient. After this, one can vary the remaining developing time to control highlight density. More time equals denser highlights, while the shadows remain more or less constant.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, John said it much better than I did.</p>