Jump to content

"You have to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"


10988495

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes. It was.

The saying (was) repeated, written and quoted regularly.

The saying was especially very popular with those advocates of the Zone System.

Researching Ansel Adams would provide much information from background to fine detail.

 

Note well: The mantra found its place in regard to Film Photography and Film Development.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also depended on whether you were shooting transparencies (more like the positive digital images) or negative film (where the verse is more appropriate).

 

If you burn out the highlights in slide film or digital, there's little chance of recovery, where detail in shadow areas can often be recovered in processing or printing.

 

AS opposed to film, for digital you need to do the OZONE system (LINK)

Edited by JDMvW
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an old saying, easy to say, difficult to do. Now for the rest of the story: Todays films are sensitive to all colors, thus they are called panchromatic. Pan is prefix meaning all. When developing pan film, you are advised to work in total darkness. An exception, a dim green safelight can be used briefly. In the ancient past, we could develop under bright red light because early films were insensitive to red.

 

We developed those films in a tray and watched as the image appeared and blossomed. This is called developing by inspection. We benefited because if the film was over or under exposed, we could compensate by adjusting the time in the developer.

 

Another benefit is, we could purposely under or over expose and then adjust the developing time to compensate. Actually there is method to this madness, over developing negative film grant more contrast and underdeveloped negatve film loweres contract.

 

This cliché should actually read,, “adjust the ISO to suit the scale of tones presented by the subject and then use developing time minuplication to custom adjust the material's contrast.

 

All this is easy to say, difficult to do. In other words the art of manipulating film contrast has a steep learning curve. Nowadays, with pan film, the curve is super steep.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“adjust the ISO to suit the scale of tones presented by the subject and then use developing time minuplication to custom adjust the material's contrast.

 

Perhaps the automatic mode in a digital camera could indicate the ISO to use for a film shot of the same scene ? Example: If the film was 100 ASA, and 80 ISO came up in the digital camera, set the film camera's light meter to 80 ASA ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot adjust the ISO of a film! It's baked in during manufacture, as can be seen by examination of any published set of characteristic curves. To suggest otherwise to a beginner is just confusing and plain wrong!

 

All that can be altered is the exposure. Giving more exposure does not reduce the film's ISO speed, and conversely, giving less exposure does not increase its speed. See example curves below.

 

Whole point of the "develop for the highlights" part of the mantra is to emphasise the control of contrast that changing the development time enables.

 

For example: A 'short scale' or low-contrast subject may have only 5 stops of brightness from shadow to highlight - say, a charcoal drawing flatly lit. In this case an exposure would be chosen that retains the texture in the darkest parts of the drawing, while the development might be increased to give a good printable density to the paper base of the drawing.

OTOH, a sunlit landscape might have a 9 or 10 stop brightness range at the film*, and would need the development to be shortened, or 'pulled' to keep the highlights from becoming too dense to print easily.

 

In neither case would the ISO speed of the film be altered in the slightest. Otherwise it would make a near-impossible juggling act out of metering the exposure and giving the correct development.

 

And none of the above matters a jot if you shoot RAW with a digital camera.

 

Trix1.jpg.8f56a35027d12f31936ee57f8f874f15.jpg

If the film speed were to actually change with development time, then the blue curve would be displaced to the left of the graph - left on the X axis is more sensitive, right is less sensitive. As it is, the 'toe' of both curves come together at the same point; showing that the film speed stays the same. However, the steeper slope of the 12 minute development indicates a higher contrast.

 

*The brightness range at the film plane is what matters, since camera and lens flare will reduce the metered real-world brightness range.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot adjust the ISO of a film! It's baked in during manufacture, as can be seen by examination of any published set of characteristic curves. To suggest otherwise to a beginner is just confusing and plain wrong!

 

All that can be altered is the exposure. Giving more exposure does not reduce the film's ISO speed, and conversely, giving less exposure does not increase its speed. See example curves below.

 

So possibly Alan means to select the right film for the job in progress (a film of the right ASA for the range of tones). It does get confusing when countless amateurs on the internet personally prefer to shoot a film of a given speed, at a slower film speed, and what makes it even more confusing is that their preferred lower film speeds vary two or three stops. There's no consistency in all the personal preferences. So you've made up my mind Joe, I'll go with the correct film for a particular job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we done re-arranging the deck chairs?

 

For that matter, what is now called the ISO has been changed over the years as the variables used to determine it have been re-examined.

 

To be "perfectly" correct, of course, the adjusted speed should be called E.I. (Exposure index), but in the great scheme of things it really doesn't matter much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does get confusing when countless amateurs on the internet personally prefer to shoot a film of a given speed, at a slower film speed, and what makes it even more confusing is that their preferred lower film speeds vary two or three stops.

Two stops (effectively) of overexposure is a lot, three is ridiculous. Same with so-called 'pushing'.

 

Kodak's published curves for T-Max and Tri-X show that over the entire set of given development times, there's only a change of around -20/+25% in film speed - using the ISO parameter of 0.1D over base+fog for the 'speed point'.

The numbers don't lie.

 

The whole film use scene now appears to be populated by convention-deniers that would rather believe an internet myth than a shelf-full of published text books. It's especially sad and worrying when a YouTube video by some half-wit who's been using film for all of 5 minutes is given as much weight and respect as, say, Ansel Adams and John Sexton or the technical teams of Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and Ilford.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that matter, what is now called the ISO has been changed over the years as the variables used to determine it have been re-examined.

Last major minor revision was in 1963, I believe. And Weston speeds before that, dating back to the 1940s, only varied from ASA by one-third of a stop. So isn't 80 years long enough for a truth to sink in?

 

Those deck chairs have been unofficially shuffled for far too long!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion! I only know digital so please correct me if I'm wrong - or at least have too little knowledge to understand the discussion. I know that film reacts differently to a digital sensor. I also strongly suspect that a RAW digital image has more more scope for PP than a digitized film image. But I'm not sure about this.

What I've picked up so far:

Point 1: The exposure should (ideally) match the intended photo w.r.t. high contrast, low contrast, overblown highlights or unrecoverable shadows.

Point 2: At least in digital, information in the shadows can be recovered. Blown out parts of an image can't

Point 3: Given points 1 & 2, photographers should aim for the intended exposure range where possible (situation, skills, equipment, etc.)

 

One thing I really like about digital is that - given any exposure within boundaries - I can adjust it. I can't reconstruct 'blown out' parts. But I can take 'bracketed exposures' and in PP reconstruct a photo that matches what I'd had in mind. Is this something that film photographers do too? Just curious.

 

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "old" recommendations, by Kodak and many camera manufacturers was if the shot was important, to bracket exposures, as this would accommodate inaccuracies in metering as well as shutter variances from from stated speeds (my recollection was that 9-10% variation was usually considered within tolerance).
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this supposed to be a mantra?

I’d call it a maxim sooner than a mantra. Mantra tends to carry with it the association of meditative or spiritual purpose that a repetitive phrase or even a syllable or vocalized sound can have. So, unless that slant is for some reason desired, I’d go with maxim or ... adage, axiom, or dictum.

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the OP is asking if it's a hard and fast rule. The title starts out: "You have to expose ...............". However, just because it's used often doesn't mean it has to be used. So mantra or not, it's still up to the photographer's discretion, isn't that the case ?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm using my Hasselblad 501cm (120) - Ilford Delta 120. Since I'm serving time (quarantine) I found enough time to re-read most of my books on photography and apply most of techniques I gather over the time (I'm 45). It is good to revisit some old notes and old pictures I took with this set up. Revealing is another story. My wife still thinks I'm going to indadvertedly blowup the house (I blew the stove once). I was thinking about a challenge (no, I'm not going to lick toilet seats). Let's take a picture B&W (digital) of something that we can put the test the old mantra. What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It was.

The saying (was) repeated, written and quoted regularly.

The saying was especially very popular with those advocates of the Zone System.

Researching Ansel Adams would provide much information from background to fine detail.

 

Note well: The mantra found its place in regard to Film Photography and Film Development.

 

WW

 

Not only it's in regard to film it's specifically B&W negative film. You don't do that with slide film and while you can and should expose color negative film for the shadow but you shouldn't alter the development to get the highlight.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ansel Adams would normally set 320 ASA film at 160 ASA to burn more information onto the film.

 

The second paragraph of this simple explanation of the Zone system may help.

 

What is the Zone System?

 

 

Hence my "Beginner Questions" thread from a while back: shooting film at box speed (or whatever it was) in which I said my long time friend and professional photographer told me that he always shoots film at 1/2 box speed, then pushes during development. IOW exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights, yes?

 

For my own part, since I am a beginner, and am not developing my own film, I am, after reading many many replies "over there" at the *other* thread...

simply shooting everything at box speed these days, with the occasional exception here or there along the way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence my "Beginner Questions" thread from a while back: shooting film at box speed (or whatever it was) in which I said my long time friend and professional photographer told me that he always shoots film at 1/2 box speed, then pushes during development. IOW exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights, yes?

 

For my own part, since I am a beginner, and am not developing my own film, I am, after reading many many replies "over there" at the *other* thread...

simply shooting everything at box speed these days, with the occasional exception here or there along the way.

 

When you push you will lose the highlight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'develop for the highlights' part of the maxim/mantra, along with a major part of the Zone system, is entirely useless if you shoot only 35mm film, or rollfilm in a camera without interchangeable magazines. Since separate frames can't be given individual development.

 

I suppose it would be possible to carry several cameras, the film in which was earmarked for plus, minus or normal development, but I've yet to meet any photographer that goes to those lengths.

 

I recently came across this very instructive paragraph in a book I picked up:-

"Generally speaking, the correct exposure is that time which will produce a useful image of the details in the deepest shadow of the subject - hence the maxim, 'Expose for the shadows and let the high-lights take care of themselves'."

This was quoted from 'Photography To-day' by D.A.Spencer, published in 1936!

That's several years before Ansel Adams started to overcomplicate the fairly simple procedure of getting an exposure right.

 

Spencer does go on to give examples where the above maxim should be moderated, and to explain how processing time affects the contrast of a negative. However, the finer points of processing are a complete irrelevance if you shoot colour film, send your film for commercial processing, or simply mix different types of subject and lighting on the same roll of film.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'develop for the highlights' part of the maxim/mantra, along with a major part of the Zone system, is entirely useless if you shoot only 35mm film, or rollfilm in a camera without interchangeable magazines. Since separate frames can't be given individual development. . .

 

I had Tech Teacher who taught us, when using 135 format B&W neg to "shoot in batches" - meaning "in lighting scenario batches" - typically about 3~5 frames, though I was zealous (or KISS) and usually always made either 5 or 10.

 

At that time we were all rolling our own film into cassettes from 100ft rolls: I'd roll 20 frames (actually 22 the 2 for 'insurance').

 

In the darkroom or change bag we'd learn to feel the length and to cut the film if different development was required.

 

Another method we were taught was to rewind an incomplete roll of 135 film, leaving the tongue protruding, we'd be alert to hear the 'flick' of the tongue popping out of the take-up spool. We'd then hold that cassette until we needed to use it for the same development, winding it on with the lens cap on until we came to the unexposed portion.

 

Looking back now it all seems an episode slightly odd, slightly unreal: he was a funny bloke: those were days when Technical instruction was delivered by a Male Teacher who always wore a Lab Coat with two pens, one red one black, in those funny pen-holders, in his Left Breast Pocket.

 

WW

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Tech Teacher who taught us, when using 135 format B&W neg to "shoot in batches" - meaning "in lighting scenario batches" - typically about 3~5 frames, though I was zealous (or KISS) and usually always made either 5 or 10.

 

At that time we were all rolling our own film into cassettes from 100ft rolls: I'd roll 20 frames (actually 22 the 2 for 'insurance').

 

In the darkroom or change bag we'd learn to feel the length and to cut the film if different development was required.

 

Another method we were taught was to rewind an incomplete roll of 135 film, leaving the tongue protruding, we'd be alert to hear the 'flick' of the tongue popping out of the take-up spool. We'd then hold that cassette until we needed to use it for the same development, winding it on with the lens cap on until we came to the unexposed portion.

 

Looking back now it all seems an episode slightly odd, slightly unreal: he was a funny bloke: those were days when Technical instruction was delivered by a Male Teacher who always wore a Lab Coat with two pens, one red one black, in those funny pen-holders, in his Left Breast Pocket.

 

WW

When you cut you can cut in between the frames without seeing? Or you must have a spare frame that you can cut in half?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you cut you can cut in between the frames without seeing? Or you must have a spare frame that you can cut in half?

I've only done that with rolls repetitively exposed to the same 'test' subject and bracketed 2 stops about normal. When I was (ahem) developing a developer formula and wanted to see what the grain and tonality were like between batches.

Otherwise life's too short for such needless farting about.

 

That's why paper grades and varigrade paper were invented!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had an unexposed "spare frame" in between for the cut. Even then there were mistakes.

 

I preferred the rewinding method, for me it was more accurate and I had very few errors. With this method too, we used a "spare frame" in between, so as to not make a mistake and get an overlapping double exposure.

 

Like rodeo_joe has described, we were also instructed on making the first three or five frames as "test frames" which were bracketed exposures.

 

With colour roll film (120) we'd shoot the first one or two frames for what was known here as a "Clip Test" the Lab Tech would snip the first bit off the roll, for a test development.

 

 

***

 

Otherwise life's too short for such needless farting about.

 

Well . . . that was then and this is now, back then and looking back now, these techniques served purpose and I am glad to have been skilled in them: however, I think the sentiment expressed in the sentence quoted, is synonymous with your (and others') general opinion about the comparative and contrasting values and uses of Film vs. Digital: that's mentioned as a statement, nothing more, nothing less.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...