High Contrast with shadow and color

[donald_cass]

<p>I have shot 35mm for many years, but I have decided to become the next "4X5 rookie." My favorite shots involve shadow and color. For example, from under a tree with grapevines hanging (shadow) I shoot a natural arch in the surf (color).<br>

My first attempt at this technique with the 4X5 will be through some old snags (shadow) at Mount Hood at daybreak (color). I selected Portra VS for the film. My question is about the setup.<br>

Do I measure the light of the mountain and set my speed accordingly, and just forget the snags? I want the snags totally black so you get the "peering out through" feeling.</p>

 

[bruce_watson1]

<p>This question is <strong>exactly</strong> why the Zone System was invented by Archer and Adams way back when. It's all about how to control both exposure and development so that you get exactly what you want, however you choose to define that. Do read Adams' book <em>The Negative</em> , or any of the hundreds of books out there that explain the Zone System and similar systems. Another good is Fred Picker's <em>Zone VI Workshop</em> . Very easy to read and understand (Adams is a bit more difficult for some).</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p> In a high contrast lighting situation, it will probably be easy to get the dark shadows totally black. If you meter and place the non-extreme highlights and mid-tones so that they will render well, the darkest shadows will probably receive little exposure. With negative film, it is better to give too much exposure rather than too little, so normally with negative film I'd give more weight to the exposure of the shadows, but since in this case you don't care if the deep shadows get exposure, in this case it makes more sense to pay attention to brighter areas. If you get a little more rendering in the deep shadows than you wanted, you can always adjust it when printing.</p>

 

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>You've made your film choice, but just another thought: a high saturated high contrast film like Velvia, for example, will probably give you what you want without too many manipulations before or after the shot. If you properly expose your main subject (color), then probably the shadows will fall automatically into deep darkness. The "rest" can be done with PS easily, if necessary at all.</p>

<p>But even with a high contrast film, in low contrast situations you'll have some detail in the shadows, of course.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Portra has about a 10 stop exposure range. You need to think zone system, but translate that to color film. The easiest way to evaluate a scene is with a spot meter. To use the zone system with color, you identify your important subject (the one the photo is about) and take a light reading of the subject - record the exposure value (EV) from the meter. All of your other readings will then relate to that EV. </p>

<p>If you're familiar with the zone system you would translate that value to B&W and decide what zone it should be rendered (an 18% grey card being zone V). Is your subject brighter than that or darker? Once you've decided on what zone you want the subject rendered, then you need to read the rest of the scene to see where other areas will fall when you expose to place your subject at the correct zone value.</p>

<p>You read the darkest area that you want to have detail and see if it will fall at zone 3, and then read the brightest area you want detail and see if it will fall at zone 7. If not, then you have to make a decision as to altering the exposure and what that will do to the rendering of your subject at the zone where you want it placed.</p>

<p>It sounds a lot more difficult than it is. What you'll have to get used to, when using color film, is that you can't expand or contract (control) the tonal range through development. You can only meter the scene and with some exposure tweaking get the subject placed properly and then know what the remainder of the scene will do.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I think the film you have is fine from a contrast / exposure range (though I haven't used it that much). I would only add that I think you will be surprised at the amount f detail captured in a 4x5 image, even though the contrast may be a little high. The biggest issue for me is always how to convey that to a print. We have a lot of options these days for manipulation in PS and outputing digitally.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Forget the zone system, it can't be properly implemented with colour negative film since you can't manipulate the processing as you can with B&W film. All you can do is aim for the best overall exposure, and this can be done without recourse to measuring subject brightness range, especially since you say that you want the "snags" to be rendered totally black.</p>

<p>My advice would be to simply take an incident reading in the same light as the mountain (if possible), or to spotmeter from the brightest part of the scene where you want detail to show and give 2.5 more stops exposure. Let the shadows take care of themselves and then print them down to black at the printing or scanning stage.</p>

<p>There seems to be a common belief that 18% reflection is zone V - well not exactly I'd argue. The 18% reflection figure comes from early statistical research by Kodak labs and others into the overall reflection of an average snapshot scene; information gathered mainly from the throughput of commercial D&P labs. This somewhat spurious figure became the standard to which nearly all reflective light-metering devices were and are "calibrated". Now it's obvious from reading Adam's description of the zone system that zone V should be 4 stops above absolute black in the print, and 3 stops below white showing some detail (zone VIII), which sensitometrically translates much closer to 12.5% reflection. This is half a stop less than the 18% we get from an incident meter or the reflected reading from an 18% card. In fact if you're going to use a grey card, then you might just as well take an incident reading since both should give the same light value.</p>

<p>And yes, I know that Adam's himself states that zone V is 18% reflection, but exactly how he arrives at that figure is never properly explained. Working from first principles and the sensitometry curves given in Adam's own books it becomes obvious that each zone is an exact one-stop step, which inevitably leads to zone V having 12.5% reflection. If anyone can show scientifically why this isn't so, then I'd like to hear it.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>There is a way to manipulate color film with the zone system. In my Zone Systemizer book, it states to compress the contrast by preexposing the film. Set the camera at infinity,and move it close to a gray card. Take a meter reading, since it will be zone V, set the shutter speed or aperature to expose 4 stops darker (Zone 1). Take the photo, then, expose the subject normally onto the same film. That will make the shadows 1 zone lighter.<br>

That is too much zone system for alot of people,. But, it might help those who want to cut down on the contrast of the scene, for either color or B&W films. I've tried it and it works.</p>

[billkantor]

<p>Donald,<br>

Most interpretations of a scene aim to preserve shadow details; you are trying to obliterate them. So you have an easy problem to solve here. As has been suggested, just measure the highlights with a spot meter and expose at 2.5 stops over what the meter (calibrated for 18% gray) tells you. The incident meter technique will work well too.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Jack Welsh,<br>

Preexposure... very interesting. I have tried this successfully with B&W and agree it works quite well. Have you used it on color transparencies?<br>

Bill</p>

 

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>There seems to be a common belief that 18% reflection is zone V - well not exactly I'd argue.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then I'd suggest you purchase a Kodak Q-14 (large) Color Separation Guide and Gray Scale. Count the steps from black to the fifth patch, and then compare that with a Kodak R-27 18% gray card. You will see they measure exactly the same reflectance - 18%. </p>

<p>As for using the zone system with color film, I'd suggest you obtain a copy of Minor White's book, "The New Zone System Manual," where he describes using the zone system with color film. Then, I suppose you can have the reflectance grey scale in one hand, and Minor's book in the other and argue with both of them...or, you could argue with Ansel as one of the series of tests he recommends for those without access to a densitometer is to photograph a gray card under controlled conditions; and then vary the development to determine the N development time when the negative is printed on a contrast grade 2 paper. When you match the print to the gray card - that's the N development. </p>

<p> The zone system is a two part system. The first part is evaluating the luminance range of the subject to see how it will fit on the film. The second part (with B&W film) is to determine the development to fit the negative contrast (gamma) to the paper scale. With color film, you only use the first part of the process - subject evaluation to see how it will fit on the film.</p>

<p>Depending upon how well you understand what the film can do versus the subject, you can use the technique to either tweak exposures to the optimum; or, in some cases totally transform the subject by pushing the image up or down the exposure scale. The idea with the zone system is to know exactly how the subject will be reproduced at the time of exposure instead of going for an average exposure which you will get with an incident reading - and hoping that's the best fit for the subject to the film scale.</p>

[donald_cass]

<p>I will be forced to shoot from behind a knoll to block out city lights which puts the snags, I wanted to use for depth, too far away to get any detail. For that mater, my only lense, a 210mm, may be too wide for the shot I wanted.<br>

I'm hoping for a clear morning this weekend (I live near Portland where weather is measured in the amount of rain), and I will bracket a few shots and see what they look like.<br>

Since I will be shooting at daybreak in low light, the reciprocity subject also comes up. My shutter speed will most likely be more than a second. I will slow the shutter speed down accordingly to tables this Forum clued me into.<br>

Thank you all for you responses. If I can absorb half of what I read, it will help me in my new adventure. I knew I wanted to go LF instead of digital because it is so much more of a tool for my (our) expressive side(s). I watched a guy shooting at the Bandon Lighthouse with a DSLR, walking back and forth, and turning the camera, and getting a great shot with this huge block of cement in the foreground, a leftover from some light pole. I was back 50 yards scrunching down trying to get some beautiful wildflowers in the foreground to mask the cement and snickering at his lack of vision. It's more than a camera, isn't it? I've heard people say a photograph just robs the art. Hmmm. How about a nice picture of a cement block?</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Bill, I haven't tried the preexposure technique with slide film. I very seldom shoot color. But, that will change when the new Kodak film comes out in 120. That book, "The New Zone System manual. If, that is the one by White, Zakia and Lorenz, I need to look up the info on color films. Zakia also help wrote "The Zone Systemizer"</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>If you bracket your shots like you plan, and take good notes on how you compensated your exposures on each shot, you'll be fine. From this you'll know how your particular camera works in a given situation, another must-do that Ansel Adams talked about. There's enough wisdom on this sort of thing in The Print and The Negative to go around for all of us.</p>

[allen_whittier]

<p>Forget about the zone system with color film. Select a shutter speed that places the shadows in resiprosity failure and an f stop that places the subject in a normal exposure setting. You can pick up a couple extra stops of darkness in the shadows doing this.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Steve says: "count the steps from black to the fifth patch" - which gets us where exactly? For a start "black" is the total absence of light, and would need an infinite number of stops increase to reach any brightness level at all. Secondly; my argument pivots around zone V being 3 stops down from zone VIII, which Ansel Adams describes as "whites with texture and delicate values; textured snow or highlights on caucasian skin". If we take zone V to be 18% Lambertian reflection and add 3 stops (multiply by 8) to reach zone VIII, this give us a Lambertian reflection value of 144% for zoneVIII! The maths just doesn't add up.</p>

<p>It's well-known that such subjects as powder snow, matt white paint, white paper, chalk and white clouds all have a reflectance close to 100% and nowhere near to 144%. And where does a figure of 18% reflectance for zone V leave zones IX and X? With ridiculous reflectance values of 288% and 576%, that's where!</p>

<p>I firmly believe we're overdue to review many of these time-honoured photographic "truths" that have been handed down without challenge for 50 or more years, no matter how famous their originators may be.</p>

[allen_whittier]

<p>Rodeo Joe, I recommend you take a spot meter and walk up to an object that has an even transition from light to dark. Pick the spot that appears to be exactly in the middle of the range of light values from black to white and meter it. Then place the 18 % grey card against this spot with the light striking it at the same angle and meter it. If you’ve done everything right, your meter readings will be the same.<br /> <br /> The value of the 18% grey card was not selected because it is mathematically the center point between black and white. It was selected because it is visually the half way point between black and white. Adding and removing f stops to film only changes the light hitting the film. There is no limit to the number of f stops of doubling the light coming in. Add enough and you can melt steel. With B&W film the chemical process that produces a medium value negative that produces a medium value print requires 18% grey to be what all the meters in the world are calibrated to. B &W film sees 10 to 12 effective f stops, color print 5 f stops and transparency only 3. Try using anything other than 18% grey for a center value with transparency film.<br /> <br /> If you like a value other than 18% grey to be the center value take your meter in and have it calibrated to a different value. Then go destroy some film that was engineered to work with an 18% center value and have your meter recalibrated back to factory specs.</p>

<p > </p>

 

[jack_welsh]

<p>Have several books on the zone system. One from Minor White. They have the zones from 0-IX. They all have zone III for the shadow area with detail. And, VII has the highlight with detail.</p>

[pvp]

<p><em>There seems to be a common belief that 18% reflection is zone V - well not exactly I'd argue. </em></p>

<p>Not at all, sez I: 18% reflection is 18% reflection. Zone V is whatever the photographer chooses to place at Zone V. It doesn't make any difference what the light level was in the original scene, if the end result is the photographer's vision.</p>

[ron_miller5]

<p>Alan,<br>

<em>Zone V is whatever the photographer chooses to place at Zone V. It doesn't make any difference what the light level was in the original scene, if the end result is the photographer's vision.</em><br>

In my opinion, this is the true power in the zone system. But hey, who am I?</p>