Help understand high contrast

[vanner]

<p>Decided to play around with my Holga this weekend. Using my sophisticated light meter (two eyes and my brain) it seemed like an "ISO 100 kind of day." Below are two examples that I got with Delta 100 in the Holga on a bright day. I actually love some of the shots that I got back. Im surprised and curious, though, that they came back with such high, albeit too much, contrast. Notice for example that the foliage immediated to the left of the door is black. No shadow detail at all. Far less gray in the image than I anticipated seeing. (BTW I know it's vignetted, please don't tell me to ignore the corners)<br />As a learning point for me, I'm wondering the following. Do you think that they are so "contrasty" because: A) It's a Holga, don't ask why anything happens with a plastic lense and a toy camera B) Underexposed. Next time try 400. C) Overdeveloped by the lab. or D) Delta 100 is contrasty DOUBT. E) Other.<br />Thanks for any opinions on this issue. While it might seem silly to try and understand what happened given no meter-ing or exposure information and a toy camera, I know that I can learn more about the issue of contrast in the final result from this.<br />Steve</p><div></div>

[vanner]

<p>Here's the second image.</p><div></div>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I'm guessing you shot after 4-8 am and before 4-9 pm. The dynamics of mid-day shooting will tax any photo and will certainly kill a holga. That is a time to shoot when you want high contrast images with hard light (ie buildings and street). Softer light is the key for everything else....</p>

[randall ellis]

<p>While you can't adjust anything but focus on a Holga, contrast is a function of both exposure and development, and the ideas behind controlling contrast are outlined here...</p>

<p>http://www.redisonellis.com/exposure.html</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[vanner]

<p>Randy, thanks much for the link to your website. After reading it, though, I realized that I should re-state my question. I'm familiar with the concepts that you discuss (I can't say that I agree, though, that you should always pull your film, but that's ok!). I think that what I'm really asking, is this: Do the black shadows have the look of an underexposed negative, an over-developed negative, or is it difficult to distinguish? By the "expose for the shadows/develop for the highlights" theory, I suppose one would say that lack of shadow detail is always an issue of exposure, and not development time?</p>

[chuck_pere]

<p>The important thing is if the negative shows detail in the shadows. Not sure if you are showing prints made by the lab or scans from the negatives. If the negatives have detail you can play with print contrast or maybe some dodging. If they don't have detail you need more exposure. Hot light is the hardest to work in. You want something besides black shadows but you still want the feeling of that harsh light. I find that you need to overexposure and under develop. The Holga is actually a great camera to try in harsh contrasty light. The plastic lens creates some flare that helps with shadow detail similar to pre-exposure. I have seen some very nice Holga hot light pictures. </p>

[vanner]

<p>Thanks Chuck. The images are scans of prints made by the lab, so I can't be absolutely certain that there might not be more detail on the negative - but I doubt it. I own a 35mm scanner, not a flatbed, so I can't scan MF and therefore let the lab handle "soup to nuts" on my Holga stuff. The light was harsh, as you can see. Next time I use the Holga in similar bright/harsh light, I'll take everyone's advice to overexpose and underdevelop by using a 400 rated film, and ask the lab to pull-process it a stop or two. Thanks again to all. Steve </p>

[randall ellis]

<p>Shadow detail is tied to exposure time, as short exposures do not allow much, if any, detail to be recorded where there is weak light. A good way to see the difference in over/under development and over/under exposure, and their various combinations, is to run a simple test. It is outlined in the <em>Creative Black-And-White Photography: Advanced Camera and Darkroom Techniques</em> book that I listed at the bottom of that page. All it takes is a single 36 exposure roll of 35mm film and a little patience. You can see how the various overages and underages alter the resulting negative quite well using his procedure.</p>

<p>My tendency to always cut film speed has quite a lot to do with the extreme lighting we have here in Florida. In other parts of the world where I've photographed the light falls into what I consider the 'flat' category far more often than I ever experience here. It's a matter of personal taste, location, film, developer, etc. I find that I can always rescue the highlights, but as Chuck stated above, the shadow details are often far more important in my subjects.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[vanner]

<p>Thanks Randy. I'm relatively new to this cerebrally exhausting film world after years of digital only. So, all of this advice is very helfpful for me. I checked out your portfolio and I must say that you do a nice job of taming the idiosyncracies of harsh light. Thank you for the explanation of exposure time and shadow detail. That's very helpful. Steve</p>