Densities too high in sky areas

[robert_cardon]

I really dislike the otho look of a paper white or washed out sky in

a landscape photo. It seems like even with a red 25 filter in front

of the lens, often times to get the shadow detail needed, exposure

and development render the sky densities are too great (and if you

have greens in a scene, forget the red filter). This is especially

true when you�re trying to pump the contrast of a flat light scene.

If you load the exposure and pull the film, theory says sky densities

should decrease, but then so will the contrast. Furthermore, many

shots have irregualr shapes and such, making it all but impossible to

burn in the sky. Anymore, unless I have strong axis light, I do

everything possible to keep the sky out of my pictures.

 

1) Does anyone else have problems with this?

 

2) Why do they make film with such an incredibly high repsonse to the

blue wavelength? I�d gladly accept some loss of shadow detail for

less blue sensitivity.

 

RJ

[mike_lopez]

I've had similar questions in my own mind. Reading some of Ansel Adams' descriptions of his photographs (in Examples, The Negative, etc), it seems he almost never used a filter stronger than #8 or maybe #12. Yet he almost always had deep, rich skies. I've wondered whether today's emulsions are that much more responsive to blues than what he shot with, or what. Other than the possible film response, the only thing I can think of is that he must have been able to achieve some extreme precision in burning-in during printing. One thing that supports this conclusion is one of his sand dune images, in which I believe he said he used a #8 filter without a factor, and the sky is basically pure white. (See the current issue of View Camera magazine for this image). That tends to make me think it was very precise printing. I'd like to hear what other people think.

[Troll]

There is a BIG difference in Western and Eastern (US) skies. Ya' can't photograph what's not there, (although Photoshop can add it later).

[robert_cardon]

FYI - I'm talking about western sky, where I definately see blue.

 

RJ

[michael_chini]

I've never had a problem with this. Could be:

 

1. Over agitation - negs are too contrasty

2. Too long a dev. time

3. Angle of sun.

 

By this I mean that if you're shooting into a bright or hazy sky without a polarizer and exposing for the foreground, the sky might be washed out despite the fact that you're using a 25 or see the color blue up there. Use your spot meter and check the range of stops.

To get deep rich skies, it usually helps to shoot away from the sun (ie East in the afternoon).

 

Also, if you use a 25 to darken blues, you have to live with darkened foliage (greens) as well. If you try and compensate by just increasing development time, forget it - white skies. If all of this doesn't work, shoot with a 29. It's too extreme for me, but if you want all of your shots to look like Moonrise, Hernandez, it will do the trick.

 

Overcast blown out skies require good burning or masking techniques. That's really the only way.

[__jon__]

>I've had similar questions in my own mind. Reading some of Ansel Adams' descriptions of his photographs (in Examples, The Negative, etc), it seems he almost never used a filter stronger than #8 or maybe #12.

 

In "The Negative" (10th printing, 2002) there are plenty of examples of shots Ansel took with filters darker than a #12--like red #23, #25, and #29. See the chapter "Filters and Pre-Exposure."

[michael_briggs2]

"2) Why do they make film with such an incredibly high repsonse to the blue wavelength?"

 

Silver halides are naturally sensitive to blue and UV light, and insensitive to longer wavelengths. Each blue and UV photon has more energy than each green or yellow or red photon -- only blue and UV photons have energies exceeding some energy threshold of silver halide. Sensitivity to longer wavelengths is achieved with dyes that somehow assemble the energy of several long wavelength photons in order to activate the silver halide grain.

[scott_walton2]

If you find yourself burning excessively all the time, it is time to cut back your

film development time. Try a pull on your next set of sheets. This will cut your

highlight development down and make your highlights more managable.

Remembering that the shadows develop out first, make sure you have

enough exposure for the shadows... rule is with B/W: meter for the shadows

and develop for the highlights. Shoot about 4 holders of a scene with a good

contrast (good harsh sun and deep shadows), the way you normally shoot...

ie with filters that you like to use for the effect. Take out 1 or 2 sheets and

develop normally. 1 or 2 sheets pull 10%, 1 or 2 sheets pull 15% and 1 or 2

sheets pull 20%. Pull a print from each group and if you like one better than

the other, make this your new developing time. You may have to go 25% but

be careful if the developing time gets under 3 to 5 minutes because you will

risk uneven developing with to short of a process.

Doing this you will keep your shadows and your highlights will be easily

printable almost in a straight print. Also be aware the if you go to far pulling,

your highlights will go grey!

[dan_smith]

Maybe you should try TMax 100 with its extended red sensitivity?

[ken_lee11]

If you have measured the values, at the scene, with a spot meter - and - if your system is basically calibrated (film speed, development time, etc) then none of this should take you by surprise, as it were: You should be able to determine all of this when you are out in the field, and react accordingly before you take the shot. That's the beauty of the Zone system.

 

If you have a light meter that has been corrected for color balance, then you ought to be able to meter through the filter, and measure exactly how dark the shadows will be, and how light the clouds will be - and then choose your filter, exposure and development approach.

 

Pyro or two-bath developers can be used in high contrast situations.

 

Depending on the time of day and other conditions, harsh light can be more or less troublesome. In this image by Ansel Adams, the lower values have dropped off the lower end of the scale - but it is artistically appropriate, and the trees are small enough to warrant it. So choose your subjects appropriately, and it won't be a problem.

 

Ultimately, there will always be shots that exceed the capacity of our equipment - and for those shots, it's helpful to be comfortable enough to "just say no".<div></div>

[michael_kravit]

Ken's explanation hits the nail on the head.

 

Another related problem seems to be that many folks just use the development times recommended by Ilford or other manufacturers for a particular film and developer. For example, Ilford's times result in a gamma of 0.65. This is extremely high and will result in very contrast negatives that will be hard to print where there is cloud detail in the skies.

 

In contrast, developing for a gamma 0.50 will result in a less contrast film and will result in a print that will hold your high values much more easily.

 

The key is to calibrate your development times to provide you with predictable and printable results.

[brian_ellis3]

This is almost always a problem for me. It's especially aggravating when the contact sheet shows a great sky and clouds then they get lost in the enlarging process. And I've done all the testing, know my N minus times, etc. etc., it's still a problem. One thing about filters, if there isn't a lot of blue in the sky then they do no good. And not only does there have to be a lot of blue but it has to be a deep, rich blue (like you probably get in the west) not that pale, almost cyan-looking, blue we typically have for much of the day in Florida.

 

If it's any consolation, John Sexton keeps the sky out of most of his photographs because of the problem you're talking about. Other than that, maybe the best solution is Photoshop where it's much easier to burn in the sky or move a good sky from another photograph into your photograph like Timothy O'Sullivan, William Henry Jackson, and the other great western landscape photographers of the 19th century frequently did (though they did it in the darkroom of course).

[igor_johanson]

Ken Evangeleest - rather than reading from the Bible and presenting an icon by one of our Saint Brothers we would better appreciate it if you showed us your own sinful example.

[wieslaw1]

I like the white skies in landscapes.

 

Sorry guys, but the �zone system� does not apply to this film. Highlights separation is controlled by exposure, not by development.

 

Regarding the sky density (on b&w films): Among others it depends on the direction you shoot in relation to the sun, hour of the day, season of the year, etc. I can demonstrate a dark sky photographed on orthochromatic film (for example taken at winter afternoon, when there is strong reddish radiation present), black sky and very light sky taken at the same time and place on IR film and with IR filter, the only difference being 180° change in directions, etc.

 

 

�developing for a gamma 0.50 will result in a less contrast film, in a print that will hold your high values much more easily� - and likely overall, dull, flat picture.

 

Sometimes, to equalize the illumination, a split density filter may help. Or... do not photograph the sky! ha, ha...<div></div>

[ken_lee11]

Of course: If the sky is white, then no filter or polarizer can change that... except for the legendary "white filter". With a calibrated system and a spot meter, it's easy enough to determine just how white it will be, and then decide if you want to take the photo. Sometimes, the sky is not at white as it looks.<div></div>

[michael_kravit]

�developing for a gamma 0.50 will result in a less contrast film, in a print that will hold your high values much more easily� - and likely overall, dull, flat picture."

 

No, not really. I have found that it results in a negative that will print with a grade 1.8-2.2 paper.

 

For Brian Ellis:

You guys on the west coast of Florida need to come down here to the SE part of the state. We have lovely blue skies, None of that Cyan looking stuff in Tampa and the St. Pete area. ;-)

[michael_kravit]

"Sorry guys, but the �zone system� does not apply to this film."

 

It doesn't? How do you figure that?

 

"Highlights separation is controlled by exposure, not by development."

 

It is? How do you support your statement?

[wieslaw1]

Please read Kodak data sheets for 4125 film.

[michael_briggs2]

Kodak 4125 is Professional Copy Film, a film "designed for copying continuous-tone originals", to quote the datasheet (f7.pdf). Wieslaw, are you implying that you use this film in camera to take outdoor photos? Your original reply didn't give any clue that this unusual film was used for your example photo, and it seems very unlikely that Robert is using this film. The datasheet also states "You control the highlight contrast of these films by varying exposure and development." A modified zone system approach could be used -- the datasheet shows characteristic curves which respond to development changes.

 

Professional Copy film is orthochromatic, which is a good choice to get the white skys that Wieslaw likes but which Robert dislikes. For Robert's goals (the original question of this thread), this film would be a terrible choice.

 

Before anyone gets excited about this film, it is "to be discontinued when current supplies run out".

[ken_lee11]

One other approach, which will not render foliage too dark, is to try a deep green filter. This will reduce blue tones, and lighten greens. It will also reduce red values, but for landscapes, this may not necessarily present a problem unless you are taking photos where the earth is reddish colored.

[wieslaw1]

�For Robert's goals (the original question), this film would be a terrible choice.� - You are wrong Michael - as I already mentioned you can have very wide range of sky shades with ANY film. Here is an example of a dark sky obtained with the 4125 film.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=11320584

 

and details are here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004TsT

 

 

Ken - the green filter will darken red, not reduce it!