what the f (stop)?!

[phillipkane]

As of the last 2 or so months, I have been shooting with a Hasselblad 500c (80mm f/2.8 attached)... I use an older Sekonic light meter with built on spot meter and usually meter for the shadows in the foreground... I take my reading, and if it says f/8 at 125th of a second, I usually overexpose by 2 stops and would shoot f/8 at a 60th of a second (to achieve more detail in the shadows)... I have only gotten 4 rolls developed so far (3 rolls of HP5 and 1 roll of pro 400H), and I find I usually have decent detail in the foreground of my shots, but the sky is white (usually blown out to ****)... So I was shooting today (a roll of fuji b&w), metering for my foreground shadows and I would get a reading of f/5.6 at a 30th of a second for example... It was a dark cloudy day, so I then metered for the clouds and I was getting f/5.6 at 500th of a second... I cannot remember the exact readings so this is approximate... So if I do the math, that's a difference of 4 stops... if I shoot anywhere close to 500th of a second, everything in my foreground will be completely underexposed, and if I shoot anywhere close to a 30th, my sky will be white and blown out... So do I pick somewhere in the middle? Is this where filters come into play? It was frustrating the **** out of me... thanks

 

[tirediron]

Over-exposing shadows by two stops is definitely going to blow out a sky, especially if it's bright overcast. To answer your question, yes, filters, in particular, graduated neutral density filters (G-ND) are the solution to this problem. Without those, then yes, you have to average your exposure readings and make a judgement call based on how much detail you want to gain in the shadows vice how much you want to lose in the highlights. I would likely not go more than 1/2 stop at most.

 

[dxqcanada]

2 stops is a bit high.
If you were printing your own stuff, dodging and burning would be what would be done in the darkroom. It was a pain in the ass, but that what we did.

 

[phillipkane]

I almost feel like a noob asking this, but what is best recommended when shooting film, to achieve a proper exposure? I had thought metering for shadows is what most people did, and underexposing by a few stops... is it a better practice to take a reading for the highlights and then take a reading for the shadows and try to find a happy medium? the few times I have tried doing this, the readings I get are hugely different and quite frankly, I don't know which way to lean in terms of settings... thanks y'all

 

[480sparky]

When shooting film, you need to do a bit of testing first. You'll need to find out what the dynamic range is of your film and processing is. And both come into play. If you're intentionally overexposing by default to garner details in the shadows, you're going to sacrifice details in the highlights to do so. Knowing what the DR is of your film/developing will greatly increase your being able to 'nail' the exposure.

For instance, if you find you've got 8 stop of DR, then you can meter your darkest shadows and brightest highlights and determine if they are 8 stops or less from each other. If they're not, then you need to decide which to throw under the bus.

Or, you might be able to use a filter to bring the intensity of your highlights down enough to be able to get under 8 stops of DR. You might also want to look into pull-processing your film to increase the DR.

 

[dxqcanada]

You might also want to look into pull-processing your film to increase the DR.

Hmm, overexpose the shadows and lower the highlights with under development ... sounds kinda Zoney.

 

[480sparky]

You might also want to look into pull-processing your film to increase the DR.

Hmm, overexpose the shadows and lower the highlights with under development ... sounds kinda Zoney.

You might say that!

 

[dxqcanada]

Neg film ... expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I'm not really understanding this, or what you're trying to achieve.

I use an older Sekonic light meter with built on spot meter and usually meter for the shadows in the foreground... I take my reading, and if it says f/8 at 125th of a second, I usually overexpose by 2 stops and would shoot f/8 at a 60th of a second (to achieve more detail in the shadows)...

f8 at 1/60th is only one stop below f8 1/125sec, and is this the reading you get from the shadow? I guess not as this seems high for a shadow value. Spot meters only give you the exposure you need to reproduce the tone as middle grey if you used that as an exposure, so if you point your meter at the shadows then you really need to give an exposure that's two or three stops LESS than that for them to reproduce as shadow values. If you send your film out to be developed and if you are using the speed on the box then you are basically under-exposing and over-developing the film. It's a compromise to gain usable speed at the expense of a stop of DR. But you can still recon that if you meter the deep shadows and expose them at three stops under that they will still hold some detail. Highlights will still record at 6 stops above that exposure. The meter does not give you the exposure for shadow values, it only gives you the exposure to reproduce that value as middle grey.

So I was shooting today (a roll of fuji b&w), metering for my foreground shadows and I would get a reading of f/5.6 at a 30th of a second for example... It was a dark cloudy day, so I then metered for the clouds and I was getting f/5.6 at 500th of a second... I cannot remember the exact readings so this is approximate... So if I do the math, that's a difference of 4 stops... if I shoot anywhere close to 500th of a second, everything in my foreground will be completely underexposed, and if I shoot anywhere close to a 30th, my sky will be white and blown out... So do I pick somewhere in the middle?

So if you shoot at f5.6 1/125sec then your shadows at 1/30sec are two stops below this and the highlights at 1/500sec are two stops above. This is what I would call a fairly *flat* scene. I would take an average reflected reading and try that as there seems to be some confusion here as to what you are actually doing with this spot meter, you're not making much sense, and to be honest I think your results are reflecting this...

Spot meters allow for accurate placement of the shadow values in exposure, but they require that you actually know what the minimum exposure is to produce a reaction, or change of density in the film. Then by knowing the highlight reading you can work out the DR of the scene and adjust your development to suit the scene.

If I were you I would seriously just halve the rated ASA of the film and use a standard reflected reading and send the film to be developed *as normal* as in don't tell anybody just let them develop it as normal. Once you understand why this is giving you much better results you will also understand more about how to use a spot meter.

 

[dennybeall]

This problem goes a long way to explaining why so many of us have gone to digital so we can let Photoshop deal with problems like this.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

This problem goes a long way to explaining why so many of us have gone to digital so we can let Photoshop deal with problems like this.

Actual exposure is a relatively simple and fixed quantity, light is also normally a relatively fixed and consistent parameter for any given scene, (the sun is a remarkably consistent illuminator). It's in understanding how that light is modified by the atmosphere, the subject's position and how the light is reflected off the subject and how that produces the different contrasts and feel in images that takes experience.

The problem most beginners have is that they try to understand exposure in terms of how the camera works which leads many to think in terms of the camera being fixed and the light being infinitely variable. Which isn't actually the case. It also leads many to think of exposure as a fixed value such as f8 at 1/125sec whereas it's really a range of different brightnesses (or exposures) falling on a media that has fixed limit on the range it can record.

It becomes quite simple when you begin to view it in terms of the nature of light and how film reacts to it. The problem with cameras is that they use hideously complicated automation to try and ensure consistency in exposure which is basically only working on averages and the rule of thumb.

Film requires a fixed minimum amount of light to fall on it to begin the process of reaction and produce the first measurable change in density on the developed negative. This is measured as it's film speed. Increasing the amount of light hitting the film produces greater density in the developed negative until you reach the amount of light that produces the maximum density in the film.

The exact amount of light it takes to do this is consistent for all film of that stock at a fixed development, it is predictable. So for each exposure you are looking to record the exact same range of density on every negative which requires the exact same range of light intensities from shadow to highlight values to fall on the film for each exposure.

To do this you have only two controls, shutter speed and aperture. As they are both of equal calibration (as in each stop halves or doubles the amount of light) gives you a range of equivalent options such as f8-1/125, f5.6-1/250, f4-1/500 etc. This you can vary by one or two stops either way before you start running into problems with either the shadows or highlights falling outside the film's ability to record them. The range of possibilities is quite definitely finite and restrictive with film.

With roll film the development must be the same for all exposures on the roll, it is a fixed quantity and therefore the exposure required to produce those densities is also fixed. For instance Caucasian skin is a tone that's generally one stop lighter than middle grey. To reproduce that tone consistently the film [or the area of the negative that represents Caucasian skin] must receive exactly the same amount of light on all exposures. And as the meter, (or spot meter), is calibrated to indicate the correct exposure to reproduce that tone as middle grey to get the lighter tone you need the negative to record one stop more density, or give the film one stop more exposure than indicated when taking a reading of Caucasian skin.

When I used to photograph my friends children playing in the garden, for instance, I would just take a reflected reading off the palm of my hand in both sunlight and shade, it was rarely more than a stop or two different and wouldn't vary much for an hour or two. One stop exposure above indicated gave me all I needed. I would then just move the aperture ring accordingly depending on whether the sun was behind or in front, in shadow or sunlight with my full manual Nikon F2. The point being was that I didn't worry about infinite variables for each and every shot as the light was consistent and the exposure needed to reproduce skin tones was fixed. All I needed was a one or two click adjustment depending on the nature of the light and it's direction relative to the subject.

It's actually very simple, and if you develop the film yourself you get the full latitude it offers rather than the somewhat reduced one if you use the marked box speed and send it away to be developed. (To gain a useful increase in speed films are generally overrated which means usually slightly under-exposed and over-developed which generally blocks deep shadow [no recorded density in the film] and the over-development increases density in the highlights to compensate leading to increased contrast and slight steeping of fall-off in the highlights).

 

[dennybeall]

or.............you can just shoot digital in AUTO and let Photoshop fix it??

(Not a jab at you - just another way to do it. Not as challenging though.)

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

or.............you can just shoot digital in AUTO and let Photoshop fix it??

Aye, there is no doubt that exposure in digital is easier and the automation is better.

But if you had a Hassy I would thoroughly recommend it's taken out to play occasionally.

 

[phillipkane]

the Hasselblad is the only camera I have really, apart from the Lomo LC-A+ 35mm... I f’d up and shot the Acros 100 at 400 so I will need to tell the lab to push it two stops... this film thing is such a huge pain, wish my D810 hadn’t been stolen :/

 

[greybeard]

In a high contrast B&W situation, I would over expose but then cut back the developing time in the tank. That way you will have your details in the shadows but do not block the highlights. Ansel Adams had a system called the "zone system" where he took 7 or 8 readings and then had a development time that would keep all the exposure zones between total black and total white. He did it with a Weston meter and a view camera. One piece of film at a time.