# How "You" Judge Exposure



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2021)

I realize this may be somewhat of a rhetorical question, as a lot of it boils down to personal bias, but I'm curious as to how others judge whether they have a "correct exposure" for an image. Histograms give you distribution of values, but can vary wildly from one image to another when the tonal ranges are different. Do you use any type of qualitative or quantitative metrics to give consistency in your images? How do "you" know when "your" exposure is correct?


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Dec 10, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> Do you use any type of qualitative or quantitative metrics to give consistency in your images? How do "you" know when "your" exposure is correct?



Just as WB is the least important parameter at SR of any take,
consistency is the same when it comes to a series of images…
given they were not taken in the same light conditions that is.

_*Qualitative or quantitative metrics? *_Sure: the histogram. Say
you're out in the city for some street photography, chances are
that many subjects will catch your attention and I'll bet none in
similar light conditions. The ONLY thing that is of any importan-
ce is the quality of the recording — the horizontal line at the bot-
tom of the ever important histogram.

The histogram IS your (mine too) best friend because it confirms
or not that the recordings are right. It is only through the quality
of the said recording that consistency will be possible.

Have a good time, smoke!


----------



## PJM (Dec 10, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> Just as WB is the least important parameter at SR of any take,


What is "SR"?


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Dec 10, 2021)

-

Sorry Pete… shutter release.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 10, 2021)

Histograms are fine for digital, but film doesn't really have them.


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Dec 10, 2021)

snowbear said:


> Histograms are fine for digital, but film doesn't really have them.



That's where incident light metering comes in!


----------



## Strodav (Dec 10, 2021)

It starts when taking the photo.  Shoot raw, which gives you maximum latitude.  I often use a 3 square gray card (white, black, 18% gray) to help me set exposure in the field and take a shot of the gray card to help adjust exposure and white balance in Post, but the easiest thing is to watch the blinkies and adjust exposure to eliminate them.  Another easy thing to do is take the shot then look at the histograms, but remember the histograms are of the jpg image you are looking at on your cameras lcd panel.  So all your jpg settings, even if you are shooting raw, are being shown in the histograms.  That's why you hear ETTR because the camera usually gives you about 1/3 of a stop more room on the high end when shooting raw.  If you can't make the blinkies go away or make the histogram fit, then the dynamic range of your subject and background is greater than the dynamic range of your camera.  First thing to do is lower ISO as your camera's maximum DR is at base ISO.  Next is to chose to either bury shadows or blow out highlights and adjust exposure accordingly.  The technique I use more and more is to bracket 1 or 2 stops up and 1 or 2 stops down and fix it in Post.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 10, 2021)

Strodav said:


> It starts when taking the photo.  Shoot raw, which gives you maximum latitude.  I often use a 3 square gray card (white, black, 18% gray) to help me set exposure in the field and take a shot of the gray card to help adjust exposure and white balance in Post, but the easiest thing is to watch the blinkies and adjust exposure to eliminate them.  Another easy thing to do is take the shot then look at the histograms, but remember the histograms are of the jpg image you are looking at on your cameras lcd panel.  So all your jpg settings, even if you are shooting raw, are being shown in the histograms.  That's why you hear ETTR because the camera usually gives you about 1/3 of a stop more room on the high end when shooting raw.  If you can't make the blinkies go away or make the histogram fit, then the dynamic range of your subject and background is greater than the dynamic range of your camera.  First thing to do is lower ISO as your camera's maximum DR is at base ISO.  Next is to chose to either bury shadows or blow out highlights and adjust exposure accordingly.  The technique I use more and more is to bracket 1 or 2 stops up and 1 or 2 stops down and fix it in Post.


Let's say you use to shoot with a camera that had 10 stops. Now you upgraded to a camera that has 13 stops.  Why would you worry about a 1/3 of a stop ETTR?


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> The histogram IS your (mine too) best friend because it confirms
> or not that the recordings are right. It is only through the quality
> of the said recording that consistency will be possible.


I use the histogram both in camera and in post to gauge where I am, but a histogram doesn't always  portray what you want the final image to be. Some would have you believe that if you just produce a symmetrical Bell Curve, with each edge touching the ends you'd have a perfect exposure, but in reality you rarely see a Bell Curve. The histogram represents 256 shades of gray with 0,0,0 being solid black and 255,255,255 being solid white. In the real world, tonal distribution is all over the place, in a high key for example you'd see data loaded to the right, while low key will show it all on the left. and for some you might only have data in the middle. For example here is one from an  accomplished photographer that posts on TPF the image is beautiful.......but it you were to only use the histogram, to gauge the exposure, you wouldn't think so.


There's almost no data in the shadows and almost none in the bright highlights. Going the opposite way, here's one by a certain photographer whose work  you're very familiar with. It's a low key image, also very well done.

But again, if you were to only use the histogram to gauge the exposure. this would have ended up in the trash. That's when the Qualitative Metrics come in.



Strodav said:


> but remember the histograms are of the jpg image you are looking at on your cameras lcd panel. So all your jpg settings, even if you are shooting raw, are being shown in the histograms. That's why you hear ETTR because the camera usually gives you about 1/3 of a stop more room on the high end when shooting raw. If you can't make the blinkies go away or make the histogram fit, then the dynamic range of your subject and background is greater than the dynamic range of your camera.



Good point, I've learned that I can go all the way to the blinkies without blowing the whites. I don't chimp every shot, but in the past I've always leaned toward creating a full data file (at least some data stretching from the left side to the right. Now I'm beginning to wonder if the quest to fill the file, only to clip it in processing isn't an exercise in futility. Your camera sensor, or you handheld meter is going to expose for 18% gray, point it at snow, sand, or other reflective object and it will overexpose. It requires reducing what it tells you by 1.5-2 stops. So, here again it's experience behind the camera that gets the correct exposure.


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Dec 10, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> In the real world, tonal distribution is all over the place…



In the real world? This sounds like an absolute and I know that the only
absolute is relativity. In the real world, in my book, everything is possible
from the the narrow to the wide bell and from the U shape to the spike.

When a bell is seen — like in the first pict— I see that the extent of avail-
able DR is greater than the recording needs. that would render a dull ima-
ge that could use DRL = Dynamic Range Levels = black and white points 
setting… technically. Artistic intent has its own set of prerogatives.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 10, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> I realize this may be somewhat of a rhetorical question, as a lot of it boils down to personal bias, but I'm curious as to how others judge whether they have a "correct exposure" for an image. Histograms give you distribution of values, but can vary wildly from one image to another when the tonal ranges are different. Do you use any type of qualitative or quantitative metrics to give consistency in your images? How do "you" know when "your" exposure is correct?


I expose all my photos the same way. I know my exposure is correct when the sensor in my camera is fully utilized. My goal behind the camera then for all photos is the same; place the diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation threshold and click. I love digital -- it's so damn easy!


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2021)

NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> n the real world? This sounds like an absolute and I know that the only
> absolute is relativity. In the real world, in my book, everything is possible
> from the the narrow to the wide bell and from the U shape to the spike.you'
> 
> ...


Oh I agree, there are all sorts of possibilities, that's what I was pointing out, the histogram in and of itself is a guide, but not the authority. In the first histogram, you would think the image would be dull, but it wasn't. I see this type of curve in the soft and dreamy type images. Yes it was artistic intent by the photographer, in fact it's pretty much his style. 



Ysarex said:


> I expose all my photos the same way. I know my exposure is correct when the sensor in my camera is fully utilized. My goal behind the camera then for all photos is the same; place the diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation threshold and click. I love digital -- it's so damn easy!


Yes, but my question was judging the "correct exposure for the image". You can have an image technically correct for exposure, but sadly lacking from an artistic standpoint.


----------



## zulu42 (Dec 10, 2021)

I start by thinking about the final image and where are my exposure related priorities, then spot meter in camera for highlight control, shadow detail, or a middle gray depending on the subject and image intent. examples: a white car or bird gets metered for highlights, a black dog I make sure to meter for some detail in the black fur. Shooting people, family on the run I might occasionally meter my hand in the viewfinder and center the needle.. I personally don't use a histogram until I see it in post. With digital I more often meter to preserve highlight detail. Let's admit that today's sensors have amazing latitude if you don't blow out either end of the range. With film I'm generally more slow and careful with exposure if the camera has a trusted meter. I love the predictable results of careful exposure. For cameras with no good onboard metering I use a phone app or use sunny 16 estimates which also work well after some practice.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 10, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> Yes, but my question was judging the "correct exposure for the image". You can have an image technically correct for exposure, but sadly lacking from an artistic standpoint.


That's a bit trickier. There is no "correct" lightness for the finished image -- that's an artistic judgement call and so there's no measurement either. But for starters if there are any rules at all in photography this is rule number one: A good photograph has a black point. If the image doesn't contain black somebody screwed up. There will always be exceptions but that's the rule with the fewest exceptions. After that blown diffuse highlights are a mistake. The photographer who claims they blew the highlights because that's the effect they want is usually trying to cover up failure. Again there are of course exceptions.

So after the black point is set the diffuse highlights should be placed as bright as possible without clipping. If the image then appears too light or too dark or too flat or too contrasty then adjust the midtones holding the black and white end points in place.


----------



## Rickbb (Dec 10, 2021)

I judge mine based on how close it looks to what I had in my mind when I took it. And how much I like the way it turned out.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 10, 2021)

@Rickbb that's what I do then I argue with myself that it isn't right 😁


----------



## ac12 (Dec 10, 2021)

On the dSLR, I look at the back screen after the shot, and see if it looks OK.
If there are "blinkies," I evaluate where in the image the "blinkies" are.
The problem with the dSLR, is the back screen can be unusable in the bright sun.  Evaluating exposure in the sunlight is really hard.  So, I cross my fingers, and I trust my technique, until I can see what I shot.

On my mirrorless, the EVF reflects the exposure.
So, I look at the subject in the EVF and can adjust the exposure in real time.
I can see and adjust for the bright or dark scenes in the EVF, which I would not catch in the dSLR until I look at the shot I just took, on back screen.

I sometimes "expose to the right."  But that requires a more deliberate shot, because I can easily OVER expose to the right, if I am not careful.  The problem is, on the small back screen, it is difficult to see the small areas that get blown out.
Example, faces in a school concert, look OK on the back screen.  But on the computer, many of the faces are "blown out."

One of the things that I do, is I do a test shot BEFORE the event.
This lets me see if I have the exposure, exposure compensation, white balance, etc. in the ball park.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 11, 2021)

zulu42 said:


> I start by thinking about the final image and where are my exposure related priorities, then spot meter in camera for highlight control, shadow detail, or a middle gray depending on the subject and image intent. examples: a white car or bird gets metered for highlights, a black dog I make sure to meter for some detail in the black fur. Shooting people, family on the run I might occasionally meter my hand in the viewfinder and center the needle.. I personally don't use a histogram until I see it in post. With digital I more often meter to preserve highlight detail. Let's admit that today's sensors have amazing latitude if you don't blow out either end of the range. With film I'm generally more slow and careful with exposure if the camera has a trusted meter. I love the predictable results of careful exposure. For cameras with no good onboard metering I use a phone app or use sunny 16 estimates which also work well after some practice.



Good points, things I also do. It's easy to worry about the highlights so much that you forget the details in the shadows.



ac12 said:


> I sometimes "expose to the right." But that requires a more deliberate shot, because I can easily OVER expose to the right, if I am not careful. The



I generally try to ETTR, I find that doing so gives me more data  to work with in the highlight range. Maybe it's my imagination, but if I do it right, it seems like the colors pop.


----------



## Strodav (Dec 11, 2021)

AlanKlein said:


> Let's say you use to shoot with a camera that had 10 stops. Now you upgraded to a camera that has 13 stops.  Why would you worry about a 1/3 of a stop ETTR?


My D850 is measured at 14.8 stops of DR at ISO 64, but there are still times when that's not enough to capture my subject and background. Blown out highlights are more objectional than buried shadows to most people, so ETTR to avoid blown highlights at the expense of shadows is an accepted technique.  Knowing that you have about 1/3 of a stop above the blinkie on most cameras gives you confidence you can go right up to the blinkie and maybe just a smidge more and still preserve detail in the highlights.  If you capture the highlight detail, you can always adjust the brightness in post.  If the highlights are blown out, there's nothing you can do.  This is very important to me as a birder shooting subjects like Snowy or Great Egrets on darker backgrounds.  You want to see the detail in the feathers.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 12, 2021)

Most of the time I let my camera do all the work especially if the shooting is fast and furious. The modes change by the type of shooting.
If a shot has to be just right then I can always bracket and work it out in PP. 
Of course sometimes I gotta go with experience, like a white bird in the sun, a bright full moon or fireworks but for normal shots, 90% of the time the camera is better than I am and 100X faster, it is after all, a computer!


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 12, 2021)

Sharpshooterr said:


> Most of the time I let my camera do all the work especially if the shooting is fast and furious. The modes change by the type of shooting.



I've made a good effort to learn what all those settings available in the K1MII do. Knowing, let's me tailor them for shooting outside where everything  changes rapidly. As you say, the computer is much faster than I could ever be. In the controlled environment of studio I'm full manual.


----------



## mrca (Dec 12, 2021)

With film, when  metering for say land/seascapes and have time,  I spot meter darkest shadow I want detail, brightest highlight I want detail, what is that range? In film, I place the shadow in zone IV, no not zone III, this way I get a better negative and most times the way film handles highlights leaves plenty of headroom.  If I want a particular tone on a particular zone, will place it there.  With digital, my meter is calibrated to my sensor noting PRECISELY where clipping is.   Again check shadow and highlights and usually place highlights on high dynamic scenes just below clipping where I can easily recover them in post.  This gives best shadow detail since lifting shadows can produce noise darkening does not.  Out of camera file doesn't look great, but  with post it produces the best possible file.  If a smaller dynamic range scene, can move the highlights down a bit.  With studio portraiture,  all lights/reflectors ratios are precisely set with an incident meter as is the camera setting.  The background is a specific reflective reading delta from the subject incident to yield a desired bg tonality/shade of gel. The zone system isn't rocket science.  Takes less time than chimping.   I am not one to pull exposure out of my ... nether regions.   I can do it quickly, precisely and repeatably and a meter makes it possible.  Sorry, I know you can get close without it, but chimping endlessly is for someone with lots of time and room for error.   My most dreaded words, you have 5 minutes.  One of my trademark shots was lit and captured after hearing that and only captured because of my meter quickly dialing in the shot.   It went from high key / white bg to low key/ black bg without changing the pure white bg.  High key a magazine cover, low key on his wall.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 12, 2022)

As already mentioned I let the camera do the work . The gurus who wrote the camera software know the camera and are pretty good at it.  If it is not quote right post processing usually will fix it.

In the rare case that I am asking the camera to do some thing it does not like, I switch to manual use my best guess and adjust the exposer based on what I see. It is digital, you can tweak as many times as you like then touch it up in post processing.

Of course a lot depends on how you judge the your photographs.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

If it's an important shot, bracket.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 13, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> gurus who wrote the camera software know the camera and are pretty good at it.



And in rapidly changing light conditions, or movement it's a gazillion times faster than my old brain can react.



AlanKlein said:


> If it's an important shot, bracket.



Another tool in the box, but sometimes you don't have that option, especially in portraits or fast moving subjects. Like light, expressions change rapidly, as does the scene with movement. Experience, and knowledge of your camera functionality goes a long way in choosing the correct method on the fly.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> And in rapidly changing light conditions, or movement it's a gazillion times faster than my old brain can react.
> 
> 
> 
> Another tool in the box, but sometimes you don't have that option, especially in portraits or fast moving subjects. Like light, expressions change rapidly, as does the scene with movement. Experience, and knowledge of your camera functionality goes a long way in choosing the correct method on the fly.


I was referring to the landscapes that I usually shoot. I should have clarified that.  When I shoot roll film like 120, it's easy and relatively cheap.  Now that I'm shooting 4x5 more often, I basically stopped bracketing.  I'm just more careful with trying to get the exposure settings right the first time.  

Actually, what I've been doing more often is to shoot the same scene with different films but using the same exposure calculations.  For example Ektachrome and Tmax or Velvia and Provia. I'm bracketing films, not exposure.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

I'm bracketing film because I'm trying to learn which films work better in different lighting conditions.  I never did that with 120 roll film,  But it's kind of natural with 4x5 sheet film.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

Smoke.   I don't want  blown out highlights or excessive noise in shadows from having to recover in post.   I use a modified "zone system" on every shot on the fly/run and gun.  Caucasian skin is zone VI, one stop brighter than zone V middle gray, the reading from a meter including the camera meter.  I spot focus and meter from one spot that I place just  below the eye, focusing there gets the most important element in focus (in run and gun, back button auto focus), the eyes, adding about 1 stop of light with shutter or aperture wheels NAILS exposure, click.   That works with dark or light scenes that will fool a meter every time.  It takes only a second or 2.  It keeps it simple, kiss, the same approach on every shot, no compensation dial adjustment to be forgotten to screw up the next shot, no changing between exposure modes, no hoping the camera gets it right.  I don't have the luxury not to. And I KNOW I nailed exposure and focus.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

Alan, I am considering 4 x 5 myself. You are so right, the film itself is crazy expensive. I do my own developing, but even so, you're starting from a pretty high expense level. I don't bracket on medium format and there I often use a 3200 speed film where my target is precisely one stop overexposed. For that, I carefully meter with an incident meter. But in 35mm, I shoot HP 5 which five  stops overexposed, is nearly identical to a proper exposure. I make sure I have exposed for the shadows and there is no way I'm five shots overexposed.  For street,  with zone focus, it turns my nikon into a fast reacting point and shoot.  In 4 x 5, that should minimize the size of the grain flakes, relative to the size of that huge negative.  It is why my preferred film back is a 645 with 3200 because that is the size grain. I like relative to the negative size. For those who don't shoot film, a particular film stock uses the same emulsion from 35mm 120 and 4 x 5. So although the grain remains the same size, it is smaller in relationship to the entire image on the larger format films. Allen, keep us posted on how 4 x 5 is working out for you.  You are definitely pushing he envelope.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

mrca said:


> Alan, I am considering 4 x 5 myself. You are so right, the film itself is crazy expensive. I do my own developing, but even so, you're starting from a pretty high expense level. I don't bracket on medium format and there I often use a 3200 speed film where my target is precisely one stop overexposed. For that, I carefully meter with an incident meter. But in 35mm, I shoot HP 5 which five  stops overexposed, is nearly identical to a proper exposure. I make sure I have exposed for the shadows and there is no way I'm five shots overexposed.  For street,  with zone focus, it turns my nikon into a fast reacting point and shoot.  In 4 x 5, that should minimize the size of the grain flakes, relative to the size of that huge negative.  It is why my preferred film back is a 645 with 3200 because that is the size grain. I like relative to the negative size. For those who don't shoot film, a particular film stock uses the same emulsion from 35mm 120 and 4 x 5. So although the grain remains the same size, it is smaller in relationship to the entire image on the larger format films. Allen, keep us posted on how 4 x 5 is working out for you.  You are definitely pushing he envelope.


Isn't 3200 pretty high?  It has a lot of grain.  Do you need so much speed?


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 13, 2022)

@mrca I haven't really used the zone method since the 70's. It only takes me a sec to sample the scene using the spot meter, calculate the DR, put the spot on the eye, spin the EV comp dial, press the shutter. One of the advantages of using Pentax for years is they don't change up the control locations much. Adjustments become a matter of muscle memory without much thought. Highlight protection and shadow correction allow you some latitude if you're  off slightly.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

On portraits, that grain is gorgeous.   I don't need the speed, I shoot b&w film for grain and I love the grain that produces on 645.  35,  it over powers the image, 67, not prominent enough, 645, for me, goldilocks.  But that is personal taste and my vision for a portrait.  I have 6x6, 45 and 67 capability but found my vision there  What I am expecting you are getting in that 4x5 is tonal transitions say, across a face, that are absolutely gorgeous across that huge negative.   It is a huge improvement from 35 to 67, but 4x5 has to be  monumental.   But like you say, it comes at a price.    Some of the 4x5 cameras I have seen look pretty light and  relatively portable folded down.  They are tripod beasts but that is where I prefer my RB67 any way.   Just got a split prism focus screen for it and it really makes nailing focus a piece of cake instead of always wondering if I had it.  Do you find focusing the 4x5 difficult?


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

mrca said:


> On portraits, that grain is gorgeous.   I don't need the speed, I shoot b&w film for grain and I love the grain that produces on 645.  35,  it over powers the image, 67, not prominent enough, 645, for me, goldilocks.  But that is personal taste and my vision for a portrait.  I have 6x6, 45 and 67 capability but found my vision there  What I am expecting you are getting in that 4x5 is tonal transitions say, across a face, that are absolutely gorgeous across that huge negative.   It is a huge improvement from 35 to 67, but 4x5 has to be  monumental.   But like you say, it comes at a price.    Some of the 4x5 cameras I have seen look pretty light and  relatively portable folded down.  They are tripod beasts but that is where I prefer my RB67 any way.   Just got a split prism focus screen for it and it really makes nailing focus a piece of cake instead of always wondering if I had it.  Do you find focusing the 4x5 difficult?


Yes.  It's easier to focus my RB67.   I also don;t like viewing upside down on view cameras.  It's a learning process that I have not yet learned.  My 4x5 is lighter than my RB67. It's a Chamonix.

Regarding focusing my RB67, I use an eye-level viewfinder and have a magnifier that attaches to the viewfinder to magnify the center.  It;s very handy and makes a big difference in focusing.  I use an eye loupe with my 4x5 view cameras.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 13, 2022)

@mrca I'll admit I've thought seriously about 4x5, but the truth is I have several rolls of 35mm film in the fridge that have been there several years. The convience of digital just outweighs the extra effort. Plus I've read several articles comparing resolution of digital vs 4x5 which pretty much puts the two on equal footing once you pass 30MP on printing large prints. With Luts, Presets and Profiles in LR and PS it's relativrly easy to replicate a "film look", that only the most careful observation might discover. Considering the fact that printing a film negative by a commercial lab requires digitizing and is then printed in the same manner as a digital image, I just don't see the advantage of film. Now if you print your own on an enlarger then yes.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 13, 2022)

I my experience 4x5 is not really an "on the fly" medium. I love it but I am slow with it.  My TLR is better because it is smaller and the controls are within thumb reach. 

However, last fall I shot some rodeo photos. It was hard to beat the DSLR set to shoot multiple shots with one shutter button squeeze.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

Alan, I admire your adventure. Please post regarding your progress, successes and failures. Funny you mentioned the upside down viewing. I actually would welcome that, because it makes it easier to extrapolate shapes and forms rather than seeing real objects. It really helps composing by eliminating the reality of the objects. The book drawing from the right side of the brain really transform my ability to move into the creative zone. Their first exercise was to take a picture, turn it upside down and overlay it with a piece of clear plexiglass   with a cross through it and lightly penciled the same cross on your paper.. Then draw what was in each quadrant. That forced total dissociation from the person you are drawing. When I finished, I had actually drawn a near perfect portrait. Having the photo upside down and only drawing built quadrant at a time.Totally dissociated the photo from what it really represented. Her point was your fingers can move to draw. It's just that your brain interferes. With an upside down image on the viewing screen, it can do the same.  I would really like to hear about your experience with 4x5 as you progress.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> I my experience 4x5 is not really an "on the fly" medium. I love it but I am slow with it.  My TLR is better because it is smaller and the controls are within thumb reach.
> 
> However, last fall I shot some rodeo photos. It was hard to beat the DSLR set to shoot multiple shots with one shutter button squeeze.


Horses for courses.  When I take a RB67 mf camera on photo walks, I am really trying to do something it isnt totally suited to.   But my glass, having to pull the dark slied, advance film, cock the shutter and max shutter speed of 1/400 wouldn't be much use at a rodeo for action shots.  And if I didn't develop my film, at $3 a click, burst wouldn't be in my work flow even if I had a power back.  Of course, when I first got a d850 with 9 fps, I shot a 4 hr boat race and came home with  groups of about 10 near identical shots totalling 1500 that I had to cull.  But for portraits especially in studio on a rolling stand, it produces gorgeous images.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> @mrca I'll admit I've thought seriously about 4x5, but the truth is I have several rolls of 35mm film in the fridge that have been there several years. The convience of digital just outweighs the extra effort. Plus I've read several articles comparing resolution of digital vs 4x5 which pretty much puts the two on equal footing once you pass 30MP on printing large prints. With Luts, Presets and Profiles in LR and PS it's relativrly easy to replicate a "film look", that only the most careful observation might discover. Considering the fact that printing a film negative by a commercial lab requires digitizing and is then printed in the same manner as a digital image, I just don't see the advantage of film. Now if you print your own on an enlarger then yes.


Shooting 4x5 is like taking a bubble bath in a Jacuzzi while shooting digital is like taking a shower.  You get clean either way.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 13, 2022)

@AlanKlein LOL for me the darkroom was the Bubble Bath time. Years ago I had a nice one. Unfortunately it and the equipment went with the newspapers when I sold out.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

mrca said:


> Alan, I admire your adventure. Please post regarding your progress, successes and failures. Funny you mentioned the upside down viewing. I actually would welcome that, because it makes it easier to extrapolate shapes and forms rather than seeing real objects. It really helps composing by eliminating the reality of the objects. The book drawing from the right side of the brain really transform my ability to move into the creative zone. Their first exercise was to take a picture, turn it upside down and overlay it with a piece of clear plexiglass   with a cross through it and lightly penciled the same cross on your paper.. Then draw what was in each quadrant. That forced total dissociation from the person you are drawing. When I finished, I had actually drawn a near perfect portrait. Having the photo upside down and only drawing built quadrant at a time.Totally dissociated the photo from what it really represented. Her point was your fingers can move to draw. It's just that your brain interferes. With an upside down image on the viewing screen, it can do the same.  I would really like to hear about your experience with 4x5 as you progress.


I find upside discombobulating.  My brain works right side up.  I understand the point of looking and arranging form.  But I'm not arranging forms only.  I'm looking at the whole image.  But others find the opposite. Well, that's what makes the world go around.   With the RB67, I couldn't;t stand the waist-level finder. Whenever I needed to turn left, I turned right and vice versa.  The reversed image on the screen drove me nuts so I got an eye-level finder.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> @AlanKlein LOL for me the darkroom was the Bubble Bath time. Years ago I had a nice one. Unfortunately it and the equipment went with the newspapers when I sold out.


Well, a darkroom after shooting 4x5 is like having your wife dry you after the bubble bath.  Unfortunately, I don't have a darkroom and I have to dry myself.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> I find upside discombobulating.  My brain works right side up.  I understand the point of looking and arranging form.  But I'm not arranging forms only.  I'm looking at the whole image.  But others find the opposite. Well, that's what makes the world go around.   With the RB67, I couldn't;t stand the waist-level finder. Whenever I needed to turn left, I turned right and vice versa.  The reversed image on the screen drove me nuts so I got an eye-level finder.


Shooting a wlf on the rb and  yashica tlr makes not only the left to right but also perpendicular become second nature.  Having either rule of thirds on the tlr or 645 lines on the rb helps  getting vertical lined up.  But yes, drove me crazy for a while.  Now I shoot wlf over 50% of the time so I don't have to think about it.  Isn't the 4x5 upside down and reversed left to right?


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> Well, a darkroom after shooting 4x5 is like having your wife dry you after the bubble bath.  Unfortunately, I don't have a darkroom and I have to dry myself.


I have a dark room and no wife.  Hence, my second bath tub is full of bottles of chemicals, a box/souvide, gallons of distilled water and I hang film to dry with the shower curtain pulled.  Turning off hvac before I start to develop, then film straight onto the shower nozzle  and curtain closed, I rarely if ever get a bit of dust on my negs.  I use a wetting agent in distilled water on the last rinse and  sqeege, but I won't change a winning game.  2 hrs later, the uncut film strip is loaded into a film holder scanning with a d850 tethered to LR  so I can nail focus, see the histogram for each neg and adjust exposure of each as fast as I can push them through the holder.  Then I cut the negs and store.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

mrca said:


> Shooting a wlf on the rb and  yashica tlr makes not only the left to right but also perpendicular become second nature.  Having either rule of thirds on the tlr or 645 lines on the rb helps  getting vertical lined up.  But yes, drove me crazy for a while.  Now I shoot wlf over 50% of the time so I don't have to think about it.  Isn't the 4x5 upside down and reversed left to right?


Yes, 4x5 is worse than waist level finders on MF.  Upside down reversed and I think inside out too.  It drives me crazy.  I bought an eye level viewfinder for it.  But it darkens the view on the ground glass which is really bad on wide-angle lenses.  

What I do, is use my digital camera to line up the shot even before taking out the 4x5.  I zoom to determine which lens I need for the 4x5.  Then I drop something the ground to mark where I'm standing.  Then I get my camera and tripod and open it on the marked spot on the ground.  I set up the camera aiming at the subject as I originally determined on the digital camera, more or less.  Then I fine-tune the edges and focus.  

So all the aesthetics were taken care of with the digital camera.  I only need to frame, set the exposure and focus the 4x5 and shoot.  I also can take off the eye level finer and use my loupe to focus and make fine adjustments at that time.  It's annoying frankly.  I might give it up and go back to MF to save my sanity.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

mrca said:


> I have a dark room and no wife.  Hence, my second bath tub is full of bottles of chemicals, a box/souvide, gallons of distilled water and I hang film to dry with the shower curtain pulled.  Turning off hvac before I start to develop, then film straight onto the shower nozzle  and curtain closed, I rarely if ever get a bit of dust on my negs.  I use a wetting agent in distilled water on the last rinse and  sqeege, but I won't change a winning game.  2 hrs later, the uncut film strip is loaded into a film holder scanning with a d850 tethered to LR  so I can nail focus, see the histogram for each neg and adjust exposure of each as fast as I can push them through the holder.  Then I cut the negs and store.


Unfortunately, I have to take a shower by myself.  At least the film keeps you company.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> @mrca I'll admit I've thought seriously about 4x5, but the truth is I have several rolls of 35mm film in the fridge that have been there several years. The convience of digital just outweighs the extra effort. Plus I've read several articles comparing resolution of digital vs 4x5 which pretty much puts the two on equal footing once you pass 30MP on printing large prints. With Luts, Presets and Profiles in LR and PS it's relativrly easy to replicate a "film look", that only the most careful observation might discover. Considering the fact that printing a film negative by a commercial lab requires digitizing and is then printed in the same manner as a digital image, I just don't see the advantage of film. Now if you print your own on an enlarger then yes.


Smoke, I have a mastin preset, close but no cigar.  Even with the great dynamic range of a d850, it doesn't capture the detail in the sky that I get with  portra.   The guys on a youtube channel  F stopppers sponsored by a plug in company ridiculed a lady for shooting 25 grand worth of film for weddings the year before.  So they set out to prove it could be done with digital.  After an hour, they gave up.  They just couldn't match the skin tones nor the grain structure.  I just watched Once upon a time in Hollywood and forgot Tarantino shoots all his movies on film.  At one point  I stopped the movie and had to get up and look at the skin tones ln tates leg, that wasn't makeup. Then I remembered doing the same thing with girl with a pearl earring 10 years ago.  They both used the same kodak movie film stock which is now available in 35 mm film cassettes.  Will require one additional step to remove an extra layer  on the non emulsion side when I develop, but the skin tones, incredible.  Different than portra, but omg.  Acutually, 45 mp matches medium format.  4x5 dusts 35 mm digital not only in resolution,  but both mf and 4x5 has a huge negative compared to 35mm with skin tones over a much larger area.   35 mm is 864 square mm.  67 is 4,200.  Now, I don't shoot mf for resolution but do like making large enlargements, I shoot is also for the grain in proportion to the negative size.  The grain is random sizes and is more obvious in light tones and graduates into shadows and highlights.  When grain is applied digitally it is an even size of grains and even over the entire image.    It might be natural to think film for street where there is no time to adjust exposure would not work.  Actually, hp5 had 5 stops of over exposure that will give a near identical exposure to one at proper exposure.  Try over exposing even a d850 5 stops, I did,  you get a near pure white image.  Film is actually easier.  But it is an expense, sending to my lab, total per roll $30 and on  a 10 shot 67 roll that'  3 bucks a click.  Developing my self, 80 cents a click but 35 mm is only 20 per click.   I guess it's like folks who like vinyl records, they embrace the imperfections.  I am bored with sterile, ultra sharp digital image.  It looks...digital.  But I shot film for over 40 years.   Now most folks on the street wont be able to tell the difference and it's up to a photographer to educate their clients if they dont know the difference.  But now, with all the 20/30 something jumping into film, my lab turnaround went from one week to 3 weeks and I am waiting for some film to get off of backorder.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> Yes, 4x5 is worse than waist level finders on MF.  Upside down reversed and I think inside out too.  It drives me crazy.  I bought an eye level viewfinder for it.  But it darkens the view on the ground glass which is really bad on wide-angle lenses.
> 
> What I do, is use my digital camera to line up the shot even before taking out the 4x5.  I zoom to determine which lens I need for the 4x5.  Then I drop something the ground to mark where I'm standing.  Then I get my camera and tripod and open it on the marked spot on the ground.  I set up the camera aiming at the subject as I originally determined on the digital camera, more or less.  Then I fine-tune the edges and focus.
> 
> So all the aesthetics were taken care of with the digital camera.  I only need to frame, set the exposure and focus the 4x5 and shoot.  I also can take off the eye level finer and use my loupe to focus and make fine adjustments at that time.  It's annoying frankly.  I might give it up and go back to MF to save my sanity.


Alan, I just got the Viewfinder Preview for my iphone.  You log your formats and lenses and can scroll through he lenses and see what the viewfinder will show without having to take out the camera.  It goes up to 8x10.  Also  has film emulation that is pretty close but it lets you preview tonal contrast in a b&w image.  Also has a built in spot meter that is really accurate and works as manual or  shutter/aperture priority.  It also has a histogram.  You can then take a shot of what is shows and use the log to enter camera settings/filters etc.  $3.99.  Almost as priceless as massive dev chart app that stores times in chemistry and beeps to let you know to agitate and when to stop.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 13, 2022)

mrca said:


> Alan, I just got the Viewfinder Preview for my iphone.  You log your formats and lenses and can scroll through he lenses and see what the viewfinder will show without having to take out the camera.  It goes up to 8x10.  Also  has film emulation that is pretty close but it lets you preview tonal contrast in a b&w image.  Also has a built in spot meter that is really accurate and works as manual or  shutter/aperture priority.  It also has a histogram.  You can then take a shot of what is shows and use the log to enter camera settings/filters etc.  $3.99.  Almost as priceless as massive dev chart app that stores times in chemistry and beeps to let you know to agitate and when to stop.


Is it available for Android phones?  If it's the one I'm thinking, it may not be.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 13, 2022)

@mrca Again, I'm not so sure that you aren't giving up any advantage of the 4x5 "if" you convert it to digital. First of all if you're using one of the more economical commercial labs you're taking that beautiful negative and converting/compressing it to a JPEG. I looked at "The Darkroom", one of the labs I'm familiar with, even if you do a super scan on a medium format 645 you'll only end up with a 48MP file. The D850 you mentioned earlier has almost 46.7MP.  Illford lists the DR of HP5 at 11-12 stops,  (i think that's right),  my K1MII  is rated at 14.6 stops at ISO 100 and your D850 is roughly the same at base ISO. Given that the ability to print large is a function of resolution, I don't see where you've gained with film. Now granted scanning at 3200 - 4000 would increase that 4x5 file size by close to double, but then you're buying your own scanner or paying substantially more if you can find a lab. If I were to go to 4x5 I think I'd be going all the way from film to print on paper, bypassing the whole digital world entirely.


----------



## mrca (Jan 13, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> Is it available for Android phones?  If it's the one I'm thinking, it may not be.


Unfortunately, I think not.  I believe there are similar apps for  Android but more expensive.  I can have the phone in my pocket, use it as a reflective meter, visualize the framing and tones, take the shot and use it as a log for camera settings so I can check the results.    The histogram is pretty darn accurate too so can see if I am blocking up shadows.  I have a small 2" square ancient gossen that works great incident, but not so much spot.   Can minimize the spot by plugging in a 300 mm lens and the square is on a smaller area.


----------

