In the pure analoque process exposing for the shadows to print on grade 2 or grade 3 paper makes a lot of sense .If one is photographing someone with dark brown hair and this the last important shadow detail with texture, you would meter the hair , which will create a mid-grey Zone 5 or more , then to place the hair in Zone 3 one would stop down 2 stops.This would print well on conventional paper.Chris Johnson covers this well in his book The Practical Zone System for Film and Digital Photography.
However the same cant be said for anyone using a hybrid film / scan / Photoshop process , as that approach brings with it a whole raft of issues with blocked shadows, noise etc.
So whats the solution ? I noticed noise in my shadows on my scans with my little Epson V550 scanner plus those scanned on an Imacon scanner. This occurred with negatives N , N-1 and N+1 development.
I consulted a well known Australian authority on this issue and he has replied -
Exposing for the shadows will make for a thicker negative rather than a thinner one. More exposure = more separation from base fog in deep shadows, that's the idea here. Because basically analogue has a delicate toe (i.e. when you print a negative with an analogue process it's forgicing in this area and doesn't tend to emphasis grain). Digital on the other hand basically acts like an amplifier on a weak signal here - just like with a radio you'll just amplify the static more than the signal and it will come across as noise.
Honestly, I challenge you to blow out the highlights on a negative when scanning. You'd have to go WAY over the top to do it - many stops. When there is lots of signal, the digital systems are really good at picking and maintaining level differentiation - all the problems are really at the other end.
(Note all of this is much the same argument as 'Expose To The Right' with digital, although in that conext there are hidden issues/flaws - yes, you'd get better level differentiation, but you tend to throw off your colour balance pretty considerably too.).
He's advocating putting the hair into zone three (because the spot meter will not do that by default) - meaning it will be relatively thin on the neg. This is not really exposing for the shadows so much as putting the shadows in to a particular zone.
I am saying leave where it meters. That's really exposing for the shadows. And will produce a better neg for scanning in that scanning is all about GETTING the detail in a nice, relatively grain/noise free way. Placing it comes after in post processing.
This makes real sense to me and I think JD is right on the money. Just about to start / test this new process.
Has anyone else had these issues and if so what direction have you gone to address them ?
However the same cant be said for anyone using a hybrid film / scan / Photoshop process , as that approach brings with it a whole raft of issues with blocked shadows, noise etc.
So whats the solution ? I noticed noise in my shadows on my scans with my little Epson V550 scanner plus those scanned on an Imacon scanner. This occurred with negatives N , N-1 and N+1 development.
I consulted a well known Australian authority on this issue and he has replied -
Exposing for the shadows will make for a thicker negative rather than a thinner one. More exposure = more separation from base fog in deep shadows, that's the idea here. Because basically analogue has a delicate toe (i.e. when you print a negative with an analogue process it's forgicing in this area and doesn't tend to emphasis grain). Digital on the other hand basically acts like an amplifier on a weak signal here - just like with a radio you'll just amplify the static more than the signal and it will come across as noise.
Honestly, I challenge you to blow out the highlights on a negative when scanning. You'd have to go WAY over the top to do it - many stops. When there is lots of signal, the digital systems are really good at picking and maintaining level differentiation - all the problems are really at the other end.
(Note all of this is much the same argument as 'Expose To The Right' with digital, although in that conext there are hidden issues/flaws - yes, you'd get better level differentiation, but you tend to throw off your colour balance pretty considerably too.).
He's advocating putting the hair into zone three (because the spot meter will not do that by default) - meaning it will be relatively thin on the neg. This is not really exposing for the shadows so much as putting the shadows in to a particular zone.
I am saying leave where it meters. That's really exposing for the shadows. And will produce a better neg for scanning in that scanning is all about GETTING the detail in a nice, relatively grain/noise free way. Placing it comes after in post processing.
This makes real sense to me and I think JD is right on the money. Just about to start / test this new process.
Has anyone else had these issues and if so what direction have you gone to address them ?
