As a PJ, for the most part that is what we did. In the 70s we often had to push film, there was a loss shadow and unless the action was in the shadows, well make sure you did not blow the highlights. In current thinking it seems that most analog photographers fall into the fine arts school and shadows without texture are not well thought of. I know that this is a generalization, but AA hated dark shadows.
Place the shadow. Place the highlight.
-
A
- Thread starter pbromaghin
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Looking for a Wollensak 6" (159mm) f12.5 Extreme W.A.
- Started by lecarp
-
For Sale Nikon 200-400mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor ED Lens
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Manfrotto 438 Leveling Base
- Started by djdister
-
For Sale Manfrotto 410 (3275) Junior Geared Head
- Started by djdister
Forum statistics
As a PJ, for the most part that is what we did. In the 70s we often had to push film, there was a loss shadow and unless the action was in the shadows, well make sure you did not blow the highlights. In current thinking it seems that most analog photographers fall into the fine arts school and shadows without texture are not well thought of. I know that this is a generalization, but AA hated dark shadows.
The Zone Aystem lives on: 'Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.
Good if that gets the results you are happy with. I found that works well for slides, not so well for prints.
Yes, it's so simple a concept but it confounds me how even that particular simplicity is often made so unnecessarily complicated.
I agree. It took me a long time to embrace the Zone System. In the early 1970's after I finished grad school and was working full time I had upgraded my Minolta SR7 to have several new lenses. The people at work arranged for a seven or fourteen day class with Ansel Adams in Yosemite. I being so smart knew the multiple development times with 35mm film was not practical. I never considered renting camera equipment. I was experienced in using 4"x5" Speed Graphics. So I did not go with them. One of the things I kick myself in the ass about with hindsight. Coming to APUG I got interesting in setting up a darkroom which led to studying the Zone System. It took many interchanges with those APUGgers to clarify and simplify the full Zone System. Considering only the Zone System exposure settings without changing the film development led to the simplest version that took the shadow reading and place it in the proper zone, allowing me to put the shadow detail on paper as I wish to do.
That's because few people can use dark shadows like Brett. Too many people accidentally get dark shadows (or without thought),
Choosing the shadow detail and setting its Zone does not eliminate the use of dark shadows. In fact it makes it technically available for the desired results.
True. It's bloody hard to get it if it is not there on the negative. I aim for a few small clear areas (too small to be able to see detail in it with a magnifying glass) and go up from there. On carbon prints this allows me to print areas down to pure black and still keep detail (in relief) in those areas.
Likewise. Exposing for the highlights gives me underexposed negatives. It was great for Kodachrome..... but these days LF/MF Black & White exposing for shadows or at the very least using incident light reading gets me printable negatives.
Interesting how there aren't any affordable second hand options for the JF Dunn book.
When I studied photography, many many years ago, we were taught to expose at box speed and develop as per manufacturer instructions. If shaddows were too dark, we were told to modify the lighting, either by fill in flash or reflectors. Shadows 15-20 meters or more away from the camera didn't matter.
This of course related to commercial, wedding and outdoor portrait photography where the photographer was expected to have the appropriate equipment and film speed for the job.
I must admit I have never exposed for the shadow and processed for the highlights and I have been happy with my results (and so were my clients back then)
This of course related to commercial, wedding and outdoor portrait photography where the photographer was expected to have the appropriate equipment and film speed for the job.
I must admit I have never exposed for the shadow and processed for the highlights and I have been happy with my results (and so were my clients back then)
Exposing for the shadows protects against underexposure, especially in contrasty scenes. It's just a way to meter that happens to work out well for almost all situations. It's not the Zone System. It works well with today's materials as long as you have a standard development time that lets you print very flat and very contrasty scenes well.
(Note: exposing for a midtone or highlight and then compensating in contrasty situations by adding exposure when the meter would otherwise underexpose works just about as well, maybe not quite as precise, but...)
"Exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights" is the exposure part of the Zone System that was developed for materials of yesteryear when achieving a negative with overall density range tailored to mid-grade paper was desirable. It entails measuring the subject luminance range of the scene and adjusting development to achieve a highlight density that is about the same in all cases. (The Zone System uses one-stop Zones for development changes, hence N+1, N-1 etc.)
Using your meter to evaluate the luminances in a scene, being able to distill from that information the expressive possibilities available in that scene, having a concept of what you want to communicate and how that can be best translated visually into a photograph and then exposing and developing to get a result that matches your visualization and intent, that is using the Zone System (including the use of filters, intentionally over- or underexposing, expanding local contrast at the expense of overall density range making for a difficult negative to print, but one that results in the print you want, etc., etc.,) Really, it's all about visualization. Anyone can expose and develop properly with a bit of practice and understanding.
And, since the Zone System is a simplification of the science of tone reproduction, you can go beyond it once you've become comfortable with it, and modify it as needed for your particular situation and today's materials. For example, there's less of a need to alter development to achieve a standard density range on the negative these days. Both films and papers allow greater latitude. So, one can dispense with extreme contractions or expansion developments and their inherent shortcomings and use other contrast controls and techniques (e.g., split-grade printing) to obtain even better prints than were possible in the past in some cases. Or, one can do the opposite (Phil Davis) and make negatives that all print really well on one grade of long-out-of-production Azo, or some alternative process, or scanning.
How deep one wants or needs to go down the tone reproduction rabbit hole depends on lots of things. The Zone System is just one practical application. What sets it apart from many other systems is it's emphasis on visualizing results based on evaluating luminances in the scene. Unless you're doing that, you aren't using the Zone System.
Best,
Doremus
(Note: exposing for a midtone or highlight and then compensating in contrasty situations by adding exposure when the meter would otherwise underexpose works just about as well, maybe not quite as precise, but...)
"Exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights" is the exposure part of the Zone System that was developed for materials of yesteryear when achieving a negative with overall density range tailored to mid-grade paper was desirable. It entails measuring the subject luminance range of the scene and adjusting development to achieve a highlight density that is about the same in all cases. (The Zone System uses one-stop Zones for development changes, hence N+1, N-1 etc.)
Using your meter to evaluate the luminances in a scene, being able to distill from that information the expressive possibilities available in that scene, having a concept of what you want to communicate and how that can be best translated visually into a photograph and then exposing and developing to get a result that matches your visualization and intent, that is using the Zone System (including the use of filters, intentionally over- or underexposing, expanding local contrast at the expense of overall density range making for a difficult negative to print, but one that results in the print you want, etc., etc.,) Really, it's all about visualization. Anyone can expose and develop properly with a bit of practice and understanding.
And, since the Zone System is a simplification of the science of tone reproduction, you can go beyond it once you've become comfortable with it, and modify it as needed for your particular situation and today's materials. For example, there's less of a need to alter development to achieve a standard density range on the negative these days. Both films and papers allow greater latitude. So, one can dispense with extreme contractions or expansion developments and their inherent shortcomings and use other contrast controls and techniques (e.g., split-grade printing) to obtain even better prints than were possible in the past in some cases. Or, one can do the opposite (Phil Davis) and make negatives that all print really well on one grade of long-out-of-production Azo, or some alternative process, or scanning.
How deep one wants or needs to go down the tone reproduction rabbit hole depends on lots of things. The Zone System is just one practical application. What sets it apart from many other systems is it's emphasis on visualizing results based on evaluating luminances in the scene. Unless you're doing that, you aren't using the Zone System.
Best,
Doremus
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,469
- Format
- 35mm RF
Using your eyes without a camera, there are shadows that you can't discern any detail in. Sometimes there are bright highlights which you can also discern no detail. However, as the eye is often attracted to the brightest part of the image (remember the white blob on prints we have all experienced when printing black & white prints and how distracting that is). I would suggest that a black shadow is more aesthetic than a blown out highlight. The eye is drawn to the brightest part of the image.
While your point about black shadows vs blown highlights is well taken, that's why some of us use staining developers or divided developers to deal with scenes with wide dynamic range
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
@Stephen Benskin can correct me if I'm wrong ( 
) but I think @cliveh's point of view reflects the results of the print quality tests that led to much of the film speed standards that ASA (now essentially ISO) speed ratings were based on.
As humans, our visual systems are more attuned to details in the brighter areas, and we are less attuned to the shadows.
Generally speaking, people prefer prints that render highlights well.
The preferences for shadow detail seems to be mostly restricted to those who are willing to manipulate the results in the presentation/printing stage.
) but I think @cliveh's point of view reflects the results of the print quality tests that led to much of the film speed standards that ASA (now essentially ISO) speed ratings were based on.As humans, our visual systems are more attuned to details in the brighter areas, and we are less attuned to the shadows.
Generally speaking, people prefer prints that render highlights well.
The preferences for shadow detail seems to be mostly restricted to those who are willing to manipulate the results in the presentation/printing stage.
@Stephen Benskin can correct me if I'm wrong (
As humans, our visual systems are more attuned to details in the brighter areas, and we are less attuned to the shadows.
Generally speaking, people prefer prints that render highlights well.
The preferences for shadow detail seems to be mostly restricted to those who are willing to manipulate the results in the presentation/printing stage.
Matt..... how about getting those preferable results established in the exposure/development stages?....which results in an easier job of printing. In my experience....the better the negative, the easier job of getting the print you had in mind.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
I don't disagree.
But knowing how to create negatives that help you render the highlights well is at least as important as knowing how to create negatives that help you render the shadows well.
In many circumstances, you can do both.
The traditional full Zone System approach made use of the characteristics of the films available at the time, in conjunction with development controls, to assist with the highlight part of the equation.
But sometimes, compromises still have to be made.
I interpret @cliveh 's approach as being one where he makes choices that favour the highlights over the shadows, when compromises must be made.
FWIW, I've seen a fair number of prints over the years where people have apparently emphasized the shadows when making decisions, at what appears to be the cost of relatively lifeless highlights.
Some of us use 19th Century processes with a wide dynamic range that can match or exceed the scene.
I usually develop to expand the density range of the negative. I get the shadow detail and exploit the highlight values for all they are worth!
That has been a worthy goal. It's certainly been my objective.
Last edited:
I don't think any linguistic phrase of just a few words, can adequately express the complexity nor the variances in what we each do to reach the final print.
"Expose for the ________, develop for the ________". or "Place the __________ & let the ________values fall."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,633
- Format
- 8x10 Format
I've never seen a Minor White color print, or even heard of one. AA did do a limited number of color shots, and clumsily tried to conform his idea of the Zone System to that, but why? It certainly didn't help him much. Color film, especially chrome transparencies, are basically middle-point outward problems; how much latitude do you have either side of the 18% midtone box speed before the color reproduction quality begins to seriously suffer? Not much with transparency film, especially Velvia. And how much content are you willing to sacrifice to total black or bleached out highlights if your film can't handle the full scene contrast range? That's more a compositional strategy and personal choice.
I cut my teeth on high contrast slide films like Kodachrome 25 and even more contrasty early Agfachrome 50. Then I eventually started printing on a high contrast medium, Cibachrome, and necessarily learned the importance of supplemental contrast masking along with having a larger arsenal of film to choose from, including sheet film sizes. After awhile, exposure decisions were greatly simplified, since I began to automatically gravitate towards scenes which comfortably fit the appropriate contrast range to begin with. Same thing, now that I mostly use Ektar color negative film and RA4 printing instead. But in a studio, the lighting ratios can simply be adjusted.
Color exposure strategy is much different from black and white options. With color, changes equivalent to gray scale value shifts in black and white work equate to changes in color saturation, or even, at a certain point, to color curve crossover issues. In this respect, a loose mentality of exposure "latitude" often gets abused with predictably mediocre results, especially with respect to color negative films. But different people have different expectations.
You can't really expand or contract a color film scale all that much like in black and white development, especially with current color films. There's little wiggle room to accommodate a Zone System mentality, and never has been. "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" simply doesn't work in color film practice.
The only possible end run around that restriction is to go out and take tricolor separation negatives with a long scale black and white film, and figure out how to turn those into a print.
I cut my teeth on high contrast slide films like Kodachrome 25 and even more contrasty early Agfachrome 50. Then I eventually started printing on a high contrast medium, Cibachrome, and necessarily learned the importance of supplemental contrast masking along with having a larger arsenal of film to choose from, including sheet film sizes. After awhile, exposure decisions were greatly simplified, since I began to automatically gravitate towards scenes which comfortably fit the appropriate contrast range to begin with. Same thing, now that I mostly use Ektar color negative film and RA4 printing instead. But in a studio, the lighting ratios can simply be adjusted.
Color exposure strategy is much different from black and white options. With color, changes equivalent to gray scale value shifts in black and white work equate to changes in color saturation, or even, at a certain point, to color curve crossover issues. In this respect, a loose mentality of exposure "latitude" often gets abused with predictably mediocre results, especially with respect to color negative films. But different people have different expectations.
You can't really expand or contract a color film scale all that much like in black and white development, especially with current color films. There's little wiggle room to accommodate a Zone System mentality, and never has been. "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" simply doesn't work in color film practice.
The only possible end run around that restriction is to go out and take tricolor separation negatives with a long scale black and white film, and figure out how to turn those into a print.
Last edited:
I have seen images of color work by Edward Weston -- AA must have gave him a few sheets to play with.
Many of AA color images look like they were just his B&W set-ups and him deciding to try a couple sheets of color at the same set-up (such as one of his Monument Valley images). All pretty new back then. If AA had trained as a painter instead of a pianist, his approach to color photography probably would have very very different.
Many of AA color images look like they were just his B&W set-ups and him deciding to try a couple sheets of color at the same set-up (such as one of his Monument Valley images). All pretty new back then. If AA had trained as a painter instead of a pianist, his approach to color photography probably would have very very different.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,633
- Format
- 8x10 Format
EW was commissioned to take a series of large format Kodachrome shots. There aren't many, but a few of them are quite compelling. And AA made a few memorable color images too, with effective composition. Its fairly easy to still find and buy his book of those. And yeah, a number of them were taken exactly the same as a particular b&w shot, just with color film instead. Apparently he never got into color printing himself, which explains a lot. But none of that was "new" by any means. He was surrounded by photo pals in his own Carmel neighborhood who routinely did color printing, primarily via dye transfer.
… and if he was an organist rather than pianist then his understanding and preference probably would have been color instead of B&W.
Ansel Adams wrote in some of his books that manipulating color was more limited than black &n white, and that color would go unrealistic once outside a narrow band. Therefore he preferred to concentrate black & white.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |