I am sorry to say that I am more of a point and shoot person. I had a 35mm camera in my younger days but never really figured out how to use it properly. Thank you for a lesson I never received.
You’re welcome Paul. Remember, the camera is only a tool, it’s the shooter who makes the picture worth something. My phone is a point and shoot, and I’ve taken some cool pictures with it, too.
This was fascinating. I am doomed to be an analog gurl for the rest of my life (there are worse fates), so learning a little something about digital photography was a good for me.
Sometimes the lights are shinin' on me . . . .
Now that you see with a digital eye and a film eye, that kinda makes you bilingual, in a photographic kind of way.
Yo, I need to nit pick some of your advice a bit, if you don't mind. I'm coming from a 100% analog POV here -- film -> develop -> darkroom -- so I'm not talking about scanning the negative and processing digitally.
If I were to look at your scene, here's what I would do. I'd agree that I would want more detail in the shadow -- the brick -- as you recommend. I would meter for the brick, then meter for the sky (the brightest area). Depending on what that tonal range is, I'd then stop down my exposure on the brick by one or two stops. This compensates for the fact that the meter is metering for middle gray, not a true representation of that brick area. Dropping exposure on the brick will of course also drop exposure on the highlights, thus allowing for more detail in the sky to emerge. Then once you have your proper exposure set in the dark room print, you can then decide if you need to lighten up the brick a bit more with some dodging, or darken the highlights a bit with a lower contrast and/or burning. This will give your final print a truer representation of the detail and tonality of the brick area and with greater highlight detail.
For digital processing, your method may be fine, since "fixing it in post" is nearly always an option in digital. But I suspect that if you don't capture the information available in-camera, you will lose some of this. I'm not sure. But I suggest to give this a shot next next time. Take three shots -- one at the "proper" meter reading, as you did here, and then two more, one stop darker for each. And see what that does to the detail in the shadows and highlights.
I'm still very much in learning mode here, but coincidentally, as you were writing this post, I was in the darkroom addressing this EXACT issue across several drafts of 2 photos I had taken with bright skies and dark bricks. (If you look at my last post, you'll see the pic of the black woman singing. I was able to bring down the highlights with this method quite nicely.)
Honest, it's true. Our respective universes were high f-ving one another last night. I haven't perfected this process yet -- I may run out of yardage before that happens -- but my suggestion is a simplification of the theory behind this practice, in any event.
Thank you for the replay, Mark. I would not disagree with any of what you mentioned Mark. My two previous posts, including this one, are discussions of the first roll of film that I have put through a camera in 40 years. This first first roll, was intended to be a sacrificial undertaking, at least in as much as I was not expecting to win any awards with my photography, I was just familiarizing myself with the camera, and trying to remember how to work my Sekonic light meter. I chose shots where I could be confident of what I was wanting the exposure to be, and the shot to look like. I was very happy to see that my ideas and the final product were pretty close. The pictures that I have posted, including the ones in this article, have not been altered by me, they are what the lab sent me.
In this post, specifically, I was wanting to discuss the differences in the way the above shot turned out, versus, the way my mind expected it to look. I realized (after the fact) that I was engaging in an analogue process, but my mind was thinking about the settings from a digital perspective. I expected much more of the façade to be blown out (and it would have been, if I was shooting digitally). I included the information of the differences in the way chemical and digital process gather and handle light, because I wanted to provide the reader a pathway to see into why I was caught by surprise. In essence, I thought that I was exposing for the highlights, but I metered the stone and ended up exposing for the shadows. I had a decent exposure, but I got there by backing into it.
In the future, if I was faced with the similar circumstances, I would meter much darker overall and fix it in the darkroom. This would be much the same path that you mentioned.
As an aside, in your course, have you been asked to cook (push) your film in the developing tank longer than is standard? That can also add fun attributes to B&W film.
Sorry to have added all that. I couldn't help it. I've been shooting film only two years, only now intensively printing. I am of the mindset, as of today (tomorrow may change) that full analog and hybrid (film with digital processing) are different animals. They need to be separated as genres, so to speak. You wrote well of the refreshed energy film has brought you in the shooting process. I think that's where the similarity ends, IMO. When you started to "think" digitally in your post, my auto reflexes kicked in. I should have kept shut.
Anyway...nough said. You are on your film journey. I on mine. I'm a latecomer so it's all new to me. I'll get through as much analog developing and printing as possible before acquiring a scanner. I'll want a scanner for sure, but in the meantime, it's the school of hard knocks until it's not. Until then, shoot away, shall we?
Actually, I am not so much interested in the hybrid process as I am interested in being able to print my negatives in a larger format, without using an enlarger. I am wanting to be able to print my negatives with a platinum-palladium process. It ids a contact printing method, and the medium format negatives will provide good options, I will want to create larger negatives with an ink-jet printer, say 8 X 11. By necessity, it will need to be a hybrid process, but I am really looking forward to being able to print out the beauty of the film on a larger piece of paper, without have to stand in a darkroom.
I am sorry to say that I am more of a point and shoot person. I had a 35mm camera in my younger days but never really figured out how to use it properly. Thank you for a lesson I never received.
You’re welcome Paul. Remember, the camera is only a tool, it’s the shooter who makes the picture worth something. My phone is a point and shoot, and I’ve taken some cool pictures with it, too.
I'm about to start testing my Kiev 6C medium format camera... as soon as I buy a take-up spool. :)
Would love to compare notes.
The biggest difference between shooting35 and 120 is, you need that take up spool! Don't ever lose it! Let's compare!
This was fascinating. I am doomed to be an analog gurl for the rest of my life (there are worse fates), so learning a little something about digital photography was a good for me.
Sometimes the lights are shinin' on me . . . .
Now that you see with a digital eye and a film eye, that kinda makes you bilingual, in a photographic kind of way.
I will need to get my analogue eye back, before I can be truly bi-lingual.
Yo, I need to nit pick some of your advice a bit, if you don't mind. I'm coming from a 100% analog POV here -- film -> develop -> darkroom -- so I'm not talking about scanning the negative and processing digitally.
If I were to look at your scene, here's what I would do. I'd agree that I would want more detail in the shadow -- the brick -- as you recommend. I would meter for the brick, then meter for the sky (the brightest area). Depending on what that tonal range is, I'd then stop down my exposure on the brick by one or two stops. This compensates for the fact that the meter is metering for middle gray, not a true representation of that brick area. Dropping exposure on the brick will of course also drop exposure on the highlights, thus allowing for more detail in the sky to emerge. Then once you have your proper exposure set in the dark room print, you can then decide if you need to lighten up the brick a bit more with some dodging, or darken the highlights a bit with a lower contrast and/or burning. This will give your final print a truer representation of the detail and tonality of the brick area and with greater highlight detail.
For digital processing, your method may be fine, since "fixing it in post" is nearly always an option in digital. But I suspect that if you don't capture the information available in-camera, you will lose some of this. I'm not sure. But I suggest to give this a shot next next time. Take three shots -- one at the "proper" meter reading, as you did here, and then two more, one stop darker for each. And see what that does to the detail in the shadows and highlights.
I'm still very much in learning mode here, but coincidentally, as you were writing this post, I was in the darkroom addressing this EXACT issue across several drafts of 2 photos I had taken with bright skies and dark bricks. (If you look at my last post, you'll see the pic of the black woman singing. I was able to bring down the highlights with this method quite nicely.)
Honest, it's true. Our respective universes were high f-ving one another last night. I haven't perfected this process yet -- I may run out of yardage before that happens -- but my suggestion is a simplification of the theory behind this practice, in any event.
Thank you for the replay, Mark. I would not disagree with any of what you mentioned Mark. My two previous posts, including this one, are discussions of the first roll of film that I have put through a camera in 40 years. This first first roll, was intended to be a sacrificial undertaking, at least in as much as I was not expecting to win any awards with my photography, I was just familiarizing myself with the camera, and trying to remember how to work my Sekonic light meter. I chose shots where I could be confident of what I was wanting the exposure to be, and the shot to look like. I was very happy to see that my ideas and the final product were pretty close. The pictures that I have posted, including the ones in this article, have not been altered by me, they are what the lab sent me.
In this post, specifically, I was wanting to discuss the differences in the way the above shot turned out, versus, the way my mind expected it to look. I realized (after the fact) that I was engaging in an analogue process, but my mind was thinking about the settings from a digital perspective. I expected much more of the façade to be blown out (and it would have been, if I was shooting digitally). I included the information of the differences in the way chemical and digital process gather and handle light, because I wanted to provide the reader a pathway to see into why I was caught by surprise. In essence, I thought that I was exposing for the highlights, but I metered the stone and ended up exposing for the shadows. I had a decent exposure, but I got there by backing into it.
In the future, if I was faced with the similar circumstances, I would meter much darker overall and fix it in the darkroom. This would be much the same path that you mentioned.
As an aside, in your course, have you been asked to cook (push) your film in the developing tank longer than is standard? That can also add fun attributes to B&W film.
Sorry to have added all that. I couldn't help it. I've been shooting film only two years, only now intensively printing. I am of the mindset, as of today (tomorrow may change) that full analog and hybrid (film with digital processing) are different animals. They need to be separated as genres, so to speak. You wrote well of the refreshed energy film has brought you in the shooting process. I think that's where the similarity ends, IMO. When you started to "think" digitally in your post, my auto reflexes kicked in. I should have kept shut.
Anyway...nough said. You are on your film journey. I on mine. I'm a latecomer so it's all new to me. I'll get through as much analog developing and printing as possible before acquiring a scanner. I'll want a scanner for sure, but in the meantime, it's the school of hard knocks until it's not. Until then, shoot away, shall we?
No worries, Mark.
Actually, I am not so much interested in the hybrid process as I am interested in being able to print my negatives in a larger format, without using an enlarger. I am wanting to be able to print my negatives with a platinum-palladium process. It ids a contact printing method, and the medium format negatives will provide good options, I will want to create larger negatives with an ink-jet printer, say 8 X 11. By necessity, it will need to be a hybrid process, but I am really looking forward to being able to print out the beauty of the film on a larger piece of paper, without have to stand in a darkroom.
Not sure what all this has to do with sleep and travel, but oh well.
It comes close to my observations. My digital camera is set to underexpose by 2/3 of a stop, to make sure I get all the highlights captured.