Subject: Re: spotmeter questions
Reply-To: ian@rats.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: not
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:30:05 +0000

In article <c4Eo03kfc1bZ00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes (">") in reply to an
article of mine (">>") in reply to an article (not quoted here) in
which he discusses being shown at a workshop how non-"extreme" (<2
stop) variations in development and exposure can be compensated for by
good printing.  This is probably boring enough for everyone else that
we should shut up soon, but I did have just a _couple_ of extra things
to say...

> >You didn't say whether he actually did all this while you were watching,
> >or just showed you some prints that resulted.  
> 
> Huh?  The only way that I can imagine that to be significant would be as a
> check to see that he's not a charlatan throwing in ringers to make his point.
> I can't believe that a photographer of his stature would resort to such 
> tactics.

Of course not, at least consciously.  No offence intended.  But many
photographers (all photographers?) work back from what works for them
to general principles which may not be right.  Then they work forward
again under their normal conditions to prove the principles to
themselves, and are not surprised that things do indeed appear to be
right.  So, someone may give advice to anyone who will listen about how
transparency film "always" ought to be underexposed by exactly 1/3
stop. Or whatever.

People giving advice are almost always sincere.  Often, though, they
don't realise quite how limited the scope of their advice is:  "I rate
Ektachrome 100HC batch xyz1234 at EI80 when used with my 1986 Nikon F3
and my 55mm Micro-Nikkor and two flashguns when producing
transparencies of dragonflies for submission to open exhibitions" might
be less misleading, but somehow no-one ever says that.  They say
"underexpose slide film by 1/3 stop" instead.

> Or was there another purpose behind this statement/question that
> has escaped me?

Well, I was thinking back to my own workshop experience, which was with
a guy called John Blakemore who is probably not well known outside the
UK.  (Note to all UK resident rec.photo people: go to a Blakemore
workshop, if for no other reason than to meet him and talk to him. 
Very nice person, _demon_ printer, very good attitude and does
interesting work.  Buy his _Inscape_ book, too.)

One thing he did was show an example print sequence of 6 prints from
the same negative whose print exposure (on grade 2 paper, Ektalure I
think) was a 5,10,20,40-type sequence.  This demonstration reminded me
of the one you were talking about.  The real question is what the
demonstration purports to be a demonstration _of_.

Blakemore also made some very interesting statements about the right
way to process film (as a small part of a workshop that was more about
the artistic than the technical side of photography) which sounded OK
at the time but which I now ignore now that I understand things better.
Specifically, he makes _very_ soft negatives by most people's
standards (N-1 at best) but for some reason they print perfectly on
grade 2 paper.  When HE prints them.

Now, I tried this for a while with little success until I "heard" again
(in my head, obviously) one of the things he said at the workshop which
I had ignored at the time due to my awe circuitry being overloaded. 
Which was (paraphrased): pay no attention to the details here, this is
all part of one man's photographic practice. It works for me, it may or
may not work for you.

> >You also didn't describe
> >the subject matter of these negatives.
> 
> Now that *is* significant.  This was a rather boring scene of some barren
> hills with unremarkable trees and rocks in the medium-distance.  Mostly
> clear sky with some ordinary looking clouds.            
> 
> [...]
>
> And it's probably significant
> that the demonstration pictures did not have large Zone III areas which 
> would have stood out as gaping black holes.

In other words, this photographer's chosen subject matter made it
impossible to make judgements from the prints he made about the effect
of exposure and development on any photograph in which shadow areas
were important.  Unsurprisingly, he claimed that underexposure wasn't a
problem.

> >Too much development "compensated" by a change in paper grade will be
> >visible if the scene pushes the film into a wonky area of its >  
                                               ^^^^^
> Wonky?  I'm afraid I don't know this term.

WONKY adj. +KI+ER, +KI+EST. Brit. slang.

   1. shaky or unsteady.

   2. not in correct alignment, askew.

   3. liable to break down or develop a fault.

Sorry folks, I meant the shoulder, of course.  I didn't realise this
wasn't a commonly known term outside the UK when I used it.  I am
normally quite careful about these things, except of course when
talking about 5x4 coloUr negatives...

> But let's think it through.  
> More development will push the highlights up onto the shoulder of the
> films curve, decreasing highlight contrast, not a good thing.  At the same
> time, overall contrast will be increased, requiring a lower contrast grade
> of paper to fit everything on the paper.   This is a more difficult 
> printing problem but not impossible.  In particular if one uses VC paper.  
> 
> When I've made this mistake I've found that making the base exposure with 
> a moderate grade of filter instead of a low contrast grade has worked the
> best.  In other words I don't try to fit everything on the paper through
> the contrast filter because that usually leaves the mid-tone contrast
> (local contrast) too low and flat looking.  Then I've had to burn the 
> highlights with a high contrast filter.  But it *can* be done.  I can't
> say that I like the resultant grain in the highlights, though

In other words, you got a visible reduction in quality (as well as more
pain) through over-development.  I think _I_ said that.  Except that
when _I_ said it, it was proof of my point of view, not of yours ;-)

Actually, the grain is only one problem, caused by their being more
silver on the film than you needed as well as the contrast you're
printing the grain in with.  The other problem you will get is that
because the highlight tones are compressed when you put them on the
shoulder, they will come out "rougher" when you burn them in with a
high contrast filter, i.e., you won't see the same smooth transitions
between tones as you would have got if your negative had fitted the
paper in the first place.

> Summary:  No, you can't ignore correct, no make that 'optimum' (aint' no
> such thing as correct exposure - only exposure that produces the result
> that *you* want), exposure and appropriate development if you're looking for 
> the perfect monochrome print.

I'll second that.

> I must apologize if I gave that impression.  My 
> intent was to use an exaggerated example to make the point that great 
> precision is not required.  

A less extreme example would have left me less worried that you were
telling people they could be up to 2 stops out either way and develop
on the basis of a random number generator and still expect able to fix
it up in the darkroom.

> Barry

   -- Ian
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA