[Leica] re: Exposure and Development

[walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)]

Mark Rabiner wrote:
> On 3/2/07 10:28 AM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> typed:
>   
>
>
> Walt! you can pull out the Ansel Adams Examples book and read the
> descriptions on the right there with the pix on the left there are plenty 
> of
> shots where he goes for the highlights first. In effect placing them. Then
> in effect worries about the shadows as a second consideration.
>   
I just assumed many of us read good old Ansel. I have quite a few of his 
books and even helped hang a show of his in 1968. There is nothing wrong 
with understanding N-1, N-2 or N+1,2,etc. When doing this type of work 
we have the ability to process  film accordingly. This  but this is not 
as viable with 35mm. It does help to know how to control what can be 
controlled with 35mm and understanding the Zone System is a big plus.
>
> You can have your density of your important highlight be anything you want
> it to be through development.
>   
Absolutely....But if your Uncle Hank and Aunt Bessie have their face 
exposed  and processed for zone 10 instead of zone 6 folks will think 
they are from outer space.
> But if you've placed it too high on the curve its just not going to
> separate. And you're going to have the heartbreak of fuzzy crushed
> highlights. 
That is what the bottom line here is all about. Control....Below zone 3 
there is no detail. Above zone 8 there is no detail. Actually,  film 
presents a narrow range of choices when it comes right down to it. 
Certainly you want to know where your highlights will end up.. That is 
why it is important to understand what happens with exposure and 
development.  You can walk into a room and shoot Uncle Hank and Aunt 
Bessie without regard to where the shadows fall by reading there faces 
and openning up a stop. Zone 6 for their smiling countenances and a 
disappearing act for the little black poodle Aunt Bessie holds in her 
lap. If it were me, I'd wave my meter in front of Poochie just to make 
sure there was a bit of detail in his shiny black coat. If Hank and 
Bessie fell off the other end with their Caucasian skin tones I'd just 
cut back a bit on development.

>  
> So exposure is a big deal highlight wise. Just as critical as in shadows.
>   
Of course. the big difference is you can control highlights with 
exposure and development but only get viable detail in shadows with 
exposure.
> So one does end up in the end exposing for highlights just like in slides.
>   

Transparencies are positive....That is why they better have their 
highlights metered. Transparencies do not have the ability to reproduce 
the range of tones a negative does either. The high quality of modern 
C-41 film convinced me to dump Fujichrome years back.
> Yes it does sound heretic. Which is way its so much fun!
No, it just sounds as if you missed a point or two when perusing Ansel's 
work.

 "/the most serious error in exposure is giving too little exposure 
because detail is thereby lost in shadow areas that cannot be recovered 
though any processing or subsequent manipulation. For most photographs, 
therefore, we make the initial placement on the darkest area of the 
subject where we want to preserve detail in the image".
Adams, Ansel
The Negative Book Two.

/One thing though, much of this depends on ones shooting style. I've 
always done the PJ thing. Don't even own a tripod anymore and haven't 
shot flash in at least 5 years. / /I agree with you on one thing, Heresy 
rules. :-)
/
/Walt