The Art of Photography - Baunbaum

[Mark Snowdon]

Has anyone read "The Art of Photography" by Bruce Baunbaum?, £34 from Waterstones but I expect you may get it cheaper online. It is primarily a darkroom / film book although there are a few chapters on digi. There are a couple of very good chapters about the zone system - very clearly explained and illustrated with excellent photos throughout. It is similar in size and content to "Way beyond Monochrome", another good book.

Mark

[mono]

Yes, I agree!
I find it very much worth reading!
He is a master of B&W.
I have all his books.

[JimW]

Loved it. The philosophy of what we are, determining what we photograph, and how we choose to photograph an image-a real thought provoking book.

[MalcolmM]

Yes, a very good read, definitely one to keep as a reference book.

[Les McLean]

Probably the best book I've read on Photo Expression. I purchased the first version many years ago and learned much from it. I recently purchased the current version on Kindle for £9 and it is totally different from his first version but still an excellent read. For my money Bruce is the best workshop teacher currently working, doesn't mince his words, can be a little feisty but an excellent leader and motivator with a wealth of knowledge and experience.
Incidentally, the photographs reproduced on Kindle are excellent, probably better than all but the most expensive photo books.

[Stoo Batchelor]

. For my money Bruce is the best workshop teacher currently working, doesn't mince his words, can be a little feisty but an excellent leader and motivator with a wealth of knowledge and experience.
.

Sounds like the recipe for the perfect teacher ;)

[Mike O'Pray]

Probably the best book I've read on Photo Expression. I purchased the first version many years ago and learned much from it. I recently purchased the current version on Kindle for £9 and it is totally different from his first version but still an excellent read. For my money Bruce is the best workshop teacher currently working, doesn't mince his words, can be a little feisty but an excellent leader and motivator with a wealth of knowledge and experience.
Incidentally, the photographs reproduced on Kindle are excellent, probably better than all but the most expensive photo books.

With the photographs being better than all but the most expensive photo books and the Kindle version costing only £9( paperback fiction price) I will no longer be sceptical of those predicting the end of the "book" in the next 10 years.

Mike - still enjoying visits to old fashioned public libraries and hankering after single speed fixed wheel bikes :D

[Alan Clark]

I have to say that I found this book rather disappointing. It promised a lot, but when it arrived I struggled to read it, as I found much of the text rather mundane. It has lots of photographs, and though they are technically excellent, on the whole I found them rather cold and lacking emotion, and certainly not very inspiring.

Alan

[dsallen]

Personally I am not a fan of either his work or, to my mind, his somewhat skewed version of the Zone System. Nevertheless, anyone who continues to inspire people to make meaningful photographs should be applauded.

David
www.dsallen.de

[Les McLean]

Personally I am not a fan of either his work or, to my mind, his somewhat skewed version of the Zone System. Nevertheless, anyone who continues to inspire people to make meaningful photographs should be applauded.

David
www.dsallen.de

As a matter of interest on what grounds?

[Brock]

Thank God I'm not the only one who didn't think much of the book. The copy I have has a soft cover and the quality of the photographs on thin paper stock is poor. You can see one photo shining through the back of another. The text was reasonably interesting but nothing special. I agree that a lot of the pics are cold and lifeless. If I ever see another slot canyon it will be too soon. Give me Eddie Ephraums of Tony Worobiec any day! :-)


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

[alexmuir]

I bought this book about a year ago and I have to say I liked it. His general point about exposing film seemed to be that more exposure is better than less. I have to say that I agree with this. I have produced, and seen, lots of negatives which failed as a result of under exposure. An over exposed negative, on the other hand, has to be really bad before it becomes unprintable. I also enjoyed some of the images in the book. Amazon contacted me weeks after I bought it to see of I wanted to trade it in. I decided to keep it as a useful reference. Alex

[dsallen]

As a matter of interest on what grounds?

Hi Les,

His 'discovery' of placing dark shadows on Zone IV for example.

My understanding of the Zone system is that it is based on the range of tones within a particular part of the image (a Zone) that you want to render as a particular grey tone in the final print but with the understanding that within this zone there will actually be a range of tones whose average equates to the tone of grey that you want for this area on the final print.

As an example, in my photographs, I identify an area that I want to render as a dark shadow with detail. I go in close with a Weston meter and it will supply me with an averaged value for the area that I have metered. If this area is a tree trunk, for example, there will be small highlights on the bark and also darker shadows. Placing the average on Zone III will give the area an overall rendering of a dark shadow with detail and this will be enhanced by the range of luminosities within this zone (what Barnbaum refers to as 'texture').

Barnbaum's arguments are:

1. The concept of placing your shadows on Zone III come from sensitometerists using step wedges. Whilst many books have been based on this approach, Ansel Adams developed the Zone System using real world practical tests. As you will be aware, ISO standards are based on findings resulting from the use of sensitometers to provide a reliable and measurable standard method of testing. It is for this reason (they are not from the 'real world') why so many photographers do not use 'box speed' because it does not deliver the results that they are looking for.

2. Despite his argument in Point 1, he then uses a characteristic curve to demonstrate that the average of tones within Zone III results in part of these tones falling lower on the toe of the curve and, therefore, the result is the loss of tonal separation. However, the whole point about undertaking real world tests to determine your own personal Exposure Index (that reflects your way of metering, your way of processing, your equipment-specific levels of internal flare, etc.) is to ensure that Zone I will be placed at the point where the toe meets the straight line section of your film/equipment/developer's resulting characteristic curve. In other words, if you test correctly, none of the averaged tones that make up a Zone III area will ever land on the toe of your personal characteristic curve and, therefore, there will be no compression on the luminance within Zone III.

Hope that explains what I was getting at.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

[Graeme]

Agree with Les, very useful book, and I'm just going through it again.

[Les McLean]

Hi Les,

His 'discovery' of placing dark shadows on Zone IV for example.

My understanding of the Zone system is that it is based on the range of tones within a particular part of the image (a Zone) that you want to render as a particular grey tone in the final print but with the understanding that within this zone there will actually be a range of tones whose average equates to the tone of grey that you want for this area on the final print.

As an example, in my photographs, I identify an area that I want to render as a dark shadow with detail. I go in close with a Weston meter and it will supply me with an averaged value for the area that I have metered. If this area is a tree trunk, for example, there will be small highlights on the bark and also darker shadows. Placing the average on Zone III will give the area an overall rendering of a dark shadow with detail and this will be enhanced by the range of luminosities within this zone (what Barnbaum refers to as 'texture').

Barnbaum's arguments are:

1. The concept of placing your shadows on Zone III come from sensitometerists using step wedges. Whilst many books have been based on this approach, Ansel Adams developed the Zone System using real world practical tests. As you will be aware, ISO standards are based on findings resulting from the use of sensitometers to provide a reliable and measurable standard method of testing. It is for this reason (they are not from the 'real world') why so many photographers do not use 'box speed' because it does not deliver the results that they are looking for.

2. Despite his argument in Point 1, he then uses a characteristic curve to demonstrate that the average of tones within Zone III results in part of these tones falling lower on the toe of the curve and, therefore, the result is the loss of tonal separation. However, the whole point about undertaking real world tests to determine your own personal Exposure Index (that reflects your way of metering, your way of processing, your equipment-specific levels of internal flare, etc.) is to ensure that Zone I will be placed at the point where the toe meets the straight line section of your film/equipment/developer's resulting characteristic curve. In other words, if you test correctly, none of the averaged tones that make up a Zone III area will ever land on the toe of your personal characteristic curve and, therefore, there will be no compression on the luminance within Zone III.

Hope that explains what I was getting at.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

David, many thanks for the comprehensive and technically correct answer to my request. Please let me tell you why I agree with Barnbaum.

Some 40 years ago when I started to make photographs I was encouraged by a friend to use the Zone System of exposure so I bought the books written by both Ansel Adams and Minor White, did all the tests and arrived at my personal film speed which was different from the box speed as you noted in your reply. For many years I was perfectly happy with the negatives I produced, detail into the darkest shadows etc., Then I noticed that my negatives were somewhat "thinner" in the shadows showing less than satisfactory detail so I tested again, arrived at the same result but still produced thin shadow detail in my negatives. After giving this problem some thought I decided to experiment by placing my shadows on Zone IV and adjusted the development to compensate for extra exposure in the mid tones and highlights. Bingo, I had full separation in the darkest shadows and good highlight detail controlled by the development. I have placed my shadows on Zone IV ever since that day.


Around this time I was involved with Nikon and happened to be speaking to a technical guy who mentioned the problems that they had encountered in the metering system of the latest 35mm Nikon camera, I think it was the F5, apparently the shadow detail was less than satisfactory. They solved the problem when they discovered that for some reason there was significantly more blue light in shadows and it was causing the metering system to underexpose the shadows. I mentioned my problem and he suggested that my meter, a Soligor Spot Meter, was also affected in the same way. He could not tell me why there was a general increase of blue light in the shadows. I was happy at this point for I believe that he had given me the answer to my problem and that I had taken the right steps to cure it. When I purchased the first version of Barnbaum's book and read his views on metering and exposure I was further convinced that I had taken the correct action.


Some years later I met and spent significant time with Barnbaum during which time we argued quite a lot about our views on aspects of photography, sometimes we agreed and others we strongly disagreed. However, I have great respect for him and we have remained friends despite many argumentative and stimulating nights spent talking photography. Incidentally he uses compensating development quite extensively.

[dsallen]

David, many thanks for the comprehensive and technically correct answer to my request. Please let me tell you why I agree with Barnbaum.

Some 40 years ago when I started to make photographs I was encouraged by a friend to use the Zone System of exposure so I bought the books written by both Ansel Adams and Minor White, did all the tests and arrived at my personal film speed which was different from the box speed as you noted in your reply. For many years I was perfectly happy with the negatives I produced, detail into the darkest shadows etc., Then I noticed that my negatives were somewhat "thinner" in the shadows showing less than satisfactory detail so I tested again, arrived at the same result but still produced thin shadow detail in my negatives. After giving this problem some thought I decided to experiment by placing my shadows on Zone IV and adjusted the development to compensate for extra exposure in the mid tones and highlights. Bingo, I had full separation in the darkest shadows and good highlight detail controlled by the development. I have placed my shadows on Zone IV ever since that day.


Around this time I was involved with Nikon and happened to be speaking to a technical guy who mentioned the problems that they had encountered in the metering system of the latest 35mm Nikon camera, I think it was the F5, apparently the shadow detail was less than satisfactory. They solved the problem when they discovered that for some reason there was significantly more blue light in shadows and it was causing the metering system to underexpose the shadows. I mentioned my problem and he suggested that my meter, a Soligor Spot Meter, was also affected in the same way. He could not tell me why there was a general increase of blue light in the shadows. I was happy at this point for I believe that he had given me the answer to my problem and that I had taken the right steps to cure it. When I purchased the first version of Barnbaum's book and read his views on metering and exposure I was further convinced that I had taken the correct action.


Some years later I met and spent significant time with Barnbaum during which time we argued quite a lot about our views on aspects of photography, sometimes we agreed and others we strongly disagreed. However, I have great respect for him and we have remained friends despite many argumentative and stimulating nights spent talking photography. Incidentally he uses compensating development quite extensively.

Hi Les,

Thanks for your clear explanation. It has set me to reflect on the use of spot meters and how they might affect one's approach to exposure.

I have always used Weston Master light meters which, as you will be aware, have a wide field of view which produces an averaging result. I have tried several spot meters over the years but never got on with them primarily because I found the field of view too narrow and I tended to get underexposed negatives. Before giving up on spot meters I tried to identify what was causing the problem:

The first thing that was clear to me was that, because the spot meter used a lens, there would be a difference in the meter's internal flare and the camera's internal flare. However, I surmised that practical exposure tests should compensate for these differences.

The second thing that became quickly clear was that one of the older spot meters that I was trying out had the older type sensor (as per early cameras with TTL metering) which did not respond to light in the same way that film did. This problem was easily solved by proceeding with my tests only using the spot meter that had a sensor that matched films response to light.

The third thing I considered was that, for every lens that I used, I used either a lens hood or, if using the 5 x 4, a lens hood and shielding the front of the lens hood with the dark-slide. The spot meter had no lens hood and the front of the lens was pretty exposed. In the best tradition of DIY, I decided to attach the inner core of a toilet roll (held in place with that great photographic accessory - BluTack) and repeat my tests again. This, I found, made a huge difference with all negatives being correctly exposed.

Perhaps what is happening here - we both get the results that we want but I meter the shadows and place them on Zone III and you and Barnbaum meter them and place them on Zone IV - actually represents a fundamental difference in how one needs to approach exposure depending upon the light meter that one uses?

In your post you wrote that For many years I was perfectly happy with the negatives I produced, detail into the darkest shadows etc., Then I noticed that my negatives were somewhat "thinner" in the shadows showing less than satisfactory detail so I tested again, arrived at the same result but still produced thin shadow detail in my negatives. and I was just wondering whether you have always used a spot meter or did the loss of shadow detail coincide with a change in meter?

By the way, I have also always used a compensating developer for my personal work - in the form of various two-bath developers. For the past years (at least 8 I think) I have used Thornton's formulation which I find 100% reliable, very cheap and also very easy to source the (minimal) ingredients.

Interesting subject regarding exposure styles.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

[Alan Clark]

One thing that occurs to me after reading Les' interesting post is that , despite being called panchromatic, regular modern films are slightly more sensitive to blue light, causing, among other things, blue sky to come out too dense on the negative, and too pale on the final print, unless some of the blue light is blocked by, say, a yellow filter.
Given this extra blue sensitivity, would this not help to put extra exposure into the shadows if the shadows consist of extra blue light?
And , in effect, reduce the problem that Les described.

Alan

[Terry S]

Just bookmarking to read later.

Terry S

[Les McLean]

Hi Les,

Thanks for your clear explanation. It has set me to reflect on the use of spot meters and how they might affect one's approach to exposure.

I have always used Weston Master light meters which, as you will be aware, have a wide field of view which produces an averaging result. I have tried several spot meters over the years but never got on with them primarily because I found the field of view too narrow and I tended to get underexposed negatives. Before giving up on spot meters I tried to identify what was causing the problem:

The first thing that was clear to me was that, because the spot meter used a lens, there would be a difference in the meter's internal flare and the camera's internal flare. However, I surmised that practical exposure tests should compensate for these differences.

The second thing that became quickly clear was that one of the older spot meters that I was trying out had the older type sensor (as per early cameras with TTL metering) which did not respond to light in the same way that film did. This problem was easily solved by proceeding with my tests only using the spot meter that had a sensor that matched films response to light.

The third thing I considered was that, for every lens that I used, I used either a lens hood or, if using the 5 x 4, a lens hood and shielding the front of the lens hood with the dark-slide. The spot meter had no lens hood and the front of the lens was pretty exposed. In the best tradition of DIY, I decided to attach the inner core of a toilet roll (held in place with that great photographic accessory - BluTack) and repeat my tests again. This, I found, made a huge difference with all negatives being correctly exposed.

Perhaps what is happening here - we both get the results that we want but I meter the shadows and place them on Zone III and you and Barnbaum meter them and place them on Zone IV - actually represents a fundamental difference in how one needs to approach exposure depending upon the light meter that one uses?

In your post you wrote that and I was just wondering whether you have always used a spot meter or did the loss of shadow detail coincide with a change in meter?

By the way, I have also always used a compensating developer for my personal work - in the form of various two-bath developers. For the past years (at least 8 I think) I have used Thornton's formulation which I find 100% reliable, very cheap and also very easy to source the (minimal) ingredients.

Interesting subject regarding exposure styles.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

David, this does make an interesting subject for discussion re methods of determining exposure.


I used a Weston IV when I first made photographs but the friend who guided me to the Zone System also suggested I would be well advised to use a spot meter so I did as I was told and purchased my Soligor Analogue meter for £59, what a bargain and my friend was right. I still use the same meter. My Zone tests were done using the spot meter.


You are right on the mark regarding the problem of flare when using a spot meter, luckily I spotted the problem quite early and solved it simply by shielding the lens with my left hand by cupping it around the top of the lens as I made my reading. I still use that method today, perhaps I'll nick your toilet toll core dodge but ensure that you get the credit :) Flare on the spot meter lens could result in underexposure by as much as two stops.


Please bare with me while I explain another reason why I think placing shadows on Zone IV produces a better negative, particularly in the shadows.


Imagine we are making a photograph of a passage with a closed, black gloss painted panelled door at the end of this longish dark passage also with dark painted walls. The passage is lit by natural light from one small window on one side wall. The black door does reflect a little of the window light which does not directly light the door. I metered the darkest part of the door and placed it on Zone IV. I could not meter the darkest area in the picture even with a spot meter because it was too small, but for me it was essential that I show difference in tone between the door and the small area of darkness between it and the frame. I also metered the lightest area I wanted in the final print simply to determine the contrast range which governed how I would develop the film.


The resulting negative enabled me to make a print that showed the subtle differences in tone on the black painted, dimly lit door and quite clearly showed the black rim of darkness between the door and the frame. I had total separation in the shadows and an image on the paper that had quite considerable depth because of that separation. Placing the readable shadow on Zone III would have resulted in no separation at all and a negative that would have been very difficult to print. I always read my shadows in that manner and place them on Zone IV for there are dark little corners in shadows that are so easily lost at the metering stage.

[Adrian]

I've read this book and love it. Not wishing to get too involved in the Zone-IV debate (being a complete novice compared to you guys), one thing I did question though is Bruce's film speed testing i.e. Zone 0 = no density at all, Zone-I = trace density.

In my film testing, I get the faintest trace of density above FB+F through Zone-0 and Zone-I - virtually the same for 0 and I - the toe of the curve, flat as expected. It doesn't start to lift until the bottom end of Zone-II and is well off the toe by the bottom end of Zone-III. I expose at +0.5 to +2/3 but that's probably irrelevant to other folk with different light meters, cameras and processing.

Comparing Adams and Barnbaum, to me they both end up recommending 2/3 - 1 stop extra exposure - but possibly from different starting points.

Regarding Soligor Spot Meters and blue light - that's an interesting one. I have a Soligor Spot-II which appeared to be out of calibration compared to my Canon film camera (EOS3), averaging light meter and DSLR. So, I re-calibrated the Soligor Spot meter using the EOS3 in spot-mode with a 50mm lens as a reference. (I "reverse-engineered" the Spot Meter's circuit so figured out what the trim-pots do and therefore how to adjust them correctly, but that's another post for anothe time!) I found variations between colour - significant variations with the DSLR. I tested using grey targets in shade on a sunny day and white targets in full sun too - so blue light in the shadows and whites reflected from the sky. I got it spot-on (no punn intended) compared to the EOS3 over a wide range of light levels and some colour variations which have an effect (e.g. red brick wall, green grass, blue sky). The fact that I could adjust the Soligor meter to be so close to the Canon EOS3 over a 17 EV range suggests to me that that the optical differences between the spot meter and an average camera+lens are small enough not to worry about.

And that brings me full-circle with Barnbaum and metering. At the end of the day, I think all these differences of opinion, metering and exposing technique etc are just a guide - once we characterise our own process from metering right through to lighting the final print and get results we're happy with it doesn't matter.

[Michael]

This interesting thread provoked me into wanting a copy; so I ordered it direct from Mr Barnbaum (not Baunbaum, by the way). It arrived today, signed by him for a small extra charge; and I'm looking forward to read it. Will never catch up with some of you lot though!

[Mark Snowdon]

Just to fan the flames of the zone III vs zone IV debate, here is a link to a YouTube clip of Bruce Barnbaum talking about why he places shadows on zone IV and not III:-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlnt5yFArWo

Since reading his book I have started to follow his advice regarding the placement of the shadows, with reduced development to control the highlights if needed and I must say that the negs look all the better for it. Contrast in the shadows is excellent as you would expect.

Another interesting tip he gives is the use of long exposures, using a ND filter if necessary, to give N+1 to negs. So if you have a roll of film and you do not want to give extended development to the whole film as only a few frames would benefit from it, you can use the expansion properties of long exposures to give N+1 to just those frames, whilst giving normal development to the film as a whole.

[peterlg]

Another interesting tip he gives is the use of long exposures, using a ND filter if necessary, to give N+1 to negs. So if you have a roll of film and you do not want to give extended development to the whole film as only a few frames would benefit from it, you can use the expansion properties of long exposures to give N+1 to just those frames, whilst giving normal development to the film as a whole.

hello Mark,
just listened to Barnbaum on the Youtube clip. Fine explanation of difference between tonality and texture - I'll certainly try if I can improve my negs - I know the problem with flat prints!
You make another point about long exposures. I don't quite understand what's the use of this with relation to development? If you measure the shadows and put them on zone IV, what's the difference between using f22-1/500 and say f2-1/8 sec?
Peter

[Mike O'Pray]

Another interesting tip he gives is the use of long exposures, using a ND filter if necessary, to give N+1 to negs. So if you have a roll of film and you do not want to give extended development to the whole film as only a few frames would benefit from it, you can use the expansion properties of long exposures to give N+1 to just those frames, whilst giving normal development to the film as a whole.

I am a little lost here. I had always thought that ND filters simply allowed increased shutter speeds to prevent existing top end camera shutter speeds from being too short thus giving overexposure. An example being a D3200 film in the camera with an unexpected bright day and the need for say 1/2000th when the top speed on the camera is 1/1000th and changing aperture to compensate for correct exposure isn't acceptable when you want shallow DoF

Can a ND filter change things simply by increasing exposure when by allowing the same bigger aperture to remain appropriate? What I am somewhat longwindedly getting to is that my assumption is that the ND doesn't change the correct EV setting for the shot but simply allows for a bigger aperture.

The best example of this and one that makes sense to me which I have seen is a shot of a motorway requiring a certain EV for proper exposure but with the requirement to show it as if there were no vehicles there by slowing the shutter speed so that fast moving vehicles aren't recorded.

Am I missing a use of ND which actually does something that simply manually increasing the exposure for shadow density to ZIV instead of ZIII in that frame doesn't

Thanks

Mike

[Mark Snowdon]

The ND filter does not increase contrast itself it is the long exposure which it allows that will give expansion to the neg. Reciprocity characteristics come in useful in this case. If you give a film an exposure of say 60secs this will give n+1 with the neg developed normally. Long exposures give increased contrast.

That is why film manufacturers recommend a cut in development time for long exposures to compensate for the increase in contrast.

Hope this makes sense?:confused:

Mark

[Mike O'Pray]

Thanks, I hadn't realised this. So the exposure at the same EV as is achieved with a shorter exposure time but bigger aperture to achieve the correct light quantity hitting the neg will deny you increased contrast compared with longer exposure but the same EV which takes into account the correct light quantity?

Any idea how this works in simple theoretical film terms?

Mike

[Mark Snowdon]

Hi Mike / Peter,

The sensitivity loss of film depends on the amount of light falling onto it. In low light the shadows are more affected by this reciprocity failure than the highlights which receive more light. This means that reciprocity failure tends to increase contrast because exposure is reduced more in the shadows than the highlights. So if you expose enough to get good shadow detail you will raise the value of the highlights. This is why you need reduced development to bring the highlights down.

So if you have a low contrast scene with the shadows on Z4 and highlights on Z6 say and you want the highlights on Z7 instead you can either give more development or use reciprocity failure to give you this expansion by giving a long exposure of say 60secs.

[Mike O'Pray]

So to gain the benefit of this reciprocity failure you presumably need to increase the exposure to that level at which reciprocity failure takes effect. Do you then apply the compensatory increase in exposure that reciprocity problem gives or simply ignore this aspect and rely on what the camera's meter says?

In other words any increase in exposure time that gets you into the reciprocity failure area will work?

I have to say I don't recall seeing this as a method in any book but it may be that it was explained but didn't register with me. Things often fail to register with me until I have read a book several times

The reciprocity gap increases with the increased exposure method via a ND filter so is there a way of working out where the exposure has to be to give the right level for say a one zone increase as you mention in your last paragraph?

While reciprocity failure will occur after as little as 1-2 secs with some film, you presumably should avoid the likes of Acros where it doesn't occur until after 120 secs unless you want a long wait

The other problem I see with this method occurs with any shot that requires motion to be stopped so it has to be used with static scenes only.

Mike

[Mark Snowdon]

Hi Mike,

You need to use an exposure time where reciprocity failure occurs if you want to get expansion, (eg N+1). Also you have to apply the increased exposure indicated on reciprocity charts / graphs otherwise your neg will be underexposed. Any exposure which puts you into reciprocity failure will give a degree of expansion.

I first saw info on this many years ago in some Agfa tech literature for the old Agfapan films (pre APX), and it is of course in Bruce B's book. In the Agfa literature it advised reducing development when using long exposures with its films to compensate for the increase in contrast.

There is a table in Bruce B's book for Tri-X, I think, but it will be different depending on what film you are using and what reciprocity characteristics it has. As you say, expansion with long exposures on Acros probably would not happen because of its good reciprocity characteristics.

Also I expect this is something that has to be taken into account with pinhole work as you normally end up with long exposures due to the use of a very small f number.

It is only since reading Bruce B's book that I have started thinking about this. It probably explains why many of my pinhole photos have not worked. In future I will give reduced dev to my pinhole films to compensate for the increase in contrast, unless of course I am photographing a low contrast subject.

Mark

[dsallen]

David, this does make an interesting subject for discussion re methods of determining exposure.


I used a Weston IV when I first made photographs but the friend who guided me to the Zone System also suggested I would be well advised to use a spot meter so I did as I was told and purchased my Soligor Analogue meter for £59, what a bargain and my friend was right. I still use the same meter. My Zone tests were done using the spot meter.


You are right on the mark regarding the problem of flare when using a spot meter, luckily I spotted the problem quite early and solved it simply by shielding the lens with my left hand by cupping it around the top of the lens as I made my reading. I still use that method today, perhaps I'll nick your toilet toll core dodge but ensure that you get the credit :) Flare on the spot meter lens could result in underexposure by as much as two stops.


Please bare with me while I explain another reason why I think placing shadows on Zone IV produces a better negative, particularly in the shadows.


Imagine we are making a photograph of a passage with a closed, black gloss painted panelled door at the end of this longish dark passage also with dark painted walls. The passage is lit by natural light from one small window on one side wall. The black door does reflect a little of the window light which does not directly light the door. I metered the darkest part of the door and placed it on Zone IV. I could not meter the darkest area in the picture even with a spot meter because it was too small, but for me it was essential that I show difference in tone between the door and the small area of darkness between it and the frame. I also metered the lightest area I wanted in the final print simply to determine the contrast range which governed how I would develop the film.


The resulting negative enabled me to make a print that showed the subtle differences in tone on the black painted, dimly lit door and quite clearly showed the black rim of darkness between the door and the frame. I had total separation in the shadows and an image on the paper that had quite considerable depth because of that separation. Placing the readable shadow on Zone III would have resulted in no separation at all and a negative that would have been very difficult to print. I always read my shadows in that manner and place them on Zone IV for there are dark little corners in shadows that are so easily lost at the metering stage.

Hi Les,

having mulled over your example, I have to say that I would be confident in getting a good result placing my shadows on Zone III. I think the difference between our approaches must be down to where the film is calibrated (of course, in practice, so long as we both achieve the results that we want it doesn't matter if you use Zone IV and I use Zone III).

In the video of Bruce Barnbaum explaining why he uses Zone IV, there is a clear demonstration of how he has misinterpreted the fundamentals of the Zone System. He quite correctly refers to the toe of the curve being flat and therefore leading to a lack of separation (or texture in his parlance). However, the point of 'real world' testing to establish your personal Exposure Index is to ensure that no part of Zone III lies on the toe. In effect, he is saying that he places Zone III to low down on the curve (thereby landing on the toe) and therefore has to place his shadows on Zone IV.

All of this can be quite ambiguous when using Zone system terms as
the placing of a particular area of a scene on a particular Zone tells other photographers nothing if they do not know where you have set your Zones I, II and III in reference to the toe. Perhaps it would be more helpful to give an example with exposure used as people can then refer to what exposure they would have given using their own methods of exposure and development.

Generally, in Berlin, because of the buildings being 5 stories high (about the equivalent to 8 stories in a typical post war block in the UK) there are often areas in deep shadow and, as many buildings are plastered in white (or near white colour) there is a high subject brightness ratio. Often this results in the shadow area I want to render dark but with detail falling on 10 on the Weston exposure dial (highlights often land on 16 or even higher). This equates to an exposure of 1/60 @ f16 when using Delta 400 rated at a personal exposure index of 200 in a Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens and developed in Barry Thornton's two-bath developer. As you can see, this is a long way from 'Sunny 16) but is an exposure that delivers consistently good shadow detail.

A quick comment on the N+1 expansion with reciprocity - I just don't get it. The expansion can only happen if you use the reciprocity failure to loose shadow detail. If you give adequate exposure to the shadows and control you development accordingly, you will have a correctly exposed negative. My main experience of long exposures is with night time photography in the city. Here, the subject brightness range can be huge. However, as I use a two-bath developer and know that my highlights will not be blown, I still use the same approach to metering: meter the shadow area I want to retain detail and place it on Zone III. This approach works consistently well even if there are streetlights captured within the image.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

[Mark Snowdon]

Have a look at:-

www.seeinglight.com/reciprocity

It gives an extract from Bruce B's book on the subject of reciprocity failue and contrast.

Mark

[MikeHeller]

I have just received a copy of this book ordered as a result of this thread. I look forward to reading it especially with the discussion that has been engendered. First look is favourable.
Mike

[alexmuir]

I've bought a lens hood for my Soligor spot as a result. Haven't tried it yet. Alex

[Mike O'Pray]

From Mark's link it is clear that Bruce Barnbaum produces a table that shows a correlation between the amount of reciprocity failure and the increase in contrast.

I presume this is based on verifiable tests. Unfortunately the link doesn't include the "theory" that explains how this happens. It would seem that reciprocity failure rather than just a long exposure is key and I am curious as to what reciprocity failure actually does to increase contrast.

Maybe those with the book will be able to educate us.

This is becoming a very interesting thread.

Mike

[Brock]

My understanding, Mike, is that the extra exposure necessary to overcome reciprocity failure disproportionately affects the highlights. Being near the toe of the film, the deeper shadows are barely affected by the extra exposure but the midtones and highlights build density quite readily. I suppose the end result is like giving an N+1 development to a film.


www.theonlinedarkroom.com