No, it's an easy exposure with conventional B&W film, and Frank had another choice. All y'do is expose for the shadows and cut back an appropriate amount in the development, and the result is a great neg that's easy to print or scan. It's that old adage again: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. If one doesn't have the time or the expertise to learn this technique, and adjust one's exposure and process to specific situations, then the simplest approach - admitedly a "one size fits all" method - is to just set the camera meter to overexpose by a stop or a stop and a half, shoot as one normally would, and then just cut back on the development time about 25% or so. Close enuf in most situations, and the negs and prints will be substantially better.
For best results, burn a roll or two and establish an ideal EI and development time for specific lighting situations and contrast ranges, and use those. Oh, one must learn a bit about contrast range and film lattitude, but really, it's not difficult. Bright sunlight admitedly creates difficult shooting situations and unpleasant, harsh results, but conventional B&W will allow all sorts of adjustments in exposure and development ... one just has to apply a little experience and forethought to the matter. It is a shame that so many people have forgotten how to expose and process film, or have never learned. Too much reliance on the meter in the camera rather than understanding light and film emulsions. Too much dependence on labs, color film, computer adjusted prints, and the "fix it in Photoshop" mentality. And then there are those who are dismissive of Ansel Adams' Zone System. That's a shame, for he has a lot to teach, and while some say the Zone System is overly complicated, once one understands it, even only in a general manner, their results can improve substantially. Shel > From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You're right Frank, a tough exposure indeed. Given your explanation, I'd > agree you got the most important exposure. > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Thanks for your thoughts, Ken. I would have liked to see more of the > > carvings, too. Problem was, it was a ~very~ bright, sunny day - I > > think I shot around noon or 1 pm. He had that baseball cap, and the > > peak probably made his face about 3 stops darker than the background, > > maybe more between him and the bright soap. > > > > I was bracketing, exposing for what the camera said, but in those > > prints, his face was way too dark. Then I gradually opened up one, > > then two stops, hoping to get his face right. This was (I think) > > about one or 1 1/2 stops opened - the face was still a bit dark, but > > manageable, but the soap was all blown out. > > > > That's the choice I had, and decided to go with this one. Actually, > > Robert who printed this one really did a good job (you should have > > seen the neg! <G>). He exposed for the face, then burned the > > background, and believe it or not, I'm pleased with the result, given > > what were really harsh lighting conditions. > > > > Ideally, I'd like to go back there on an overcast day - I'm slowly > > building up a relationship with him, and he's pretty comfortable with > > my camera, so hopefully it won't be another 18 months before I see him > > again (he changes his street corners).
