[Billk]

Expose to the right.

That means get your highlights as close to blowing out as you can. You can then lower the highlights in PP without having lost anything. You might lose shadow detail in really contrasty shots but viewers find poor shadow detail much more acceptable than blown highlights.

[DWS1]

I suggest learning the Zone System. It is a process that involves both the exposure and development of film but it was good enough for Ansel Adams it should be good enough for us.

I was going to suggest the same thing. I think Ansel Adams and Fred Archer (movie star photographer) developed it around 1940. Still very useful today.

[tuco]

A lot of advise here assumes you have a densitometer to first establish a working exposure index and then being able to meter and place a highlight at a specific density value range with your development time. That's how you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

With your K1000's meter and no densitometer, you'll have to learn by trial and error. But with a one-degree spot meter you can still employe the zone system of metering and tweak your development based of what you see in the results for feedback pretty effectively over time.

[stevebrot]

Expose to the right.

That means get your highlights as close to blowing out as you can. You can then lower the highlights in PP without having lost anything. You might lose shadow detail in really contrasty shots but viewers find poor shadow detail much more acceptable than blown highlights.

The OP is talking film. Different rules.

(...actually the same rules, just different solutions...)


Steve

(...Captain! We need more light! ...)

[stevebrot]

With your K1000's meter and no densitometer, you'll have to learn by trial and error.

The way I have established base EI without a densitometer is to do a bracketed exposure series of a test setup that challenges the dynamic range (texture in both zones I and IX). If I can satisfy both with standard development, I base EI on that bracket. If not, I use zone I as the anchor for base EI and work on development to get IX or greater.


Steve

[pentaxus]

In the old days people would shoot tri-x at ISO 200 with less development to improve shadow detail. This is zone system-ish. Commonly used when people used flash to reduce contrast but also good in harsh sunlight. My recollection is the development was reduced by 15-20%.

[titrisol]

That is a good question, which film are you using?
Are you developing yourself or sending it out?

[tuco]

The way I have established base EI without a densitometer is to do a bracketed exposure series of a test setup that challenges the dynamic range (texture in both zones I and IX). If I can satisfy both with standard development, I base EI on that bracket. If not, I use zone I as the anchor for base EI and work on development to get IX or greater.


Steve

With average in-camera metering? How do you know what is zone 1 and 9 on your negative?

[stevebrot]

With average in-camera metering? How do you know what is zone 1 and 9 on your negative?

I meter in camera from a gray card or incident with a hand-held meter.

As for knowing zones I and IX...by providing such in the subject. I evaluate by direct examination of the negative with a magnifying loupe. That approach is actually pretty old school.


Steve

[tuco]

I meter in camera from a gray card or incident with a hand-held meter.

As for knowing zones I and IX...by providing such in the subject. I evaluate by direct examination of the negative with a magnifying loupe. That approach is actually pretty old school.


Steve

Okay. I'd did something similar with a one-degree spot meter before I had a densitometer. With a one-degree spot meter, you know how many stops of light are in a scene. That very useful to know. And when you place your middle grey exposure, you will also know how many stops above and below that middle grey, say, the white wall and shadow are placed.

Now knowing that information you can see on the negative if you captured that shadow detail and from the print or scan you can see the highlight detail. With negative film, it is the 2nd generation image that limits your highlight detail. BW film can capture measurable differences in highlight density that you'll most likely never record if you also include density just above the film's base + fog density value in the print or scan. And through trial and error you can quickly adjust exposure and development to practice zone system metering to a fair degree and get better, more predicable results, I feel.

[EssJayEff]

Expose to the right.

That means get your highlights as close to blowing out as you can. You can then lower the highlights in PP without having lost anything. You might lose shadow detail in really contrasty shots but viewers find poor shadow detail much more acceptable than blown highlights.

Expose to the right has no bearing on film, which is the premise to the thread. The closest film comes to that digital technique is color transparency film, but there is no histogram on film cameras. For transparency film, you expose so as not to blow out the highlights.

[womble]

I'm looking forward to getting my Reveni labs spot meter. I've kept an eye out for a Pentax digital spotmeter but they don't come up often and are £££.

[jason88]

I'm not sure what you are asking; are you trying to capture the full tonal scale in contrasty images?
Are you shooting street or studio?
If so, my guess is that the latitude of your film is going to be the biggest issue

The K1000 will meter around the center of the image and give you an exposure value for the center of the scale; handhelds will do about the same (unless it is an incident).
SO it falls in your hand to decide what the "medium" point should be

Images with high contrast are tricky and finding that medium point takes some experimentation to avoid overblowing the highlights or shadows
You can use your hand as reference or find a "grey" wall

Also, depending what film/developer you are using there are processing tricks to make the tonality longer (less contrast) or shorter (contrasty) that may help

I shoot people though not street or in studio. I think it is an incident metre that i need

---------- Post added 05-09-21 at 07:31 PM ----------

That is a good question, which film are you using?
Are you developing yourself or sending it out?

I use portra 400 and a lab does it

[titrisol]

Set the ISO to 250 (1 notch over 200) or 320 (2 notches) for Portra
It used to be quite forgiving on the highlights so overexposing is hard.

I shoot people though not street or in studio. I think it is an incident metre that i need

---------- Post added 05-09-21 at 07:31 PM ----------


I use portra 400 and a lab does it

[LesDMess]

Set the ISO to 250 (1 notch over 200) or 320 (2 notches) for Portra
It used to be quite forgiving on the highlights so overexposing is hard.

I would say it's near impossible to overexpose Portra 160/400 . . . specially when you compare it to digi RAW files.



So I established an ideal exposure "0" and increased exposure time 1 stop until I overexposed by 10 stops which I thought would cover the range. Obviously not enough. I then applied some minor post work of white balance and levels to the +10 overexposed scan to get the larger image below +8 to +10 images. The digi RAW files are completely unusable by +5. I've tried this on newer digis and not much has changed.

In practical application, this ultrawide latitude can be used to capture a very wide latitude on one frame.



In this image, I am able to derive useful detail in the deep shadows as well as what would appear to have been blownout highlights. However, you will have to apply post work of shadows and highlights tool in order to achieve this. Exposure can be adjusted in scan itself too to derive even more detail.

The general rule of thumb when using color negatives and b&w film is expose for the shadows because the film will take care of the rest. To be more precise, you properly expose the most critical area and the rest will fall where they may and with Portra you will have a lot of overexposure reach and some underexposure.

Here is the full range I tested . . .