Mamiya RZ/Portra 400 flash exposure Vs Nikon D200

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by 10speeduk, Mar 4, 2013.

  1. 10speeduk

    10speeduk Member

    Messages:
    148
    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Ash, Kent
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hi all, I have been delving into flash portraits with my RZ67 and Portra 400. As a check, I set my Nikon D200 (Dont worry APUGer's -its a camera from the future :wink:) with ISO at 400 to match the portra and both at f22. The D200 shutter speed was at 1/250 and the RZ at 1/400.

    I expected the exposures on the RZ to mirror the ones from the D200. When I developed the images from the RZ, they were all around 1.5 to 2 stops overexposed!

    Is it that the film is just more sensitive to the flash type of light?? Confused!

    Paul
     
  2. Neil Grant

    Neil Grant Member

    Messages:
    115
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Location:
    area 76
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Paul, I think you'll find the D200 is a camera from the past. Well, a number of things could be going on to introduce the perceived discrepancy between film and digital. Were both cameras functioning correctly? Sticky aperture blades are easily seen, but a 'slow' leaf shutter in an ageing RZ would only be confirmed with proper test gear. Did you develop correctly? You'd only know if you processed a control strip etc. Fortunately, colour neg is very tolerant of overexposure.
     
  3. edcculus

    edcculus Member

    Messages:
    270
    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Location:
    Greenville S
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm no expert, but I remember reading how even when set at the same speed, a digital sensor isn't necessarily the same sensitivity as film of the same speed. If you are going to use a digital SLR as a meter for film, I would suggest doing tests to see ths ISO it needs to be set to get the exposure you expect on film.
     
  4. 10speeduk

    10speeduk Member

    Messages:
    148
    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Ash, Kent
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Thanks Neil and Ian C, I guess it could be a quirk with my gear. Either the RZ, D200 or a mixture. I will perform the same test but this time deliberately under-expose the RZ film by 1 stop and see if that sees things heading in the right direction. My D200 is tempermental as is the RZ, so who knows. Cheers Paul
     
  5. Alan Gales

    Alan Gales Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,082
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Location:
    St. Louis, M
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I have heard the exact same thing. I have never tested it though.
     
  6. spijker

    spijker Subscriber

    Messages:
    275
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Funny, my experience is the opposite; the DSLR sensors being more sensitive than the ISO number indicates. If I metered a studio flash setup with a handheld flash exposure meter, my 35mm slides were properly exposed while the DSLRs (Canon & Nikon, various models) were showing overexposure by 1/2 to 1 stop.
     
  7. 10speeduk

    10speeduk Member

    Messages:
    148
    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Ash, Kent
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Thanks guys, at least I know I am not mental and this sort of thing does happen for the same setups! Luckily, lightroom saved my ass, as I managed to drop the exposure without ruining the images, hence my guess at around 1.5 stops over exposure.
     
  8. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    When you say the Portra was "overexposed", on what basis are you making this judgement? Scans? My guess is that you're scanning and your inversion process is wrong, e.g. incorrect selection of white-point.

    I ask because you can overexpose Portra by 3 stops and have it print nearly identically to a normal exposure. Being C41, it's extremely overexposure-tolerant and therefore I doubt that you could even tell that a properly-printed image was 1.5 stops overexposed by looking at it. You could probably tell with a side-by-side A/B comparison but the differences will be subtle, e.g. increased shadow detail and slightly reduced highlight contrast.

    If you want to check your DSLR-preview/metering skills, expose some chromes. They too should come out right if you do it carefully.

    A DSLR is a perfectly valid means of checking an exposure but you need to make sure that it is setup correctly, i.e. make sure the dynamic-range optimisations are all disabled. The ISO film speed standard is a standard (from ISO, who'd have guessed?), and the digital world follows it just as rigorously as film manufacturers.
     
  9. StoneNYC

    StoneNYC Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,160
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    My answer, get a light meter! :smile:


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk