Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,888   Posts: 1,629,805   Online: 1093
      
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 87
  1. #11
    Terry Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    626
    Images
    19
    Or, to put it slightly lengthier than Steve said:
    If by your example you're using Portra 400 and set the meter to 200, then you're using film one stop faster than what you told the camera, thus overexposing by a stop.

  2. #12
    ChristopherCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Armpit of Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    28
    That's what I figured. I knew I shouldn't have paid attention to Sirius' response of "no".

  3. #13
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,379
    Images
    6
    Color neg film is pretty forgiving. Even more forgiving the standard BW film. It's a lot easier to scan or print through the dyes of color neg film than overly dense grains. The best thing I suggest is to test your film and take good notes. Here's one note about shooting color neg film versus shooting digital. If you blow your highlights out on your digital camera, it's pretty much gone. It's like blowing out highlights on transparency film.

  4. #14
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    What Sirius possibly meant is that you are not supposed to do that systematically. If the dynamic range of the scene is contained you obtain better results by exposing at box speed and there is no need to "overexpose" (i.e. to adopt an exposure index lower than the ISO value declared for the film). If you just set your ISO speed to half the speed you systematically "overexpose" and this, I agree, doesn't make much sense in all situations where you have the time to think about the exposure.

    If you are in a "high contrast" situation then you expose "for the shadows" because that gives you the possibility to avoid blocking the shadows, while still retaining highlight detail due to the great dynamic range of negative films.
    There is a price to pay when you "overexpose": a small increase in grain, a small decay in colour quality. You "pay" this price only when you need to exploit the great dynamic range of negative film.

    Personally I think that setting a "half" ISO setting AND metering for the shadows is over-overexposing. When you meter for the shadows you are already placing your shadows in the film comfort zone and you don't need to open more than that.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,264
    There's a lot of misunderstanding about color negs. Underexposure is an obvious problem. But significant overexposure has the risk of shifting the bulk of the scene onto where there is more overlap in the respective dye curves, causing the film to act in a way it was not specifically engineered for. You might like the effect, you might not. But the purity of the hues will suffer to
    some extent. Most people don't recognize this because they're accustomed to color neg work being
    basically a bit muddy outside skintones per se. Proper filtration for color balance is also quite important, with correct exp compensation. In any event, you should experiment at box speed as
    well as slight overexposure to determine your personal preference. A lot has to do with the lighting
    ratio and specific hues involved.

  6. #16
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,798
    Images
    14
    +1
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    There's a lot of misunderstanding about color negs. Underexposure is an obvious problem. But significant overexposure has the risk of shifting the bulk of the scene onto where there is more overlap in the respective dye curves, causing the film to act in a way it was not specifically engineered for. You might like the effect, you might not. But the purity of the hues will suffer to
    some extent. Most people don't recognize this because they're accustomed to color neg work being
    basically a bit muddy outside skintones per se. Proper filtration for color balance is also quite important, with correct exp compensation. In any event, you should experiment at box speed as
    well as slight overexposure to determine your personal preference. A lot has to do with the lighting
    ratio and specific hues involved.

  7. #17
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    451
    If you over-expose your color neg film, you run a risk of developing a cross-over in color filtration that can be impossible to correct. The more you over-expose, the greater the risk. This risk also goes up if your film is out-dated/stored in sub-optimal conditions. By a cross-over, I mean that when printing, you observe a specific color cast to the print. When you adjust filtration to the point that the originally observed cast goes away, you find a secondary color cast that for all intents and purposes cannot be filtered out (you find yourself chasing a never-ending filtration and exposure trail - as you make one filter modification, your exposure shifts, so you make another filter change and exposure changes again, which then requires another filter change and exposure change, etc etc). It's not common, but its not rare either - something best avoided if at all possible by practicing reasonable care in storing, handling, exposing and processing your film (you can also get crossovers from sloppy lab work with old/exhausted/out-of-balance chemistry, which is probably the most common cause of crossovers).

  8. #18
    ChristopherCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Armpit of Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Again right on the money, but in his heart Chris really knew that already. Right, Chris?? [15 words & emoticon]


    Actually, through the various explanations I'm only beginning to slightly understand what people are talking about when it comes to filters and color casts. I got Scotts explanation about the 'chase, and I'm assuming that if you over expose and get a yellow cast, when you try to fix that you may get a blue cast, and if you try to get that you may get some other color cast. I'm associating that explanation to the times when I am digitally editing and I repair a white balance, but then get something that is too green or too red, and then when I fix that, it goes yellow or blue etc etc etc...


    If you think I'm doing this for kicks you're diluted. My color negative experience amounts to the 35mm rolls that I bought and developed at Walmart once upon a time. I haven't a clue how color works.

  9. #19
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    If you blow your highlights out on your digital camera, it's pretty much gone. It's like blowing out highlights on transparency film.
    Except that on transparency film it looks much better than on digital!
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #20
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,833
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post


    If you think I'm doing this for kicks you're diluted.
    Oh no, not dilutions again!!




    Though I guess deluded people are in a sense diluted... i.e., not at full strength.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin