Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,960   Online: 959
      
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 98
  1. #11
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,651
    Images
    14
    I hate to be a stick in the mud ,,,, but take a roll of colour neg and do a range of exposures. My money is on the negative closest to normal and not one that is two or three stops overexposed. the normal neg will be sharper/better resolution and also have better colour accuracy.
    Lots of wedding photogs are blasting their film for effect and thats ok but does not translate across the range of subject matter. There is no magical lattitude with this film just an ability to handle more base exposure than trans.

  2. #12
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,591
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    If box speed is 400, and I meter it at ISO200, wouldn't I get a longer shutter speed thus raising the exposure by at least a stop?
    You would... by exactly one stop.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  3. #13
    Terry Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    550
    Images
    15
    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.

  4. #14
    ChristopherCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Armpit of Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,190
    Images
    28
    That's what I figured. I knew I shouldn't have paid attention to Sirius' response of "no".

  5. #15
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,958
    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.

  6. #16
    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

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,572
    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.

  8. #18
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,651
    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.

  9. #19
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,311
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    434
    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).

  10. #20
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    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
    Exactly! Grandi ringraziamenti! My hand has been acting up, so my responses have been shorter. [15 words]
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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