Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,916   Posts: 1,584,720   Online: 777
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by RPC View Post
    But there is more to it than that. One's shutter speeds at various settings, apertures at various settings, meter and metering technique may not be totally reliable, giving one exposure errors when least expected. I believe that unless one has tested these well, then a half a stop to a stop of overexposure is a good idea. This will help insure preservation of shadow detail without compromising highlights as mentioned earlier, for both over- and under- exposure errors, unless the errors are very large.
    The testing you suggest is a good idea, it can be done in just a few frames to get a good feeling of how things are working.

    Leaning toward over exposure as a normal thing though is not a free lunch, it's a crutch.

    The first cost is most likely shutter speed, extra exposure time raises extra risk of blur. I'd much rather have some under exposure than some blur. Blurred images, unless on purpose, are simply trash.

    Then in the enlarger thicker negatives make for longer print times and make it tougher to place/use meters and make it tougher to use the aperture setting that is optimum...
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #22
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,208
    Quote Originally Posted by RPC View Post
    But there is more to it than that. One's shutter speeds at various settings, apertures at various settings, meter and metering technique may not be totally reliable, giving one exposure errors when least expected. I believe that unless one has tested these well, then a half a stop to a stop of overexposure is a good idea. This will help insure preservation of shadow detail without compromising highlights as mentioned earlier, for both over- and under- exposure errors, unless the errors are very large.
    All I can tell you is it works for me.
    Ben

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,820
    With current Kodak PRO color neg films (Portra, Ektar) box speed seems to be spot on. But if you
    do make an error, you're better off overexposing rather than underexposing. Siginificant exp errors
    will come with color reproduction issues, however. Amateur films, on the other hand, are marketed
    under the assumption that serious exposure as well as storage issues will be present. Just depends
    how nitpicky you are, unless you're just bending the rules for creative effect. I'm admittedly very
    nitpicky - I want optimum not generalized results, and spotmeter everything.

  4. #24
    RPC
    RPC is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Leaning toward over exposure as a normal thing though is not a free lunch, it's a crutch.

    The first cost is most likely shutter speed, extra exposure time raises extra risk of blur. I'd much rather have some under exposure than some blur. Blurred images, unless on purpose, are simply trash.

    Then in the enlarger thicker negatives make for longer print times and make it tougher to place/use meters and make it tougher to use the aperture setting that is optimum...
    I have never found any of these to be a problem, and in general I believe the benefits of a little overexposure outweigh any risks.

  5. #25
    RPC
    RPC is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    All I can tell you is it works for me.
    That's great, it implies everything I mentioned is working for you, but as we know everyone's milage may vary.

  6. #26
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,692
    Images
    15
    What works for others answering your question is not necessary going to work with you. As I reiterate here time and time again, your own experiments will determine what is right for you. Everything else is just a guide and insight.
    I've been told that Portra has been shot at 1600 and looked fabulous for it. But negative film is not my forté: I like being roughed up with E6 and don't take box speed as gospel.
    “The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
    Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
    the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see."
    ~Edward Weston, 1922.

  7. #27
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Looking at the second thread, I really wonder whether Stephen tested some film with ISO 71 or whether box speed was actually 100.

    Just asking ...
    I think Stephen's test should be read like this:
    made 100 (that's not 100 ISO, it's 100 as an arbitrary number) the speed of the film if developed as soon as exposed, the speed of the same film if exposed after 7 days is 71.

    This speed (71 after one week as opposed to 100 immediately after exposure) is actually the real ISO speed as indicated on the box. I infer this because Stephen says, in his text, that the ISO markings keeps into account the speed loss, for commercial film, resulting from 5 - 10 days from exposure to development.

    After four more weeks, the sensitivity is still 65, or, if you prefer, 65/71 of the box speed.

    That's what I gathered. Maybe Stephen will like to clarify or rectify.

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

  8. #28
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by RPC View Post
    I have never found any of these to be a problem, and in general I believe the benefits of a little overexposure outweigh any risks.
    That truly depends on the type of shooting involved.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    282
    It's print film for heaven's sake!! You don't even need a meter.

  10. #30
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,932
    Box speed. Period.
    It can take 1/3 of a stop over exposure, but there is so little difference why bother?

    Generally manufactures know more about their own products than the customers do. Even more so with film.
    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 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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