Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,767   Posts: 1,516,489   Online: 880
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,942

    Over exposing C-41 film question

    From another thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    ... It is always best to overexpose any color negative film (or B&W film for that matter) by about 1/3 stop. I use ISO 100 for Portra 160 and ISO 320 for any 400 film. This goes along with the charts that I posted a few months back regarding the first acceptable good print and which was taken from Haist.

    PE
    Something is not consistent here:
    For 400 film, one stop would be ISO 200 and half a stop would be ISO 280. Therefore ISO 320 sounds like it would be about 1/3 stop.

    For 160 film, one stop would be ISO 80 and half a stop would be ISO 112. Therefore ISO 100 sounds like it would be more than 1/2 stop over exposed! Should the ISO be around 120 to 130??
    Steve
    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.

  2. #2
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    I noticed myself the "inconsistency" and interpreted that Ron meant that 1/3 is some kind of a general rule as a minimum (any 400 exposed at 320, regardless of specific considerations). If the film requires/stands/benefits for more underrating, one underrates more, so the Portra 160 at 100 is one specific case where Ron would underrate by more than 1/3.

    But that's just the way I read it. Maybe Ron meant it differently.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    654
    Exposing a 160 speed film at 100 is a 2/3-stop increase.

    All of the standard film speeds are 1/3-stop apart so there is no STANDARD film speed corresponding to 1/2-stop increments from one to the other.

    A 2/3-stop exposure increase of a color negative film won’t hurt a thing, but it will record more printable shadow detail.

    Due to the at least at least 2-stop (some sources say up to 3 stops) overexposure latitude of color negative films some uses like to routinely overexpose from 1/3 to 1 stop over to ensure a negative with plenty of printable shadow detail.

  4. #4
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,895
    ISO 125 is the generally accepted 1/3 stop between ISO 100 and ISO 160.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  5. #5
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,883
    Images
    65
    So I rounded!

    Sorry, but that is what I expose these films at for best results. I have posted the scans and the prints here for you to see in another thread. This places the usable image in mid scale on the straight line and fits on the best part of the curve representing the maximum number of acceptable images in all scenes as published by Haist and by Mees. I've posted their graphs here as well.

    And the reason I do this is because my cameras have detents for those values on the meters, and because it works. I have no detent for 112.......

    There is some leeway you know!

    PE

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    From another thread:


    Something is not consistent here:
    For 400 film, one stop would be ISO 200 and half a stop would be ISO 280. Therefore ISO 320 sounds like it would be about 1/3 stop.

    For 160 film, one stop would be ISO 80 and half a stop would be ISO 112. Therefore ISO 100 sounds like it would be more than 1/2 stop over exposed! Should the ISO be around 120 to 130??
    Steve
    Though PE has already answered the question of why, here's another take on it:

    Higher speed film traditionally was marked higher than its EI, moreso than slower film, and it often has a wider latitude as well. So overexposing higher speed film slightly more than slower film is not so far-fetched, especially if you want shadow detail. Not to mention, higher speed film tends to lose sensitivity faster and to a greater degree when it ages, compared to slower film.

    If you want totally black shadows, then don't overexpose your film, period.

    Personally, I tend to go by the ISO, the age of the film, and the storage conditions when guessing what EI to rate it at. Superia 1600 that's 2 years out of date and frozen gets rated at EI 500. The same film, when fresh, gets rated at EI 1000. That's one stop of plus compensation for the older film. On the other hand, Superia 200 that's fresh gets rated at EI 160, and when it's been in the fridge for a couple of years, anything lower than EI 100 seems to be overkill. So that's 2/3 stop. If I had really old high-speed color neg film I was going to shoot for artistic results (like that roll of Royal Gold 1000 I'll someday get to) I would give it more like 4 stops of plus comp, not to mention bracketing +/- 1.5.
    Last edited by B&Wpositive; 05-10-2011 at 06:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #7
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    So I rounded!

    Sorry, but that is what I expose these films at for best results. I have posted the scans and the prints here for you to see in another thread. This places the usable image in mid scale on the straight line and fits on the best part of the curve representing the maximum number of acceptable images in all scenes as published by Haist and by Mees. I've posted their graphs here as well.

    And the reason I do this is because my cameras have detents for those values on the meters, and because it works. I have no detent for 112.......

    There is some leeway you know!

    PE
    PE,

    The use of the Haist and by Mees curves is what I figured, but the inconsistancy kept me churning on this for a while.

    Well as long as we can continue to discuss such questions without arguing whether or not magenta is a color.

    Steve
    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.

  8. #8
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,942
    Quote Originally Posted by B&Wpositive View Post
    Higher speed film traditionally was rated slower than marked more so than slower film, and it often had a wider latitude as well. So overexposing higher speed film slightly more than slower film is not so far-fetched, especially if you want shadow detail. Not to mention, higher speed film tends to lose sensitivity faster and to a greater degree when it ages, compared to slower film.
    Well using that logic ISO 400 film should be ISO 220 and ISO 160 film should be 125. But that is not what had been suggested by PE and others. Therefore the original question.

    Steve
    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.

  9. #9
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,092
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    ...I have no detent for 112.......
    Bah! Cheap modern meters.

    I'm gonna calibrate my eyeballs.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  10. #10
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,883
    Images
    65
    Well, not to spoil things, but early 400 speed films were actually slower than 400 and some were off balance for daylight as well. It was hard to make a 400 speed film back then! The slower you went, the closer to ISO the film was AAMOF. And, all Kodak color films were pretty much made to the same aim curve regarding latitude with the division being between professional and consumer products not between speeds. IIRC, one manufacturer actually made a 300 speed color film that was sold as 400, and the color balance was about half way between daylight and tungsten due to speed problems in one of the layers. This goes back to the 70s and 80s.

    The first 400 speed film that Kodak made was in the mid 60s and used the C-22 process. It was only used internally and was never sold. It was actually about 320 - 380 and we only had it for test purposes. It used a totally different form of emulsion type than any other film before or since and no product was sold using this rare Iron sensitization. The inventor was a very good friend of mine and got a huge promotion out of the invention even though it was never used.

    PE

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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