Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,100   Posts: 1,636,401   Online: 1103
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by denmark.yuzon View Post
    i burned 5 test rolls from my Nikon FM2n.. i shoot in a slightly underexposed settings, meaning, my light meter reads at 0- for me to get as much detail in post processing, but after developing, ive noticed that all my shots from my five test rolls, were all overexposed.. all unusable..

    i was wondering how did this happened, was my light meter broken? or my shutterspeed is off by one stop? anyone had this problem with other cameras too?
    Something that you are saying does not make sense. If you are shooting to add detail to the shadows (which I think is the gist of what you wrote), then you are overexposing, not underexposing. First things first: We need to know exactly what ISO of film you used, and to what EI your meter was set.

    Next, your negs would have to be seriously bad off to be unusable from overexposure. How far over are they? How many stops over, in estimation? What do your proofsheets look like (a number on the zone scale, on average) when they are printed so that the sprocket holes are barely visible? Can you give us a densitometer reading or two?

    "Post processing" is a digital term used in the film industry that has been misappropriated for stills to mean everything that "processing" and "printing" mean in reference to an analog process. It makes no sense when used in reference to working with film. With film photography, there is shooting (exposing), processing (developing), and printing (making the positive).
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 02-03-2009 at 09:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #12
    denmark.yuzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    116
    this is what im talking about..

    FUJIFILM YKL, ASA100, set at slightly underexposed.. indoor lighting, 50mm f1.8 Series E nikon lens..

    Flickr
    Multiply
    My PhotoBlog
    My Twitter!


    WTB: Konica Autoreflex T3 and AR lenses

  3. #13
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,945
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by denmark.yuzon View Post
    an overexposed subject is bright right? and an underexposed shot quite dim.. or am i wrong? all my pictures were quite brighter than usual and colors were not as vibrant as they need to be.. please ellaborate more from this overexposure - underexposure issue...
    Forget the prints for a second.

    Are the negatives very dark or very light?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #14
    denmark.yuzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    116
    well.. the negatives are the same color with the other negatives from a different camera.. not much of a color difference... and i had it processed at a local lab..

    i took shots and used like half of the roll indoors... the newbie that i am, i depended only on my light meter... i was instructed to get it at slightly underexposed so that if i want to do post process, i could still suck out every last detail that i can..
    Flickr
    Multiply
    My PhotoBlog
    My Twitter!


    WTB: Konica Autoreflex T3 and AR lenses

  5. #15
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,945
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Okay,

    The advice of slight underexposure is generally given for digital or for slides. The idea is to protect the highlights because the media in use has a very limited range of brightness that it can deal with. The argument goes that highlights are more important, blah, blah, blah...

    I don't believe it, this advice just trades one problem for another; blown highlights for bad shadow detail. That's a really lousy trade.

    If scene contrast is to high for the media in use, an ND grad filter is a better choice if you want all the data.

    Back to your negatives.

    A thin/light/underexposed negative produces a dark print or scan, right?

    Well kinda, mini labs as a normal part of their service try to "fix" the exposure and color and they do this digitally.

    The problem here is that when the lab tries to fix the scanned version of an underexposed negative you get a print that's too light and off color, exactly what you have shown in this thread.

    The scene you show is also one that will normally fool meters into under exposure.

    Meters try to "average" every scene. Too much white in the scene and the meter gets fooled into asking for underexposure, too much black in the scene and the meter gets fooled into asking for over exposure. Your shot has the same same problem as a snow scene. Zooming in on the fruit only to set exposure would have solved most of that issue.

    Your intentional underexposure (1/3) plus the white space (1-1.5 stops) probably got you about 2 stops under what would be "normal".

    From the setting you shot at (I'm guessing about -2) you could probably have shot as much as three or even four stops brighter and gotten a much better result because of the latitude inherent in the film.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,066
    You should examine your negative to see how dense it is. Overexposure causes the negative to look quite dense. Judging from the scan of your print (which is not a good way to judge exposure) I think your negative just needs to be printed darker.
    You have quite even lighting and your subjects are light in color (white background), the basic meter in this case would underexpose your film. Now if you really have overexposed negative your meter must be off about 3 stops which I don't think is the case.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    167
    Purchase a roll of color positive(slide) film and set the camera to the correct ASA. Take your pictures, have the film processed and then diagnose.
    Your problem is you have no reference standard.
    Underexposing negative film and using a lab allows so many variable to enter the process that you can't make any sense of the final result. With a positive film you cut out all the variables except you and your camera.-Dick

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Tell us the specific EI your camera was set to, not whether you think you set it to underexpose or to overexpose.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  9. #19
    denmark.yuzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    116
    Im using an Nikon FM2n.. it has no Exposure Index... It has only, the film speed knob, and shutterspeed knob.. i only base my shot from my FM2n's light meter.. and yes, i set the film speed correctly.. its a test roll, i only used a cheap film to test my camera.. im gona put a good film on it and test it again.. im gona try three shots per subject.. one would be, exposed correctly, then, slightly underexposed, and finally, one full stop underexposed.. il tell the lab to not color correct my film.. im gona post one more image.. and a pic of the color of my negative... im just new to film.. i just started photography a few months ago.. so im not familiar with looking at the density of the film... thanks guys.. please post more information about this... im disappointed with my shots.. i dont know how far off my light meter or even compensate with the lighting..
    Flickr
    Multiply
    My PhotoBlog
    My Twitter!


    WTB: Konica Autoreflex T3 and AR lenses

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by denmark.yuzon View Post
    ...im gona put a good film on it and test it again.. im gona try three shots per subject.. one would be, exposed correctly, then, slightly underexposed, and finally, one full stop underexposed.. il tell the lab to not color correct my film...
    I agree with those who proposed to make a test with slide film. If you have access to an E6 lab, that would be by far the best choice. Buy a roll of Fuji Sensia, it's cheap. This way, you will eliminate all the variables that could creep in and make your judgement hard. Have a look at the slides and see if something is weird. Try to take photographs of scenes with even illumination too. Don't use scenes with extreme brightness range, that is deep shadows and harsh highlights.

    If slides are not an option, then use neg film. You can tell the guy at the lab to make no corrections, but he might just ignore you! Sometimes they don't even know what they're doing and let the "auto pilot" do the trick. In any case, you can have a look at the back of the prints. Most of the minilabs write the frame number and some colour/brightness information there. An uncorrected print will probably have NNNN printed on the back. IIRC the first 3 Ns are for colour correction (CMY) and the last one is brightness correction. If you see something like NNN+1, that means that the lab did no colour correction, but altered brightness.
    Last edited by Anon Ymous; 02-05-2009 at 04:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 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