Film Question

[sobolik]

ROFLMHO! Ted and the rest of the photography world that knows what they are talking about.

So... you can't site who is was that did these "tests."

I'll give you a bit of advice: Repeating something you read on the internet doesn't give you credentials. Go to a reliable source.

Here's a toll-free number for Kodak: (800) 242-2424
Extension 19 should get you to the pro division. Give 'em a call. It's free... and they're nice people. Talk it over with them.

Let me know how it goes... Unless you feel "Ted" referring to "tests" is all you need.

-Pete

Give it up. There is nothing more annoying than someone who is wrong but never stops demanding that they are right. Try a new and novel approach. Learn something new and move on.

From motion.kodak.com

"To obtain the best exposure, err on the side of over-exposure to create a “bullet-proof” negative. It’s better to
provide too much information on the negative than too little."

When corrected to a normal image, over-exposure
results in:
• Less apparent grain
• More saturated color
• Richer blacks
• Increased contrast
When corrected to a normal image, under-exposure
results in:
• More apparent grain
• Less saturated color
• Smoky blacks
• Lower contrast
• Less perceived sharpness

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_13_Exposure.pdf
1st link: http://www.google.com/search?q=To+obtain+the+best+exposure%2C+err+on+the+side+of+over-exposure+to+create+a+%E2%80%9Cbullet-proof%E2%80%9D+negative.+It%E2%80%99s+better+to+provide+too+much+information+on+the+negative+than+too+little&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a



===

"I’d always err on the side of slight overexposure either at the metering stage or by ‘downrating’ the film (as mentioned before - rating 160 film as 100 to increase density in the skin tone)."
[SIZE=+1]Apogee Photo Magazine
http://www.apogeephoto.com/oct2001/groenhout102001.shtml
[/SIZE]

 

[Helen B]

You should have no problem setting the meter to 400 and developing normally - I do that regularly with Kodak Portra 800. I wouldn't recommend pulling colour neg - it's not worth it. Modern colour neg film has a lot of 'headroom' above a normal exposure at the rated ISO - ie it can be given quite a lot more exposure than the recommended exposure and still stay on the straight, or near-straight part of its curve (the slow roll-off at the shoulder can be used with lots of overexposure to give soft highlights and contrasty midtones, an effect that works for portraiture). Giving plenty of exposure also gets you away from the toe, where the film tends to have more graininess (see Kodak's curves for density vs graininess).

Best,
Helen

 

[djacobox372]

I think people are missing the point of "over exposing print film," and "underexposing slide film." It has nothing to do with color, contrast, or grain. It has to do with the goal of not completely clearing a the film so that there's detail across the entire image.

Of course the "perfect exposure" is the ideal, but it's "safer" to overexpose positive slide film, or underexpose negative print film. That way, if the exposure is slightly off, you won't be completely destroying the image.

 

[Helen B]

Of course the "perfect exposure" is the ideal, but it's "safer" to overexpose positive slide film, or underexpose negative print film.

I would recommend the opposite. I would try to avoid blown-out highlights with colour reversal film (so err on the side of underexposure) and grainy, blocked up shadows with colour negative film (so err on the side of overexposure, or deliberately give more exposure than the ISO rating would suggest).

Best,
Helen

 

[sobolik]

I think people are missing the point of "over exposing print film," and "underexposing slide film." It has nothing to do with color, contrast, or grain. It has to do with the goal of not completely clearing a the film so that there's detail across the entire image.

Of course the "perfect exposure" is the ideal, but it's "safer" to overexpose positive slide film, or underexpose negative print film. That way, if the exposure is slightly off, you won't be completely destroying the image.

I can't really find anything in the above post that is true, It is never "safer to over expose positive slide film" etc.

It does have everything to do with color.

A meter assumes that on average the entire photo scene should be the equivalent of neutral gray. The meter will recommend a setting that will then render this assumed neutral gray scene as neutral gray on the negative/print.

Thus the meter is wrong

You do not want white snow to be gray. It is not gray it is white. Therefore we over expose according to what the meter says so that white will end up as white. And conversely underexpose to keep a black scene black.

 

[Josh66]

Thus the meter is wrong

The meter is not wrong. You just don't know how to interpret what the meter is telling you.

Nobody said the meter has to be 'zeroed out' for every picture...

 

[LarryD]

Ok cool. It's color negative Fuji Superia 800 film. My camera has an over and under expose feature if that helps? Also what would be the safest ISO I could lower it too?

Touching back on the subject a bit..........

I believe that the answer to your question is that, for you, there is not really a clearcut answer.. If you lower to asa 400, then any prints could be easily corrected (if the film was properly developed). If you went much lower, then you would need a professional developer who could compensate in development for the different setting....

But, if you have 800 film, then there are better ways to shoot in the sun than pulling the ISO down because you should NOT change the ISO setting for different shots on the roll - for film, once you set it, it's set...

Use a polarizer or ND filter if you cannot get a fast enough shutter speed for proper exposure..

 

[sobolik]

Thus the meter is wrong

The meter is not wrong. You just don't know how to interpret what the meter is telling you.

Nobody said the meter has to be 'zeroed out' for every picture...

note: The following is relevant to the original post concerning not setting the asa dial to match the film asa. i.e. under or over exposing.


=="Nobody said the meter has to be 'zeroed out' for every picture... "

You are the only one in my 30 years of SLR's that has ever said that. Only you know where that was pulled from. "'zeroed out' for every picture"

=="The meter is not wrong. You just don't know how to interpret what the meter is telling you."

The meter is always wrong. Well unless you encounter a scene that is in fact all things averaged the equivalent of neutral gray. Probably never.

B&H Photo "The Professional's Source"


Reflected Metering
Reflected metering reads the intensity of light reflecting off the subject and may vary according to variances in tonality, color, contrast, background, surface, or shape.

Meters are designed to regard all subjects as 18° neutral gray reflectance.

Reflected measurement of any single toned area will result in a neutral gray rendition.

Subjects that appear lighter than gray will reflect more light and result in an exposure that renders it darker.

Subjects that are darker than gray will reflect less light and result in an exposure that renders it lighter.

The 18% Neutral Gray Standard
Light meters are designed to measure light in a consistent way. They cannot see the subject and interpret it as a photographer can. For example, a light meter cannot distinguish a black cat from a white cat, a red balloon from a blue balloon, nor textured powdery white snow from a shiny white auto paint finish. Given the same lighting situation, each of these objects would reflect a different amount of light. Reflected measurements would indicate different exposures for each object. Incident measurements would indicate the same exposure for each object, to render a consistent exposure. Light meters are calibrated to assume that all subjects are of average 18% reflectance, or neutral gray. The use of the 18% neutral gray standard allows a reflected light meter to render correct readings for “average” subjects in “average” lighting situations. (The value of 18% neutral gray is also referred to as Zone V in the Zone System, an advanced black and white exposure method.)"


B&H Photo - Introduction to Lightmeters - Part I

==

In other words the meter is always wrong:
Subjects that appear lighter than gray will reflect more light and result in an exposure that renders it darker.
Subjects that are darker than gray will reflect less light and result in an exposure that renders it lighter.

BUT HEY! LONG LIVE THE METER - WHERE WOULD WE BE WITH OUT IT

 

[Turbo]

OP, you'll be fine shooting it as if it were ISO 400. The film's probably got wide enough exposure latitude to go further, but one stop slower should be safe.

=="Nobody said the meter has to be 'zeroed out' for every picture... "

You are the only one in my 30 years of SLR's that has ever said that. Only you know where that was pulled from. "'zeroed out' for every picture"

=="The meter is not wrong. You just don't know how to interpret what the meter is telling you."

The meter is always wrong. Well unless you encounter a scene that is in fact all things averaged the equivalent of neutral gray. Probably never.

The meter does exactly what it's supposed to. It is up to the user to evaluate the scene and make necessary adjustments. Bright scene? Compensate for that. After you've made the necessary adjustments... lo and behold, the meter indicates the same thing you see....that the subject is brighter than something that is neutral gray.

Zeroed out. Meter indicating something is not under or overexposed. I know, tough concept to grasp. :meh:

 

[Helen B]

But, if you have 800 film, then there are better ways to shoot in the sun than pulling the ISO down because you should NOT change the ISO setting for different shots on the roll - for film, once you set it, it's set...

There's usually no reason to keep the EI* (often referred to loosely as "ISO") setting constant for colour neg, because its wide dynamic range usually exceeds the scene brightness range. This allows you to place your exposure on the curve wherever you want, all on the same film with standard development. It's not really 'overexposure' because you aren't exceeding the film's dynamic range - ie you stay within the film's latitude for that scene (film dynamic range - scene brightness range = latitude).

The latitude available for EI choice depends on the scene brightness range, with all the latitude usually being available for increased exposure because the ISO speed of colour negative film is based on an exposure at the bottom of the film's response curve (and it completely ignores where the top of the curve is).

Because of all that, there is a relationship between recommended/possible EI settings, scene brightness range and metering method.

The greater the scene brightness range the more you will want to lower the EI (compared to the ISO) if using predominantly bright areas for metering and the less you will want to lower the EI if metering predominantly dark areas.

From experience of using ISO 800 film at EI 400, and from exposure theory, it can be said that there are very very few scenes that would cause problems with that combination.

*EI is exposure index. It refers to any speed of the film that isn't its ISO speed. A colour negative film has one, and only one, ISO speed. Pulling and pushing do not alter the ISO speed.

Best,
Helen

 

[sobolik]

One sad thing that has occurred from going digital is that people have not had the opportunity to learn the ropes with film. Film was a time consuming and expensive deal to do it wrong. Digital is shoot and delete. No need really to learn or pay the price.

In the film days people over exposed to make snow white instead of gray Like when setting the iso/asa dial 2 stops slower than the print film being used. And they learned all about meter errors etc.

Now days people shoot and correct it later with software, if at all. Many even declare "facts" about stuff they never learned in the first place because their digital computer does most of it for them.

People generally don't notice that black is not quite black as it is a powerful color. But they notice when white is not white, Thus the overexpose preference most of the time.

1937
Highly trained people can recognize over 300 shades of white:
Popular Science - Google Books

Some say:
"The human eye can distinguish over 1000 shades of white."
Color Psychology: Principles and Practice and use in Power Point Presentation