Changing rating of film mid roll?

[Les Sarile]

JNP - don't get worked up. Removing all the secondary hurdles in advance is often the most efficient way to teach someone how to run down the track most smoothly. Start from the real start. It's a different race. Digital analogies just get in the way.
Instead, imagine a film camera which doesn't take a roll at all. No different, exposure-wise. And in this case, some wild film latitude myth is just getting perpetuated by a wrong conclusion why it somehow turned out anyway, which inevitably goes back to the basic question of metering itself. Something just doesn't add up.

I agree that when comparing digital (even RAW with copious post work) does not quite measure up to b&w and color negatives when it comes to this side of the exposure latitude as can be seen below . . .

Kodak Portra 400 overexposure by Les DMess, on Flickr

I took the +10 Portra and with a little post work is quite recoverable while digi is completely useless by +4.

BTW, these exposure tests I conduct for myself so that I will know for a fact what I can work with is not new. You can go back at some old Modern/Popular Photography magazines and you will find them doing something similar in their film reviews albeit with tools available at the time. Obviously tools today provide a bit more versatility. And of course this is only possible because the film had done the heavy lifting to allow these results.

 

[JNP]

Well, one way or another, as long as someone gets from Point A to B one way or another, that's all that ultimately counts, and I wish them luck. But standing in line at the lab to drop of or pick up my own C41 processed work (that's all I personally use any commercial lab for), or at the camera store buying film etc, I often have opportunity to chat with people of various ages transitioning from digital imaging to real film. And half the battle is just clearing their minds of all that unnecessary complication, as if a bulldozer were needed. Just start over, learn the basics from the beginning, instead of endless "lost in translation" complications.

Lost in translation complications? I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes getting to point B is what counts, if the lab screws up you can hitchhike.

 

[Steve@f8]

There’s a lot of catching up for me, longish thread...
XP2 is supposed to be good for variability.
Stand development using Rodinal 1+100 is another technique (not for XP2).

 

[Les Sarile]

Lost in translation complications? I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes getting to point B is what counts, if the lab screws up you can hitchhike.

I suppose I've had the good fortune of not having any lab screw up in development any of the untold numbers of rolls I've had developed so far . . .

 

[koraks]

XP2 is supposed to be good for variability.

Doesn't do much color though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

XP2 is a perfect example of the blaaaaah tonality of a chromogenic product once it goes black and white. There's a big penalty to all that alleged "latitude", which really indicated just a very long toe with poor differentiation, whether b&w tonality per se, or hue distinction in the case of amateur color neg films.

But despite all those grossly over / under crayon or paint chip tests we've all done at one time or another testing the latitude of various color films, once one starts getting out in left field, it's never simply a matter of darker or lighter, but of actual dye curve crossovers and hue shifts. And much of this can't be simply fixed in Fauxtoshop. It's like mixing up concrete; once all the gravel and sand and cement sets up, it's very difficult to get it apart again. And as insulting as it might sound, most color photographers have rather poor color perception, with rather mediocre expectations. Any halfway good watercolor painter is ten times better at it.

The film manufacturers know all this, so wisely offer amateur products which at least tend to dump all the warmish neutrals into the bin of "pleasing skintones" (at the expense of the purity of related hues, of course). Anyone can make a box of Crayolas look loud in a film ad or whatever. The real question is about the integrity of the relatively "neutral hues" - it takes the right product and serious printing skills to keep those intact the whole way. Professional color standards like the MacBeth Color Checker Chart were very thoughtfully designed with that in mind.

 

[pentaxuser]

When I saw #56 I knew we could rely on you, Drew, to keep us "on the straight and narrow" in terms of photographic reality and curb our tendency to not see the truth because of rose coloured spectacles Most of us seem to be your wayward children

At least that is the way it comes across to me

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just tellin' it straight. If you prefer sugar-coated, too much of that leads to diabetes. "Colorful" and "Color" are not synonyms, just as volume of noise or quality of music are not the same thing.

 

[Les Sarile]

XP2 is a perfect example of the blaaaaah tonality of a chromogenic product once it goes black and white. There's a big penalty to all that alleged "latitude", which really indicated just a very long toe with poor differentiation, whether b&w tonality per se, or hue distinction in the case of amateur color neg films.

But despite all those grossly over / under crayon or paint chip tests we've all done at one time or another testing the latitude of various color films, once one starts getting out in left field, it's never simply a matter of darker or lighter, but of actual dye curve crossovers and hue shifts. And much of this can't be simply fixed in Fauxtoshop. It's like mixing up concrete; once all the gravel and sand and cement sets up, it's very difficult to get it apart again. And as insulting as it might sound, most color photographers have rather poor color perception, with rather mediocre expectations. Any halfway good watercolor painter is ten times better at it.

The film manufacturers know all this, so wisely offer amateur products which at least tend to dump all the warmish neutrals into the bin of "pleasing skintones" (at the expense of the purity of related hues, of course). Anyone can make a box of Crayolas look loud in a film ad or whatever. The real question is about the integrity of the relatively "neutral hues" - it takes the right product and serious printing skills to keep those intact the whole way. Professional color standards like the MacBeth Color Checker Chart were very thoughtfully designed with that in mind.

I take no offense as I've actually provided pictures from controlled testing and "real life" scene. I think it's important to understand the film your using as well as how you use it in your workflow to get the results you want. You really won't know until you do. I'll use the Kodak's disclaimer, "For critical applications, make tests under your conditions."

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, that's really the key to learning the truth about any film new to you. I always first "waste" a roll of 120 film doing those same kind of bracketing tests myself. Then I do an "ideal" frame or two with even a color temp meter in hand, and light balancing cc filters if necessary too. But in all of em I rely on a clean unfaded MacBeth Chart with its excellent neutral gray scale as well as color patches.

 

[Les Sarile]

Macbeth Charts are so limited but I suppose we photographers know how to work around limitations.

Kodak Ektachrome Q-60E3 Target ICE Normal by Les DMess, on Flickr

Knowing the generous latitude of most color films, I've since been using it in my meterless camera bodies without using an external meter. For daytime shots, I've yet to experience an exposure related failure.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, that's really the key to learning the truth about any film new to you. I always first "waste" a roll of 120 film doing those same kind of bracketing tests myself. Then I do an "ideal" frame or two with even a color temp meter in hand, and light balancing cc filters if necessary too. But in all of em I rely on a clean unfaded MacBeth Chart with its excellent neutral gray scale as well as color patches.

When I shoot medium format, I bracket +1 and -1 as a practice. What I noticed was that there was only one of the three that was the best in color and exposure. Of course, I was shooting chromes. So they're more sensitive than negative color.

On the other hand, I once or twice tried Portra and found that the color shifted even at +1 and -1. The greens were different in the leaves etc. I suppose you could adjust it in post to get the "right" colors. But the point is there is a change that occurs at different exposures even with negative color film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Kodak charts aren't produced to anywhere near the quality of the McBeth Ones; but that's why they're so expensive. I can't go into detail here, except to say that with a MacBeth (one of my spellings must be right), the middle gray patch IS 18% truly neutral gray. I once ran entire stacks of various gray cards and color charts through an industrial spectrophotometer, and nearly all of the were WAY off, even from the same manufacturer. And it just can't be done with ordinary printing inks.

And I know a really good cure for the shoot-from-the-hip "latitude" method of exposure. Take up 8X10 color photography.
At around $250 per 10-sheet box at the moment, plus processing, and the effort to lug the gear and holders around, you'll go out and buy a serious light meter really fast, and learn how to use it ! Luck and mythology can only get you so far.

 

[BrianShaw]

When I saw #56 I knew we could rely on you, Drew, to keep us "on the straight and narrow" in terms of photographic reality and curb our tendency to not see the truth because of rose coloured spectacles Most of us seem to be your wayward children

At least that is the way it comes across to me

pentaxuser

I'm thinking we should all give up photography and take up knitting. We are not worthy...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Do you pay $25 for every ten inches of colored yarn? Humility that comes cheap might is not all that convincing. But good luck over on the knitting forum. I can always use a new warm cap; or, er, make that a darkcloth while you're at it. Thanks.

 

[Les Sarile]

Just to be sure, I am not advocating for using every last drop of latitude a film can provide. I am just showing controlled testing as well as real world results that others can conduct for themselves. Just another tool in the bag. At the end of the day, it's your money, time, effort and your art to do as you please. Afterall, had I not pointed out the technique I used, no one would know any better and you won't have to suffer the contempt of others who may not approve . . .