Colour Negative / Slide and the Zone System

[DavidClapp]

1) set the box speed (ISO) on your reflected light meter, point it at your scene and take a reading, use the exposure recommended for one shot, and take one further shot with one further stop of more exposure.

Ok - I appreciate the length of responses but I still cannot see how this fits into outdoor photography. I should have made it apparent that I only use reflected light / spot meter to measure the scenes that are far from the camera, as I am using film to photograph landscapes / cities on MF, LF (6x12 on 120) and street and city scenes.

I don't print, I scan, so another variable removed. If I don't get the exposures correct there are colour shifts and excessive shadow noise when scanned

Ok here is a straightforward scene - how would you meter this with a spot meter? There was masses of bright reflected light coming straight at the

It was taken last week in London with an 85year old Rolleiflex Old Standard on expired Portra 400NC

.

 

[MattKing]

I don't print, I scan, so another variable removed. If I don't get the exposures correct there are colour shifts and excessive shadow noise when scanned

Actually, the fact that you scan makes it much more complex and difficult. It means there are a whole bunch of added variables, and some of them aren't easily within your control.
For Portra 400NC, if it hasn't deteriorated due to age, the film and developer will handle a very wide range of highlight exposures. I would meter the shadow areas, place them appropriately, and then let the film and "printing" process handle the rest.
You will need to work out how to defeat any presets and assumptions in your digital workflow in order to get it to deal properly with the highlights. That is an off topic subject for APUG.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I don't print, I scan, so another variable removed. If I don't get the exposures correct there are colour shifts and excessive shadow noise when scanned
It was taken last week in London with an 85year old Rolleiflex Old Standard on expired Portra 400NC

We seem to have a disconnect here, issues with colour shifts but using OOD film, still, moving on, excessive noise points to underexposure, I still can't see why you don't bracket just a one frame +2 stops (rarely will going down "improve" things) would give you an idea what happens. I also agree that your scanning needs to be up to scratch, you say "another variable removed" indeed yes if you are scanning "properly" and on what? Why not let a reputable lab scan a roll and compare? Note reputable are few and far between in the UK many go so far as sending to the USA.

 

[Alan Klein]

David for your picture I would take a reflected reading of the blue sky and use that as my base exposure. Then bracket +1 and -1. I would set meter iso to match box iso. One thing about negative film when I shot Ektar 100. Colors actually change when you bracket a stop. You'll be OK to use any of the bracketed shots under most conditions. But if you are a pro shooting products where photo colors have to be true to the original product, you have to get the exposure exactly. For landscapes like I shoot, that's not so important because most people cannot see the difference unless they are looking at the bracketed results at the same time.

I enjoy shooting Velvia 50 slide film because I like the colors and you can tell immediately if you nailed the exposure. I don't mind that there's less stops than negative film. People make too big a deal with shadow areas that no one looks at anyway except us pixel peepers. Also I like contrast as it makes the pictures "pop". Pick a film and work with it exclusively for awhile until you get to know it. That helps too. Bracket your exposures and keep notes of how you shot the pictures. Then check your notes against the results. Like others have said, the zone system is overkill for color especially roll film. Keep it simple. Spend more time on content. No amount of zone system or bracketing is going to help a poorly seen picture.

 

[Photo Engineer]

An "average" scene has about 7 2/3 stops subject luminance range. About 5 stops in the open, and the remainder in the shade.

Black and white's geared up nicely to fit that. You can follow systems for black and white and expand and compress things quite a bit while still looking realistic.

Color negative would have similar flexibility, but in practice, it's held to a standard amount of development because that helps keep the color balanced. So expect a little less leeway with color negative.

Bill, color negative, particularly camera motion picture, is typically lower contrast than B&W and has longer latitude to have the same or greater leeway than B&W.

PE

 

[pentaxuser]

Ok here is a straightforward scene - how would you meter this with a spot meter? There was masses of bright reflected light coming straight at the

It was taken last week in London with an 85year old Rolleiflex Old Standard on expired Portra 400NC

View attachment 165877 .

Can I ask how you metered this scene? Given the amount of grey of two shades and the rest is virtually all blue sky I am not sure this is as straightforward a scene as it might appear

If the scan represents a faithful replica of the negative then it looks pretty good to me so your metering looks pretty accurate to me in this case and even better given it is an 85 year old camera and expired film.

It might help if you gave us examples of where your metering produced poor results.

pentaxuser

 

[derelict]

http://www.sekonic.com/united-states/classroom/webinars/archivedwebinars.aspx

If you are trying to figure out the Sekonic stuff, check out these seminars. He is pretty good. It is all digital camera based but the meter functions are the same.

I have always done half box speed, meter the shadow, let the film adjust. Has worked well for TMax and for Portra.

 

[David Heintz]

Perhaps I can chime in here. I am a long time digital photographer with, in modesty, excellent Photoshop skills. Better than my photography skills, to be sure. I have long overcome the weaknesses in my camera, my skills at reading a scene and metering it, and the complexities of the zone system, with the tools at hand in Photoshop. Certainly, nothing can fix blown out highlights, but that is about it.

Now I have become interested in film photography — because of the look, the feel of the cameras, and the head slapping "fun" of getting film processed and scanning it. I am no analogue junkie and I don't care if my images are "pure" or "true to film" or any of that. I fix them in Photoshop just like my digital images. Not a fan of HDR, and I try not to over sharpen or go to far with processing, but, if they are in my computer, they are getting processed. (Funny, we worked for long to make our digital images more film-like, now I am working to make my film images more digital-like!)

Film is less malleable than digital and there is not as much you can pull out off the shadows. Also, any processing seems to emphasize the grain, so some noise reduction is required (can be masked out or in as necessary.) But I have found that a decent exposure, scanned with some skill and a really good scanner, converted with ColorPerfect (negative film) lightly applied noise reduction then sharpening (frequency separation) and some artful dodging and burning ca create really nice images.

My point is that, even though we are, in some cases, using technology that predated computers, there is no reason that we can't enhance that technology with them. Unless it is a really stark back lit scene, etc. (probably something a person with my poor skills has no business shooting anyway) I can make it work in Photoshop. The scene above, of the shrouded building, is fairly simple to work with...

 

[derelict]

Can someone explain to me how you would meter this shot? It was taken with Velvia 100F, the exact same film I will be using. I was posted by Miles Hecker on Photo.net.
Dead Link Removed

Since the main point of this frame was the barn, would I meter the light hitting it and then shoot?

 

[faberryman]

It tough to say since the image looks highly manipulated in post processing. You definitely want to avoid overexposing slide film. I would probably take a reading off the sunlit grass are in front of the door on the left. I would take two exposures, one at that reading, and one with one stop less exposure to see which I liked best.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You also don't know how many shots he took to get the "right" one.

PE

 

[Alan Klein]

Take a reflective reading off the blue sky which is around neutral gray. That should work. Then bracket 1/2 and/or 1 stop to be sure. Or, step into the sun, and take an incidence reading with the dome facing you. (You want the lighted zone not to clip) Again, bracket 1/2 and/or 1 stop. If the sky was cloudy so you couldn't meter it and you couldn't step into the same light as the subject to take an incidence reading, I would average a couple of 10 degree spot readings which would cover let's say the top right corner of the building and the mountains in the back and the right bottom corner of the building with some of the grass. Then bracket like previous.

Don't be afraid to bracket especially with 35mm or 120 roll film. This is not a college class where you're going to be graded on your exposure competence. The viewer isn't going to care. The idea is to get the shot. Also, film is cheap when you compare it to the cost to visit places like this or even to spend gas money to drive to local places. It's worth it to me to spend two dollars more to insure I get the exposure right and take it home. It's too frustrating to totally miss what would have been a great shot. Also, if you're shooting during magic hour after sunrise or before sunset, the light is changing very rapidly and it's difficult to read. So bracketing becomes even more needed than during the middle of the day. Also, different brackets may give different results that all work but with different effects.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In general I wouldn't even bother with the Zone System when talking about color photography. It was never designed around that. It's not just about the range or latitude of exposure, but due to fact that color saturation and hue are linked to placement on the curve too, which is not the case with black and white film. I recommend shooting one specific film to begin with until you understand it intuitively, and what kind of lighting ratios are appropriate; and when not, what you have to sacrifice to use it - do you let the shadows fall into black, or the highlights blow out the other way? In time, you just get accustomed to what a particular film will do and what it won't. Transparency (slide) film makes the learning curve a bit easier because you can just evaluate your results on a light box, as opposed to color neg film which needs to be either printed or scanned to evaluate. But transparencies are fussier to expose, so test your metering skill a bit more.

 

[DavidClapp]

We seem to have a disconnect here, issues with colour shifts but using OOD film,

It was a one off OOD film and has no bearing on my situation... I am scanning on an LS9000

 

[David Heintz]

With the understanding of my photgraphy approach, as commented above, I would, with my F6, take one shot based upon the dark wood above the door, and another of the lighter wood just below the door's windows. I use Nikon's matrix metering, and I would probably take this shot with either a Sigma 50mm Art, or the Zeiss 135/2APO, depending on how close I could get. Wouldn't worry about the mountains in the background, as they should come in fine. One trick I use in shots like this where I want the sweet spot of the lens, but still some background blurring, is to sharpen on a duplicate layer in Photoshop, mask that layer, invert the mask, and paint in the sharpening with a black brush. That way I could shoot in f5.6 or even f8, and still have a (subtly) sharper foreground object...

 

[DavidClapp]

One thing about negative film when I shot Ektar 100. Colors actually change when you bracket a stop.

Alan, you have highlighted the whole point of this thread, a shifting in colours, hues and exposure. I want to be able to meter consistently, for slide and neg, so I can get good exposures, scan them and turn them into digital images, without excessive shadow noise on negs. I want to get to the bottom of metering for different film types and stop wasting film.

 

[DavidClapp]

Film is less malleable than digital and there is not as much you can pull out off the shadows. Also, any processing seems to emphasize the grain, so some noise reduction is required (can be masked out or in as necessary.) But I have found that a decent exposure, scanned with some skill and a really good scanner, converted with ColorPerfect (negative film) lightly applied noise reduction then sharpening (frequency separation) and some artful dodging and burning ca create really nice images

We are on the same page here. I have also been using ColorPerfect and its taken a lot of the pain out of this process with colour neg inversion, which is singly the biggest ball ache of all. I am finding that well exposed images are a breeze to scan and enhance - hybrid photography in that sense - but consistency is a massive issue, hence the initial post. I've used iPhone apps, a Weston Master 5, a Soligor digital spot (which was off calibration) and now a Sekonic 758DR which is the most accurate so far, to meter my images and it is here that my weakest area dominates my work. Like you I have extensive photoshop skills, but for me that makes little difference if the core image is not captured correctly.

 

[faberryman]

Alan, you have highlighted the whole point of this thread, a shifting in colours, hues and exposure. I want to be able to meter consistently, for slide and neg, so I can get good exposures, scan them and turn them into digital images, without excessive shadow noise on negs. I want to get to the bottom of metering for different film types and stop wasting film.

I have been doing this for over forty years and still make exposure errors. I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but, and I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, your expectations are completely unrealistic. There is no magic bullet, and there is no substitute for experience. Fortunately, both black and white and color negative films have some latitude, so even if your exposure is not perfect, you can get an excellent print. Transparency film, not so much.

 

[benjiboy]

This thread is fast becoming a subject that's not for an analogue photography site but dpug.org or Photonet. since it involves mainly scanning and digitization of negatives, not wet darkroom produced prints.

 

[MattKing]

Colour negative film (including Ektar 100) will give correct colours over a wide range of exposure. If you are not getting those sorts of results, your problem is with the digital parts of your workflow, and APUG isn't the place to discuss that.

That being said, my more hybrid oriented friends seem to get good results from their materials, so there is certainly hope! I wish you good luck.

 

[markbarendt]

Colour negative film (including Ektar 100) will give correct colours over a wide range of exposure. If you are not getting those sorts of results, your problem is with the digital parts of your workflow, and APUG isn't the place to discuss that.

That being said, my more hybrid oriented friends seem to get good results from their materials, so there is certainly hope! I wish you good luck.

I agree completely. Film/camera exposure isn't the issue with negative film. It's the choices made elsewhere.

As proof of that I offer the millions of shots that have been done with disposable cameras and mini lab processing that have produced very, very reasonable results.

 

[Leigh B]

Shoot slides using incident metering.
That is the best training you can get.

You train your eye to recognize situations where the standard incident exposure may not be appropriate.
In such cases you adjust up or down half a stop or even a full stop as needed.

Once you can do that accurately most of the time, you're ready to work with negatives.
This is the point where the Zone System comes into play with black&white sheet film.

Note that this process has nothing to do with digital processing.

I agree that digital work is not an appropriate subject for discussion here on APUG. It belongs on DPUG.

- Leigh

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill, color negative, particularly camera motion picture, is typically lower contrast than B&W and has longer latitude to have the same or greater leeway than B&W.

PE

Right, instead of the word "leeway" I meant to emphasize that you typically run into less variation in processing with negative color film

 

[Leigh B]

I meant to emphasize that you typically run into less variation in processing with negative color film

That's probably because it's done using automated commercial equipment with very tight process control.

- Leigh

 

[Bill Burk]

That's probably because it's done using automated commercial equipment with very tight process control.

- Leigh

That's about all I was trying to say...