Double-X 5222 and OM-4 OTF metering

[Bill Burk]

Anyone familiar with Olympus OM-4 off-the-film-plane metering knows that if you dry fire the camera in automatic mode the shutter will stay open longer than expected because the pressure plate is black and the OTF metering reads the scene as if the lights just went dim.

I'd been shooting Double-X 5222 in different cameras and someone asked how pictures from the Zuiko 35mm f/2 look... so I decided to load the OM-4 for today's adventures.

I got to my sister's and took a picture of her garden and heard the shutter slow way down like it does when there's no film. I knew it was the first time I shot this film in this camera and I immediately suspected that Double-X might not reflect light from the surface the way an "average" film would.

So I switched to manual and that's how I will always have to use this film in the OM-4.

I recall reading that Olympus checked the reflectance of several films and came up with an average that they put into the OTF system. Some films didn't play well but most did just fine.

I got home and took some densitometer readings from the leaders of some fresh film. The results are inconclusive.

TMAX-400 has a reflection density off the emulsion of 0.83.
Double-X 5222 is somewhat transparent. Reflection density depends on background. When placed on a white background it's 0.55 and over a black background it's 0.63

Since that's greater reflectance either way, it doesn't make sense to me. I would expect "faster" shutter speeds if the film reflected more than the average the OTF system was designed for.

Anyway heads up to anyone shooting this film in a camera that uses OTF metering, it may not give correct exposure in automatic.

 

[MattKing]

Could this be due to using motion picture anti-halation?

 

[dourbalistar]

Could this be due to using motion picture anti-halation?

If by anti-halation you mean the black remjet backing, I don't think Eastman Double-X 5222 has it.

 

[MattKing]

If by anti-halation you mean the black remjet backing, I don't think Eastman Double-X 5222 has it.

No, but it will most likely have anti-halation properties that are different from still film, due to its use as cine film.

 

[dourbalistar]

No, but it will most likely have anti-halation properties that are different from still film, due to its use as cine film.

Ah, got it. Different meaning... less anti-halation compared to still film?

 

[zanxion72]

Different films, have different reflectivity. There are films like HP5 that are completely mat and others, especially ASA/ISO 50 that are highly reflective. Hasselblad had published in "HV_handbook_EN.pdf" (for some reason it is not downloadable now) tables with exposure compensation for various films.
With the OM cameras, I prefer using the metered manual exposure to avoid any mishaps from cases where the auto OTF exposure misses it. I do that only in long exposures (1/8 or longer) as it is then that it becomes more apparent.

 

[ic-racer]

The reflectivity shouldn't affect the determiniation your exposure index for that camera's meter unless each batch of 5222 had a different reflectivity.

 

[Bill Burk]

I set the camera at EI 125 (for a 2/3 stop increased exposure). At f/ 5.6 in a sunlit scene the “simulated reading” indicated a reasonable handholdable speed but the actual speed was near a fifteenth.

I will have to check the anti halation properties but I think there’s less or none.

This might make it more important to shoot the film at the correct speed instead of the 2/3 stop increased speed I was planning.

 

[AgX]

No, but it will most likely have anti-halation properties that are different from still film, due to its use as cine film.

There is no reason for cine taking films needing a different antihalation means than still taking films.

Where well a different situation exists is 35mm cine film as this is loaded in the dark and there would not be a light-piping issue as with type 135. But this issue is with many 35mm films not related with anti-halation means anyway.

 

[wiltw]

Bill,
Being well aware (very many years ago) of the TTL flash reading of the film's reflectivity, I took both Fuji color negative and transparentcy meterial, then Kodak color negative and transparentcy meterial, and used a Minolta handheld spotmeter to read the emulsion reflectivity, to corroborate what I had read about TTL flash sensors looking at color neg vs color transparency. emulsion during flash exposure Indeed, regardless of film brand, the generalization was true...color neg emulsions were consistently (brighter?/darket?...my memory is not working as well as when I was 30-something!) than color transparency. of the same brandname.

I mention the above simply as a background preface, to suggest you simply use a handheld spotmeter rather than a densitometer, as it better mimics what a TTL flash sensor or an OM-4 ambient during-exposure meter sees...and compare the emulsion's surface reflectivity of Double X 5222 to that of more conventional B&W emulsions

 

[Bill Burk]

Double-X 5222 does not have remjet, it has gray acetate (not Estar) base.

wiltw I checked and spotmeter readings are similar between films (Provia, APX-25, TMY-2 and 5222).

But the 5222 emulsion is strikingly more matte/diffuse.

I also found my OM-4 shutter dial is stiff and pressing on the knurled edges makes it stiffer. (Need to come in from one direction or the other and twist by pushing clockwise or counterclockwise on the smooth curved edges leading to the knurled plateau. Because if you press in on the knurled plateau the dial binds).

 

[wiltw]

Very strange, given the similarity of reflectivity of various emulsion types, that the OM-4 meter would expose so differently...almost seems to point to malfunction in your OM-4. Have you tried loading a different (conventional) film and taking a few shots, then -- in identical light - switching emulsions to 5222 to see how the OM-4 responds with the two emulsion in same light?

 

[Bill Burk]

I can try my other OM-4.

I just think it’s a known limitation of the OM-4 design. I am fed up.

Just made an offer on an OM-3 we’ll see how that goes.

 

[wiltw]

I can try my other OM-4.

I just think it’s a known limitation of the OM-4 design. I am fed up.

Just made an offer on an OM-3 we’ll see how that goes.

Well, since there is no link of metering to during-exposiure automation in the OM-3, no realtime OTF exposure adjustment to worry about!
But you only need to put the OM-4 on manual shutter speed to accomplish the same thing.

 

[eatfrog]

I've shot Double-X with my Pentax LX which also has OTF metering and I've experienced no issues.

 

[ic-racer]

The reflectivity shouldn't affect the determiniation your exposure index for that camera's meter unless each batch of 5222 had a different reflectivity.

After reading, maybe I misunderstood the meter. It both gives a conventional TTL reading and an off-the film reading, yes?. So the readings are very different and that is what messes things up.
I was thinking of TTL flash, where the TTL reading is the ONLY reading, so you can compensate with exposure index.