Exposure/Filters/Flash Exposure Assistance (Medium Format Film)

[UserDemos]

Hello community!

I hope this is in the right place to help an amateur hobbyist in medium format film. I went to Japan with my medium format camera to enjoy time with my family. I have been reviewing my photos and exposures. I believe I know what went wrong, but would appreciate further assistance to make sure I'm correct in my assumptions so that I can take better photos in the future. I have included a link to my Google Photos album for people to see my examples. I've labeled them with numbers to help identify which photo I'm talking about and needing help with. Photos were shot on 120 Fuji Pro 400H. Photos were scanned on Epson V600 with Silverfast 9 and I used the NegaFix with the correct film, adjusted grey point, and some minor contrast/midtone fixes. Below are my opinions of the photos and would appreciate further thoughts to help me improve.

Album Link: https://photos.app.goo.gl/bk59ficQR1fJpact7

Photo #1 (Pagoda) - It was very bright and sunny and I tried to find the right white point when scanning, but I think that colors are off. Also, the sky doesn't have much contrast. I believe (scanning issues aside), exposure is correct, but I needed a polarizer to add contrast to the sky. Is my assumption correct?
Photo #3 (Mom) - Too much contrast between light and dark areas. I could have easily fixed this with a flash, correct? I have a leaf shutter camera, so I could have easily lit my mom with a fill flash that matched the exposure time. Would that have fixed the issue here?
Photo #4 (Museum) - I believe this is exposed correctly, however, the sky seems washed out. Would this have benefited from a polarizer as well? Or some other filter like a ND?
Photo #5 (Street) - I believe I shot this photo with a 150mm (although could have been 80mm, I don't remember honestly). I believe I'd have gotten more compression between the foreground and background to create a more "layered" look if I used a longer focal length (200mm+). Or would that not have made much of a difference?
Photo #6 (Bridge) - Again, would a polarizer have helped the sky to make it appear better and with greater contrast? Also, is there anything I could have done to mitigate the dark/light differences (it was extremely sunny and hot and very harsh shadows).
Photo #7 (Night) - I think I underexposed this shot (the street itself is dark and you can't really see the people without adjustments to the scan (which I did), and Godzilla is still really in the dark). I should have metered more for the shadows than the brighter lights. Would the bright lights have been blown out in that case? Is there anything I could have do to avoid blown out bright lights without compromising exposing for the darker parts of the image? Would this have been good shot for some type of filter? Also, if I stood further back and used more of a telephoto lens, could I have gotten more compression of the signs/alley? Or does this look fine as is?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I work towards taking better photos.

 

[markjwyatt]

I will add a few comments- yes, flash would have helped with your mom. I used to use a lot of flash with leaf shutter MF. But nowadays I do not uusually carry one, so I just look for better lighting conditions.

Bridge- I like this picture (favorite of the bunch). Polarizer may have reduced the glare, but the glare looks natural and is not disturbing to me.
Night- looks fine. Had you opened up more for the darker parts, you may have lost the signs, which look about right.

 

[UserDemos]

Thank you for the feedback!

In particular, I'm struggling with how to get more contrast in the sky and deeper blues. All of my photos seem to suffer from washed out sky. i was under the impression a polarizer would have helped me achieve that better, but didn't have one on this trip. I am correct in what tool might fix the issue I'm seeing or am I just too conditioned by modern photography editing?

 

[markjwyatt]

Polarizer could help for sure. Do you at least use a UV filter? hat may be enough.

I do not shoot a lot of color film there days, but Fuji Superia XTRA 400 professionally processed yields nice skies:


dingly bobs by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Romanko]

I am also new to color photography but I could see some issues with the conversion of your negatives. Your highlights have yellow-green cast and the shadows are purplish-magenta. Without seeing the negatives it is hard to tell whether the problems are in the exposure or they are scanning and conversion artifacts. All your scenes have difficult lighting: backlit and high contrast. An obvious solution would be to choose different conditions or modify them by using flash and reflectors. As a beginner I decided to focus on seeing and choosing the right light. I mostly shoot landscapes so often this is my only option.

Maybe you could have your film scanned by a good lab. This would help with eliminating scanning and conversion issues.

 

[UserDemos]

Thanks for the insights.

I did not use a UV filter. Should I use both a UV and polarizer together? Also, I own several cameras. Is it better to invest in a full out filter system that can be switched among my cameras or just buy screw ins as needed?

I know the scanning has some issues, but I'm learning how to scan properly as well. Any recommendations on affordable labs for scanning?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Scans of color negs often show color crossover. Meaning that highlights and midtones and shadows are not all the same color balance. You have to use curves adjustments to fine tune the color in each part of the tone range; an overall color setting won't work.

Lets look at the pagoda. The sky is white because it is full of a giant white cloud; not much you can do about that. Maybe burn it in. The color problem was that the light tones were too yellow, but reducing the yellow over the whole image makes the midtones and shadows look too blue. Here's my corrected version. I did not burn in the clouds, just color corrected everything.


First, the original:

Then my edited version:

It would have looked better if I could have edited a 16 bit TIFF instead of a JPEG. If you want to see the curves adjustment layer I used to do this, I can send you the PSD file of it. Send me a PM and I'll send it to you. Color neg scans almost always have these color issues; scanner software does not do a good job with them. I've been getting color negs scanned as 16 bit TIFFS from a lab using a Noritsu scanner, and they're FAR easier to edit; but even they sometimes have color crossover issues. Color slides are a lot easier to scan, but a lot less forgiving with regard to exposure.


I just realized that you have the full resolution files available to download! I downloaded this one and applied my adjustment layer to it. I can send you the fullsize edited file if you want. I will give you a piece of advice: Scan these as 16 bit tiffs, not 8 bit. 16 bit files can take a lot more editing before they fall apart tonally.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Thought the museum pic might be fun to edit, too. Here's your original (sized down for the web):

Here's my edit, also sized for the web:

As with the Pagoda pic, I can send you the file with the adjustment layer I used to adjust color. Each pic requires its own adjustments, so this one will be different than what was used for the Pagoda.

 

[Thwyllo]

I'd just add to the comments by saying that....

(1) 400ASA film has intrinsically less dynamic range than 100ASA so won't help with your washed out skies.

(2) UV filters in my 50-odd years experience are great for protecting lenses but not much else in most situations. They are meant to help with long range haze but I've never found one that did anything worthwhile. So when you've got a polariser fitted you don't need a UV. But remember the polariser will potentially lose you 1-2 stops so a small tripod might not go amiss.

(3) If you don't have a decent light meter with a telephoto attatchment to spot meter those Godzilla type shots, you need to get one.

(4) This is subjective but for me, medium format gear is not the right thing for family holiday snaps. You were clearly carrying the body and at least two heavy lenses which I guarantee wasn't much fun at all. If you must do film, get yourself a basic Olympus OM1 or 2, or a Pentax ME....even with a couple of lenses and a small tripod you'll be carrying half the weight and volume and you can focus a bit more on your holiday experience and be less stressed about getting the shots.

I have dozens of film and digital cameras including Sony and Nikon full frame, and for long distance holidays I've always taken nothing more and a Sony a5100 with an extra wide angle lens and never regretted it.

 

[wiltw]

The fundamental problem that plagues all of us as photographers is the dynamic range of the scene exceeds the ability of our film and print paper. For example, taking sample readings with a spotmeter and gray card just now

• differences in illumination, sunny shining on portions of the scene (0EV) to mildly shaded areas (-6EV) vs. the deeply shaded areas (-8.5EV) contained in the same scene surrounding the mid-tone subject captured as a mid-tone
• differences in the range of brightness of the sky (vs. the exposure for mid-tone subject in bright sun): +1.6EV above the subject area
• difference in the range of brightness within the subject itself: +-2.5EV

Means that in the

1. low level scene detail could be inherently -2.5EV below the -8.5EV level of ambient illumination in deep shade, compared to bright sunlit exposure of the main subject
2. the highlight areas of the sky could be +1.6EV above the bright sunlight exposure of the main subject
3. while the main subject detail itself is +-2EV in inherent brightness

...so we have a dynamic range of |12.6EV| just for my backyard exposure in order to reproduce detail (and we're not even factoring high detailess shadow and detailess highlight areas)...it isn't going to fit on most film, much less fit onto the lesser-capable DR reproduction of a print.

The only thing we can do as photographers is to try to reduce the DR content of the scene using supplemental lighting to bring up the areas of lesser illumination. Sometimes we can use reflectors, sometimes we can use flash, sometimes there is ability to use gradient filters, sometimes we resort to film processing adjustment, and/or we use selective printing techniques in the darkroom (dodge/burn) sometimes there is little to nothing we can do -- so then we are forced to decide what part of that wide range we will sacrifice into the 'detailless' portion of the photo.

Digital photography adds very beneficial capability in using postprocessing software to selectively mimic dodging (reduce the Highlights) or burning (bump up the Shadows), and the use of Masks to help control contrast range, particularly if the capture is RAW file. But that is not the subject posed in the OP.

 

[Thwyllo]

• Digital photography adds very beneficial capability in using postprocessing software to selectively mimic dodging (reduce the Highlights) or burning (bump up the Shadows), and the use of Masks to help control contrast range, particularly if the capture is RAW file.

Good post...the last para especially underlines the benefits of having film scanned...two minutes playing with the photo of his mum for example shows there's plenty of detail in there to pull out by manipulating the shadows....ok so it's possibly at the expense of the background but a bit of judicious cropping sorts that. I think having digitally scanned films offers much of the best of both worlds.

 

[UserDemos]

Scans of color negs often show color crossover. Meaning that highlights and midtones and shadows are not all the same color balance. You have to use curves adjustments to fine tune the color in each part of the tone range; an overall color setting won't work.

<SNIP>

I just realized that you have the full resolution files available to download! I downloaded this one and applied my adjustment layer to it. I can send you the fullsize edited file if you want. I will give you a piece of advice: Scan these as 16 bit tiffs, not 8 bit. 16 bit files can take a lot more editing before they fall apart tonally.

First of all, thank you so much for providing examples. Wow did I learn a lot just looking at what you did. My exposure seems to be okay (what I was worried about), but my editing seems to be the issue really at hand here. I don't have Photoshop or anything, so I've been adjusting colors/tone curves in the scanning software so that the final scan reflects the best colors I think I can get. The software has individual color channels, but I'm not sure what to do with them or anything. If you can PM photos of the adjustments you made, perhaps I can learn by experimenting and seeing what adjustments do what. Any good resources for learning how to identify what color adjustments to make? I could tell the pagoda was too yellow, but I just don't have any understanding of how to fix the curve to correct the white balance issues. I'll have to see about the 16-bit scanning. I'm not sure if that was an option for me.

I'd just add to the comments by saying that....

(1) 400ASA film has intrinsically less dynamic range than 100ASA so won't help with your washed out skies.

If I use 100ASA slide film, which is probably what I'll start doing, I thought I read I had to correct colors a bit (through filter or post processing) because slide film has an overly blue hue because that would make it display correctly when projected. Is that correct?

(4) This is subjective but for me, medium format gear is not the right thing for family holiday snaps. You were clearly carrying the body and at least two heavy lenses which I guarantee wasn't much fun at all. If you must do film, get yourself a basic Olympus OM1 or 2, or a Pentax ME....even with a couple of lenses and a small tripod you'll be carrying half the weight and volume and you can focus a bit more on your holiday experience and be less stressed about getting the shots.

I inherited a MF rangefinder with a few lenses, so I just used what I had available to me. Honestly, I loved shooting with it. RFs seem to just be organized in a way that I like compared to SLRs. The center prism shooting is much more difficult for me. It was a little bulky, but the truth is that I didn't have the right bag for it when traveling. And I'm in LOVE with the huge negatives (6x7). I shot 7 rolls and my goals was to print a small batch of these for my mom to have. It was really nice bonding with my mom over a shared interest. I was trying to get a blend of holiday snaps and more "serious" cityscape/landscape photos.

Good post...the last para especially underlines the benefits of having film scanned...two minutes playing with the photo of his mum for example shows there's plenty of detail in there to pull out by manipulating the shadows....ok so it's possibly at the expense of the background but a bit of judicious cropping sorts that. I think having digitally scanned films offers much of the best of both worlds.

I think that's why I'm drawn to this particular medium. I love the analog of the shooting and the film, but the ability to do some cleanup for my mistakes after the digital scan before I ultimately print.

To understand some of the lessons here, generally consensus is that my exposure is fine, but my post processing needs a lot of help. Generally my shots are good (not fine art, haha!), but I could improve with selective use of filters and reducing the dynamic range of the scene, when possible by waiting for a better time of day or changing my shot. My camera has a polarizer somewhere in the kit, so I'm going to start using it. Lower ISO film might also help me with richer colors and dynamic range. Did I miss anything?

 

[Thwyllo]

I used to use Kodachrome 64 and was never aware of any blue cast with slide film but that doesn't mean other film types might not suffer from that?

Overall it sounds like you need to kick off with a fairly basic photo processing app and get competent with that before moving up the cost scale. Read some reviews and pick the one that suits you - no need to splash out on Photoshop, it's not the be all and end all for us amateurs

 

[MattKing]

I don't have Photoshop or anything, so I've been adjusting colors/tone curves in the scanning software so that the final scan reflects the best colors I think I can get.

If you work in a Windows environment, FastStone Image Viewer is a very useful, by donation, simple editor that I use for most of what I do.
It is far better than scanning software.
It doesn't do layers, but its quick and competent, its great for dealing with dust on scans, and it has particularly good re-sizing tools.

 

[Romanko]

slide film has an overly blue hue because that would make it display correctly when projected. Is that correct?

No.
Slide film usually has smaller dynamic range and introduces additional challenges. Definitely try it! But if your goal is to improve your photographic skills a common advice is to stick to one media (one film) and become really familiar with it first.

Lower ISO film might also help me with richer colors and dynamic range.

This is not always true. Ektar for example has unusual characteristic curves and requires careful exposure.

Overall it sounds like you need to kick off with a fairly basic photo processing app and get competent with that before moving up the cost scale.

This is still a dilemma for me. It appears that you need to acquire serious digital post-processing skills in order to shoot color negative film.

Digital photography adds very beneficial capability in using postprocessing software to selectively mimic dodging (reduce the Highlights) or burning (bump up the Shadows), and the use of Masks to help control contrast range, particularly if the capture is RAW file.

The techniques you mention originate in the analogue process. Like all things analogue they require years of practice to master.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

First of all, thank you so much for providing examples. Wow did I learn a lot just looking at what you did. My exposure seems to be okay (what I was worried about), but my editing seems to be the issue really at hand here. I don't have Photoshop or anything, so I've been adjusting colors/tone curves in the scanning software so that the final scan reflects the best colors I think I can get. The software has individual color channels, but I'm not sure what to do with them or anything. If you can PM photos of the adjustments you made, perhaps I can learn by experimenting and seeing what adjustments do what. Any good resources for learning how to identify what color adjustments to make? I could tell the pagoda was too yellow, but I just don't have any understanding of how to fix the curve to correct the white balance issues. I'll have to see about the 16-bit scanning. I'm not sure if that was an option for me.

I have an Epson V600 that I use for scanning prints. It can scan in 16 bit. I haven't used it with Silverfast, but I know the option is there. In Silverfast it may say 48 bit instead of 16 bit. Its the same thing. There are three color channels (Red, Blue, and Green) and 16 bit per channel is 48 bit total.

Here is a tutorial I wrote for using Curves. I used Photoshop, but Curves work the same in pretty much all editing software so you should be able to use the tutorial for silverfast or whatever other software you decide to use. As some others have advised, I think you should get a dedicated image editing app instead of using Silverfast for editing. Editing software is easier to use and more precise. I have always used Photoshop, but there are other less expensive options that work well, too.

Photoshop Curves Tutorial by Christopher Crawford

Here's the Curves adjustments I used for the Pagoda:

Here are the curves adjustments I used for the Museum photo:

 

[wiltw]

The techniques you mention originate in the analogue process. Like all things analogue they require years of practice to master.

Certainly masking takes some learning to utilize to max advantange, but a ton of adjustment only takes Highlight and Shadow adjustment of sliders, with zero masking knowledge needed. Many digital shooters don't use masking at all, I mentioned it only for awareness...it is analogous to masking negatives as an advanced technique in the conventional darkroom...most user need not bother to learn.

 

[Romanko]

Many digital shooters don't use masking at all

Yes, I was referring to pre-digital image manipulation techniques which are becoming a lost art in the modern age.

 

[Romanko]

Here are the curves adjustments I used for the Museum photo:

I like your interpretation of the image. I checked Fuji Pro 400H data sheets and the sensitivity curves look very different from the ones you used in conversion.


I would expect the curves to be somewhat similar but having a different slope to adjust contrast, and offset to correct for the white balance and the difference in the scanner and film color spaces. Your blue curve differs from the other two channels and is very non-linear. Do you have an explanation for this? Is it typical or specific to OP's images? Can you apply the same curves to other images and get reasonable results?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I like your interpretation of the image. I checked Fuji Pro 400H data sheets and the sensitivity curves look very different from the ones you used in conversion.

View attachment 353196
I would expect the curves to be somewhat similar but having a different slope to adjust contrast, and offset to correct for the white balance and the difference in the scanner and film color spaces. Your blue curve differs from the other two channels and is very non-linear. Do you have an explanation for this? Is it typical or specific to OP's images? Can you apply the same curves to other images and get reasonable results?

Each scan needs its own set of adjustments. The problem is that those curves in the data sheets apply when printing on RA-4 paper, but the scanner has a difficult time with color neg film because of the orange base color and in trying to correct for that, it messes up the color. Another issue is that many labs don't have good process control. I've found that processing by some labs gives easier to scan and edit negs than others.

The scanner's built in color correction is different for each picture, which is why the correction needed in editing will not be the same for each image.

 

[Romanko]

The scanner's built in color correction is different for each picture, which is why the correction needed in editing will not be the same for each image.

Thank you. This is very useful albeit somewhat disheartening information. If you are shooting a series of images on the same film how do you achieve the same look? I would expect that there is no other way but to process one image and then try and manually match the others.

 

[MattKing]

the scanner has a difficult time with color neg film because of the orange base color and in trying to correct for that, it messes up the color.

Not really.
All the orange mask does is result in a corrected, inverted colour image, where the effect of the mask plus the colours in the image can be accounted for by filtering out the resulting colour bias - a single essentially red colour.
Once that is filtered out, inversion of the colours, in the manner performed by the RA-4 paper, will result in accurate colour.
It is that inversion process where the struggle happens.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Thank you. This is very useful albeit somewhat disheartening information. If you are shooting a series of images on the same film how do you achieve the same look? I would expect that there is no other way but to process one image and then try and manually match the others.

In some scanning software, like Vuescan, you can scan one image in a series and lock the scanner's exposure settings so that subsequent images will be scanned identically. Assuming the images were all shot in the same light with the same exposure in the camera, you should be able to apply the same curves adjustment in photoshop to all and get the same results.

 

[koraks]

The problem is that those curves in the data sheets apply when printing on RA-4 paper,

Actually, not even that.

The set of curves shown by @Romanko looks like a typical H/D plot: i.e. it's the density the film will build in response to varying degrees of illumination.
How any medium in further processing responds to that is an entirely different matter. Basically, those curves really only apply to the film itself and have no relation to what happens next, other than that evidently any further processing (whether optical RA4 printing or scanning) will have to make do with what the film has recorded. In this sense, the curves apply as much to RA4 printing as they do to scanning, but they don't say anything about how either form of post processing will actually respond.