How can I be so wrong with Velvia?

Ok I'll try not to rant too much here, because I'm starting to get a little miffed with this always happening.

In the past few months I've probably gone through 6 rolls of Velvia 100F and I keep getting things really, really wrong. This all came crashing down on me hard this afternoon when I got a roll back from a trek I did this last weekend (5 hours drive + 14h return walk, which is probably making me more annoyed than normal).

This waterfall was under completely overcast skies, so there wasn't any of the harsh shadows or sunsets over a beach which has stumped me in the past. I was using the metered prism on my Mamiya 645 Pro and bracketing 2/3's of a stop either way. This was -2/3, and it's still really, really bad.



Am I just metering plain old wrong? I get good results shooting this way with B&W (obviously it's wider latitude is covering for me here), but now I'm starting to wonder if my B&W stuff could be much, much better too. I'm not quite sure where to go. Should I buy a good handheld incident/reflected meter? I think maybe I should as I've got my first box of Velvia 50 in 4x5 waiting to shoot and this is making me not want to open it.

Any help would be appreciated.

Chris:

Do you by any chance use a different back for your transparency work? It occurs to me that the ISO setting on the film back may have either been wrong, or the back or its contacts may be out of kilter.

Do you recall what the exposure actually was, and was it consistent with what would have been indicated by "Sunny 16"?

Matt

P.S. at the risk of seeming to respond to Steve's post before he even made it, I have found the metering prism on my Mamiya 645 Pro to work well with transparency film, especially when I use the "Spot" function. It certainly isn't as much a "Spot" as a true "Spot" meter, but it is very useful.

I don't shoot many slides, but I've always been told to expose for the highlights when shooting them. When shooting negative film, expose for the shadows as the extra latitude will usually keep the highlights within range.

I only use my on-camera meter when I'm in a hurry and I usually get acceptable results.
However, when I want something to go RIGHT the first time, I use a handheld meter.

I would suggest getting a spot meter, especially if you're going to be some distance from your
subject, as in your picture. Meter the bright areas by taking several readings from different
areas. I'd suggest that you average them and maybe bracket from that.

BW films have a MUCH greater latitude and minor variations still come out acceptable, but with
slide film, you have to be much closer to what you want as the latitude is MUCH narrower.

I have a couple of Luna-Pros and a spot meter attachment for them and I get good results.
I also have a Pentax Digital spot meter that has been on the mark every time.
Check e-Bay for the Pentax spot meters. They still come across a little expensive, but it's has
definitely been worth the money spent.

I would definitely be interested in seeing what happens.

Good luck.

Steve

MattKing said:

Chris:

Do you by any chance use a different back for your transparency work? It occurs to me that the ISO setting on the film back may have either been wrong, or the back or its contacts may be out of kilter.

Do you recall what the exposure actually was, and was it consistent with what would have been indicated by "Sunny 16"?

Matt

P.S. at the risk of seeming to respond to Steve's post before he even made it, I have found the metering prism on my Mamiya 645 Pro to work well with transparency film, especially when I use the "Spot" function. It certainly isn't as much a "Spot" as a true "Spot" meter, but it is very useful.

Click to expand...

I did use two backs, and have some B&W shots I'm yet to develop from the same waterfall. I usually check the ISO dial every time I attach them to make sure they're where they should be though. I can't recall if I checked this time, but as It's something I almost always look at, I'm pretty safe in assuming that's not it. This photo is from the same roll, and while it was in dire need of grads (still finding out the hard way I really need to take them everywhere with me) it's considerably better exposed than the waterfall.


I have debated using the spot mode almost all the time, but I've looked and never found any info on just how big the 'spot' is so am always a little unsure. I also have an older Pentax spot meter I've used for my 4x5 work, but it's battery has died and I can't face the cost of what a replacement 1.35V's going to be for just a small battery.

I can't recall for sure what the exposure was, but it was somewhere around 2-4sec @ f16-22 from memory.

ChrisC said:

I can't recall for sure what the exposure was, but it was somewhere around 2-4sec @ f16-22 from memory.

Click to expand...

That seems long, even for overcast lighting. At most your exposure time should have been around 1/8 sec and that's being really liberal. Your film for that shot is overexposed by at least 4 stops, probably more like 5 or 6.

ChrisC said:

I can't recall for sure what the exposure was, but it was somewhere around 2-4sec @ f16-22 from memory.

Click to expand...

Were you shooting aperture priority mode? If in manual mode are you sure you weren't confusing what you thought was 2 or 4 sec with 1/2 or 1/4 sec? And maybe you set the wrong shutter speed? Just a thought.

DJGainer said:

That seems long, even for overcast lighting. At most your exposure time should have been around 1/8 sec and that's being really liberal. Your film for that shot is overexposed by at least 4 stops, probably more like 5 or 6.

Click to expand...

It was heavy overcast though. I'm nor really exposure-savvy enough to compare how it should have been off the top of my head though. I do rely on meters a fair bit (probably too much by the looks of things). Maybe I'll compare the meter in my Mamiya to an old selenium meter I've got in a variety of conditions to see if I can rule that out.

brian steinberger said:

Were you shooting aperture priority mode? If in manual mode are you sure you weren't confusing what you thought was 2 or 4 sec with 1/2 or 1/4 sec? And maybe you set the wrong shutter speed? Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Yeah it was aperture priority mode. I almost always shoot it, especially when hiking as it's another thing to not worry about/mess up when the body/mind gets tired.

Following the "Sunny 16" rule and assuming a normal overcast day with f16-22, you would probably end up 1/2 up and down around 1/15 sec with Velvia 100F; I agree Dave, 1/8 sec is liberal, but perhaps it wasn't a normal day, so OK, but I wouldn't be surprised if you would get this picture with 1/2-1/4 sec; with 2-4 sec I guess you would see almost nothing! After all there is a difference with B/W and transparency. With B/W (we are told) you expose for the shadows and control the highlights in developing or printing, but with transparency (like Velvia) you don't have much means of control but exposure. And normally the point in a picture is where the light is, out burned (overexposed) highlights are assumed to be bad in both a print and in a transparency, so you don't have much of a choice with transparency but to expose for the highlights (the Sunny 16 rule with EI=ISO normal dev. is exposing for the highlights!) -- you will sometimes have problems with shadows but that's a price you will have to pay (normally!!!)
//Bertil

Well I wouldn't trust a camera meter in that shot, plenty of water reflecting the sky, even though it was overcast it could still be white sky. If you could have taken a spot reading of that grey rock or green foliage (near Kodak grey) and set the camera, IMHO the exposure would have been better.

That the exposures in the two images are so wildly different using the same essential metering technique would suggest something other than the meter to me. Also, the waterfall shot - with all the sun reflection etc - would more likely cause the camera to underexpose than overexpose. If the same exposure, (i.e.shutter speed and aperture) was inadvertently used for the church and the waterfall that would be an explanation.

Bob H

The exposure you used was simply way too long, just from thinking about what the average EV at the scene must have been. Assuming about EV 11 to 12 (hard to say not having been there), the shot should have been made at at '8 to '15, respectively (assuming f/16). If the meter gave you the exposure you stated in those conditions, it is way out of calibration (four to five stops over if it told you to use f/16 at 2 seconds).

Yet, since some of your shots are coming out OK, that means it is not out of calibration all the time. Either it is finicky, or the EI is somehow getting changed. Is every one of your shots taken on aperture priority? Is there any correlation between the metering mode you use and which shots turn out OK?

Are you absolutely sure that the meter told you to use two to four seconds, and the shots were actually made at that exposure? If you are not so sure, and there is a possibility that the meter actually did read the shot at a more realistic EV, I am thinking that it is also possible that your lens is remaining wide open sometimes...Perhaps whenever you use aperture priority mode. f/16 to f/2.8 is five stops; about right.

Look at your six rolls. Obviously, from that one pic, some shots are OK. How many are OK? Are the ones that are bad or good confined to the same composition? What I mean is, do you ever get one good one and one bad one of the same exact composition?

I'd do a test. Go out on a sunny day with absolutely no obstructions between Sun and your subject, such as haze, clouds, etc., and make the exposures for EV 15: '125 at f/16, or anything equivalent. Shoot with Sun either behind you or to your side. Shoot on manual. Once again: Do not meter at all for this shot. Assuming EV15 in these conditions will get you a darned-near perfect exposure, and anything significantly of from a decent exposure on this frame in these conditions, with fresh film and quality processing, will be a mechanical problem. That is your "correct" reference shot. Write the sunny 16 exposure down. Then, still on manual, with the same composition, meter a grey card illuminated by the sun, but without any glare on the card, and notate the exposure recommended by the camera at the same f stop you used for the first shot. Then, move the grey card and meter the scene using the Mamiya's meter. Notate what the camera recommends. Take a shot. Then, switch to aperture priority mode. Meter a grey card again, and notate the exposure the camera recommends. Move the grey card out of the way, meter the composition, take note of the exposure the camera recommends, and take the pic. Since you have 15 shots, do the same thing with four other compositions. Since your backs pass electronic information to your camera, they are a possible source or the problem, and you should do this entire test using each back that you have.

When you are looking at your notes, compare: 1) the meterless exposure, 2) the grey card exposure in manual mode, 3) the exposure straight off of the composition in manual mode, 4) the grey card exposure in aperture priority mode, 5) the exposure straight off the composition in aperture priority mode. None of them should be all that far off from each other. The two grey cards should be identical, and should not even be half a stop from the educated guess used in the first exposure (if the day really is a sunny 16 day). The actual composition metered on manual and on aperture priority should also be identical to each other (though probably not identical to the grey card or the first exposure). Even if the meter is "fooled" in a tricky lighting situation, it will not be fooled by four stops, so these metered compositions should not be way off from the educated guess.

You really don't even need to expose the film for this test. You will get a lot of information just by comparing the exposure readings that you notated. However, IMO you might as well, as it may bring to light any mechanical or user error problems, such as the aforementioned lens remaining wide open, or setting the wrong EI.

Another thing to check is, can you fire the Mamiya without and film in it?

If so then set you lens and shutter speeds to different values and when firing the camera look down the lens to see if the apearture blades close down.

Could be an intermitent fault if some of your images seem ok and others not.

Whilst I wouldn't advocate using the sunny 16 rule for Velvia, or any transparency film, unless it is very dark, it should be used to assure yourself that you are at least in the ballpark (as you Americans say).

Velvia sunny 16 would be f16 1/60s in bright sun down to about f4 1/60s or f16 1/2s for dull overcast (or any combination to give the same EV).

It's a bit like working out the rough answer to a mathematics question before you do the proper working out just to check you are in the right area, decimal place in the right position, etc.


Steve.

I'd say the EV was about 12.5-13.4 probably towards the higher end considering the highlights
Looks like a bright but overcast day which I call 13.5
Bleak and overcast is more of a 11.5 -12 =like today in damp overcast WesternNY 9am ..checked and is 12.3 but brighter a bit now
"rainforest/soggy woods daylight bleak" is what -I- associate with EV12
That means at 100 speed you're at least 3 stops down from sunny 16
125
60 -1 stop
30 -2 stop
15 -3 stop
1/15 sec at f16 or 1/8 f22

very dull day with little sunshine brightness 1 stop lower
1/8 or 1/4 at f22


Sunny f16 is squinting
f14-14.8 is normal beautiful day type sun
f11 is like swampy rain midday overcast
9.5 I think is about sunset range
5+ is lit street at night but not NYC street and darkness with subjects "spot" illuminated well by some form of lighting +2 for some things up to EV7
Dark night no lights around is EV 0 and very possibly towards EV-3 "pitch black"



Take some average readings at times throughout day and differing weather conditions for those times of day
and within a week you should have accumulated enough experiences to judge EV pretty well

appears to have become a bit brighter so i went and rechecked EV
Guessed a full EV13
EV13.1__

That shot looks a good stop or two overexposed. I'd guess that there is a systematic exposure issue.. ISO setting, shutter speed, something. I have a polaroid back for my 645 and that's a handy way to test.

About your metering questions, I find just about any dslr with histograms to be an excellent meter for slide. When I am shooting LF slide, that's what I use- it is extremely accurate and ensures that I can place highlights right on the ragged edge of what the film can handle, thus keeping shadow detail. Also make sa very handy notebook Of course, you can spot meter for slide, and it will also give very good results if you know what you're doing, but... a dslr runs you about the same price as a top-o-the-line colour meter. And some slide films really do require colour metering IMHO.

(go on and accuse me of blasphemy, but only if you are willing to compare LF slides on a light table, with a loupe, in the presence of a neutral audience...)

Steve Smith said:

Whilst I wouldn't advocate using the sunny 16 rule for Velvia, or any transparency film, unless it is very dark, it should be used to assure yourself that you are at least in the ballpark (as you Americans say).

Velvia sunny 16 would be f16 1/60s in bright sun down to about f4 1/60s or f16 1/2s for dull overcast (or any combination to give the same EV).

It's a bit like working out the rough answer to a mathematics question before you do the proper working out just to check you are in the right area, decimal place in the right position, etc.


Steve.

Click to expand...

Exactly, about the ballpark thing. I assumed that the OP does not have a known-accurate incident meter (or else he would have used it for his pix). If he does, then he should use it instead.

However, shooting on a true sunny 16 day and assuming an EV 15 midtone will get him within 1/3 stop of the "correct" exposure, in my experience. While always shooting meterless is something that would be difficult with transparency film, and not something I recommended, I find that true sunny 16 conditions (bright, clear, without haze) almost always give exactly EV 15 on an incident meter. It is without variance of more than 1/3 stop in my experience. Sunny 16 itself is remarkably consistent. The troubles arise when you are in a different lighting condition than a "true" sunny 16 day. If there is even a light haze in the air, things change. Thus, IMO, shooting on a crystal-clear and sunny day assuming an EV 15 middle tone is a very good way to test a meter with suspected problems, if that is the only meter he has.

I am doing a project on Fuji FP-100C right now, using a 4x5. I am shooting almost 200 pix in the neighborhood. I only go out on totally clear and sunny days. I am about 50 prints into the project in about seven separate days of shooting over the past month, and every single exposure in which the subject is lit directly by Sun (which is really the only time I am shooting things) has been to place EV 15 at middle grey. The medium has less latitude and dynamic range than Velvia (far less, it seems), so no exposure is the right exposure. However, I am getting the best exposure I can get, and near absolute consistency shot to shot. I use my near-60-year-old Brockway incident meter, which is a predecessor to the modern Sekonic Studio Deluxe. So far, it has not even reached 1/3 stop above or below EV 15.

P.S. The OP is using 100F, not 50. I cannot believe that there are three varieties of this stuff. They could be making NPL or something really cool instead of three types of Velvia. I love 100F, myself. I think it would even be great as a general-purpose film, if I wanted things to generally have a little more color intensity.

Frankly, the error in this exposure was rather large. A 1 stop bracket around not-so-sunny 11 (or maybe 8, hard to judge without being there) would have probably nailed the shot. I suspect some big source of error.

If your best exposure is near the middle of your bracket then you're getting there. If it's not in your (pretty wide) bracket then you're way off and it's time to do some tests and metering exercises.

keithwms said:

(go on and accuse me of blasphemy, but only if you are willing to compare LF slides on a light table, with a loupe, in the presence of a neutral audience...)

Click to expand...

You're in the wrong forum if you want a neutral audience, Keith

May the God of Halides have mercy on your Pixels

Bob H

I'm okay Bob, I already said twenty hail Ansels.

Try some Kodak Kodachrome or Ektachrome.

I had the same problem with my RZ once when changing backs back and forth. It turned out that the contacts were dirty for one shot and the ISO rating was reported wrong to the camera. I caught it, as it appeared so far from sunny 16 that it bothered me.

Trust but verify!

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I had the same problem with my RZ once when changing backs back and forth. It turned out that the contacts were dirty for one shot and the ISO rating was reported wrong to the camera. I caught it, as it appeared so far from sunny 16 that it bothered me.

Trust but verify!

PE

Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I'll have to give everything a good clean tomorrow and see. I've had my meter just show everything as 'over' before, where even inside at night with the lights off and at f22 it still did it. It's happened a couple of times and turned out to be something with the contacts and all gone back to normal after a clean. I'll have to give them all a really good clean.

I'll also just run some tests between it's meter, my old Zeiss Ikophot incident/reflected meter I use for LF (which always seems to be pretty accurate with the B&W I've shot on it) and the meter on my Canon EOS 30 tomorrow in my backyard to see what the deal is.



Thanks to everyone else giving me a more concrete understanding of EV values. I'll have to try and remember some of these and maybe carry my Ikophot with me and check EV's every now and again to try and make this a natural way of thinking.

The cleaning problem could be real and the cause of many problems. But Velvia is difficult. That's why I hate it. Particularly the F version. It has very high contrast and saturation. That means exposure has to be dead on for it to come out well. Even then, the latitude is so small that shadow and highlight detail are often lost. The high saturation in the F version is so high that the colors often look wrong, and off color shadows are a common problem. But if it is exposed correctly, with an appropriate subject and reasonable light balance, the results can be spectacular. It's just that that is hard to do, and i've seen a lot more failures than successes.

2F/2F said:

P.S. The OP is using 100F, not 50.

Click to expand...

I realised this just after I posted my rough estimates for exposure. Mine are based on ISO 50.


Steve.

ChrisC said:

Thanks for this. I'll have to give everything a good clean tomorrow and see. I've had my meter just show everything as 'over' before, where even inside at night with the lights off and at f22 it still did it. It's happened a couple of times and turned out to be something with the contacts and all gone back to normal after a clean. I'll have to give them all a really good clean.

Click to expand...

Well, there you go. I think you might stand a good chance of solving your problem this way. Since it has happened before, I am surprised you did not think that it might be the problem again, as opposed to the film. The problem is not Velvia. Any contrasty film can be hard to use, but this would show up as loss of shadows and highlights, not as a many-stop overexposure. Additionally, 100F is the most forgiving of all the Velvias.

IMO, you should invest in a hand held light meter, learn how to use it, and keep your camera on manual mode for these types of situations (tripod work with relatively static subjects).

nworth said:

The cleaning problem could be real and the cause of many problems. But Velvia is difficult. That's why I hate it. Particularly the F version. It has very high contrast and saturation. That means exposure has to be dead on for it to come out well. Even then, the latitude is so small that shadow and highlight detail are often lost. The high saturation in the F version is so high that the colors often look wrong, and off color shadows are a common problem. But if it is exposed correctly, with an appropriate subject and reasonable light balance, the results can be spectacular. It's just that that is hard to do, and i've seen a lot more failures than successes.

Click to expand...

Of the three, 100F is the least contrasty and least saturated. This is not only from the way I feel about it after using it quite a bit, but from Fuji's claims. It is not that is it not high in saturation or contrast, but definitely closer to "natural" than the other two. It also handles pull processing extremely well. I use this film almost exclusively for pull processing, since it maintains color saturation extremely well when you pull.

Ektagraphic said:

Try some Kodak Kodachrome or Ektachrome.

Click to expand...

What on Earth does this have to do with anything in the post? The results would be the same with any film, since it is obviously an issue with the camera.