i give up on my internal meter...

[BimmerJake]

so, i've been back to full manual for a couple months now, but i'm becoming more and more unhappy with my camera's internal meter. it seems to be adequate for color, but generally over exposes black and what (which i'm shooting exclusively at this point).

anyway, i'm going to use the guide lines from the ultimate exposure computer and see how that works out for me, but i have a couple questions that i thought you guys might be able to help out with.

question the first...

if i'm using fp4 (iso 125) should i use the iso 100 column?

actually, that's the only question other that if anyone has had good results using this method.

I'm familiar with sunny 16 and that's accounted for in the ultimate exposure calculator as well. is there any other good methods out there?

 

[nicefor88]

That's a bit puzzling because if your camera's cell was faulty then it would be for both colour and bw films. Also, negative films can usually take more than one stop over or under exposure without a big loss.
You can indeed look at the iso 100 column for fp4, you're just going to be very slightly overexposed.
Anecdote: I accidentally overexposed a Fuji 160 by 2/3 stop last month. It didn't show any visible damage.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

Perhaps you haven't calibrated your own personal Exposure Index for FP4. The idea is that the box speed and recommended development times of most b/w films will end up with excessively contrasty negatives. To get better mid-tones and more controlled contrast, you want to slightly over-expose your film (by rating the FP4 at 100, for instance) and then slightly under-develop the film, by 10-20% from the recommended time for your developer. These two steps have the effect of decreasing the slope of HD curve of your film, rendering a more controlled contrast and better mid-tones.

There are film testing methods that will keep you doing film tests for the remainder of your photographic life. But if you are instead interested in taking actual pictures, then start with reducing your exposure index from 120 to 100, and reduce your development times 10-20%, then shoot a roll and see how you like the results. Tweak your development times as necessary.

This is the road many experienced film shooters end up going down, hence the interest in semi-stand, compensating developers, to control contrast, increase edge effects and reduce grain clumping; and also the endless search for the magic developer that does it all.

In many respects, getting consistently great results from small-gauge B/W film is a greater challenge than large format, because everything has to come together in order to make the final print work well, including the micro-contrast and granularity effects of the developed film being evident in the finished print.

Enjoy your exploration of B/W photography, but don't get too hung up on the technical side that you can't engage your creative vision. Some of the best photographers of the 20 century had little or no technical darkroom skills at all.

~Joe

 

[Ed Sukach]

I'm interested -where would I find this "Ultimate Exposure Computer"?

 

[hovis]

When you say your black and white is overexposed, do you mean the negatives are too thick or dense, or your prints are too light? Who is developing your B&W film and how are they doing it? In what developer, agitation, time, temp? Are the b&W prints machine prints or hand printed? There are quite a few variables here that could be a factor in your b&W not looking the way you want. Try to narrow down the possibilities.
Processing your own b&w will let you fine tune a process that works for you and gives you the results you are looking for, plus it can be a lot of fun too. Good luck.

 

[wiltw]

In-camera meters are always reading reflected light, and unless you have calibrated eyeballs to compensate the meter reading when the metered area is not 18% gray in mean tonality, your reflected meter will always be subjected to 'subject failure' (what Kodak called it, when subject scene was not averaging to 18% gray reflectivity.

As for color vs. B&W overexposure, if you shoot color neg it is very tolerant to overexposure...you can overexpose color neg by up to +3EV and still end up with a good quality end result! So the satisfaction with color exposure could merely be due to the better tolerance of color neg, and the fact that a lab is doing the film processing and printing, effectively hiding the overexposure from you!

 

[WolfTales]

You might need a 1.35v battery (Wein cell) rather then a 1.5v battery.

 

[BimmerJake]

i've had the lab develop and i've developed myself with the lab printing (no dark room yet) and the results were basically the same. i think i need to shorted the development time (if i understand joe right) and see if my contrast gets better. i think i might be seeing too much contrast and interpreting that as over exposure. does that make sense?

the film i developed myself was fp4 in dd-x at the recommended times and dilution. as far as how the lab is printing i'm not sure, i'll ask next time i'm up there. i know they do custom enlargement but i'm not sure they use it as a standard or if i have to request it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

i've had the lab develop and i've developed myself with the lab printing (no dark room yet) and the results were basically the same.

Is the lab printing by hand or with a machine? If the lab is using an automated machine and doesn't have someone who can make judgments about how the prints look, it may be that the machine just isn't set up to print B&W well. I wouldn't mess with your film development times until you can determine what you really have on the neg.

If you don't have a darkroom, find a lab that can make you a real B&W contact sheet, and then you can see if your exposures are relatively consistent with each other and how good they are in general. You might ask them to make more than one contact sheet--one printed at the minimum exposure time for the maximum black in the unexposed part of the film, and if that doesn't look good, ask them to make one where most of the exposures on the film look good on the contact sheet. The first sheet will tell you if you are overexposing in general. The second sheet will tell you if, despite possible exposure errors, you still have enough detail on the negs to get a good print.

Look at the negs with a loupe as well. See how much detail you're getting in the shadows, which will be the light areas on the negs. If you have shadow detail where you want it, then you're giving enough exposure, possibly more than enough. Make a series of exposures on one roll bracketed a half or a third step apart, whichever is easiest with your camera, and make notes, and then look and find the first image that has sufficient exposure to give you enough shadow detail where you want it with a minimum of exposure. Use that to figure out what your nominal EI (Exposure Index, or your personal "ISO" speed) should be.

 

[pentaxuser]

the film i developed myself was fp4 in dd-x at the recommended times and dilution.

This is only an anecdotal observation on my part and based on one experience only but I developed FP4+ the other night in DDX for a friend and I was surprised at how dense the negatives were. As I wasn't the taker of the negs I can't eliminate the possibility of exposure errors but it may well be that the FP4+ time for DDX might simply be over-generous.

I usually find Ilford times to be very accurate but I'd certainly go for 10-15% less, even at 125 and certainly at 100

pentaxuser

 

[jeffreyg]

I agree with the previous comments and would like to add that you may have taken photographs under different lighting conditions on the same roll and had an incorrect exposure for the first or early frames which the machine printer used to make their settings and the rest were off as a result. There is a simple test you can do to determine the iso for your equipment but it would be best to develop and print yourself or find a technician who will work with you to do it.

 

[Ira Rush]

I'm interested -where would I find this "Ultimate Exposure Computer"?

Ed, check out the following link


http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

 

[reellis67]

I'm interested -where would I find this "Ultimate Exposure Computer"?

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

- Randy

 

[BimmerJake]

i think the ultimate reality is that i should start pulling together stuff for a dark room, i have a place to put one that just needs to be cleaned out.

i also think my negs look pretty good, i was a little surprised they didn't print very well.

i'm going to take a roll using different guidelines for exposure that my internal meter and have them printed to see if they turn out. i'll develop them the same and have them printed at the same place to try to minimize the variables. i think that'll tell me once and for all if my meter sucks or is out of calibration. if they turn out the same i'll know i need to adjust my development or have them printed a different way.

at least i'm having fun

thanks for all your help.

 

[BimmerJake]

Ed, check out the following link


http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

what he said...

i reconfigured it to print on a small piece of paper for portability.

 

[Ed Sukach]

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
- Randy

Thank you.

Not really much of a surprise. Many moos ago, around the turn of the century, an "Infallible Exposure Calculator" (not sure of the precise name - something like that) was manufactured, using much the same information, stamped/ engraved into a metal disk with rotating scales. If memory serves me, it utliized "Waterhouse Stops" ...

While the results from these systems can be, and at times IS, fairly accurate, any system using subjective judgement is prone to error, and I don't exclude the usual "eflective/ assuming 18% gray" meter, either.

My only advice would be to try to learn as much as possible about the "18% gray" bit, and try to make intelligent guesses in the future.

Come to think of it, my Olympus OM-4 has an internal meter that is switchable between 18%, 95%, and 5%.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm interested -where would I find this "Ultimate Exposure Computer"?

Try this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ultimate+Exposure+Computer&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Should be the first hit. Ed.


Oooops... now I see you found it already! That will teach me to read only page 1.

 

[BimmerJake]

Try this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ultimate+Exposure+Computer&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Should be the first hit. Ed.


Oooops... now I see you found it already! That will teach me to read only page 1.

we'll let it slide.... this time.