Instax Square Exposures

[Arthurwg]

I've just acquired a Nons Instax back for my Hasselblad and wondering about correct exposures for this ISO 800 film, both color and black and white. From what I've read, the film tends to lose detail in the highlights, requiring a 1 or 2-stop under exposure. I've also read that the Hasselblad's minimum exposure of 1/500 sec and F22 may not accommodate bright subjects, requiring a one or two-stop neutral density filter. I'll be using this set-up with a metered prism viewfinder. Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

[ic-racer]

Doesn't the Nons back spit out the processed film? You should be able to see any exposure errors right away.

I set my meter to 800 when I use Instax with my Horseman. I meter carefully because I have to take the film back to the darkroom for processing

 

[Donald Qualls]

My experience with Instax runs the other way -- it's 800-1000 in bright sun, and slower in dimmer light. Like all direct positive materials, of course, you lose more to slight overexposure (as in a peak highlight for the scene) than you do for slight underexposure, but my experience (mostly shooting with a LomoGraflok on a 1940-ish Anniversary Speed with the focal plane shutter) tends to run darker than intended in at least half of my frames. FWIW, BTW, the Mini, Square, and Wide are the same material, just cut to different sizes.

 

[Arthurwg]

Doesn't the Nons back spit out the processed film? You should be able to see any exposure errors right away.

Hope to arrive at a rule of thumb before wasting too much film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The rule of thumb I've seen is to expose at 800 in sunny conditions, 400 in less bright daylight, and 200 in lower light (interiors, golden hour/blue hour, or night -- and don't forget the horrific reciprocity departure if your exposure runs beyond 1/10 second).

Worth remembering, however, that you get at most about 5 stops between the brightest and darkest levels with detail, so if you're shooting a 7 stop scene, you have to choose whether to lose highlights or shadows (or some of both). It's more like shooting slide film than negatives.

 

[Arthurwg]

Thanks for that, Donald.

 

[xya]

The rule of thumb I've seen is to expose at 800 in sunny conditions, 400 in less bright daylight, and 200 in lower light (interiors, golden hour/blue hour, or night -- and don't forget the horrific reciprocity departure if your exposure runs beyond 1/10 second).

Worth remembering, however, that you get at most about 5 stops between the brightest and darkest levels with detail, so if you're shooting a 7 stop scene, you have to choose whether to lose highlights or shadows (or some of both). It's more like shooting slide film than negatives.

I agree with you. In the bright sun of the seaside I even go to 1600. The only camera I know of to take this into account is the Mint RF 70, second version. They found a way to get it right.

 

[brbo]

I agree with you. In the bright sun of the seaside I even go to 1600. The only camera I know of to take this into account is the Mint RF 70, second version.

Not even Fuji Instax cameras?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not even Fuji Instax cameras?

Especially not Fuji Instax cameras.

 

[brbo]

Especially not Fuji Instax cameras.

Interesting. I only have 2 Instax cameras (and one of them (SQ10) is a hybrid), but haven't noticed that they are particularly bad at producing properly exposed images. It's true that both cameras are/were used by kids, so maybe it was just beginners luck?

So, there is consensus that Fuji Instax cameras can't expose Instax film properly in most of the conditions?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Based on my (limited) experience with Fuji Instax cameras, they're in the same category as the absolute bottom end Polaroids from the days of pack film. They're worse, in some ways, than even the Swinger, which was as cheap as Polaroid cameras ever got. Exposure control seems haphazard, there's no compensation for distance with flash, and they surely don't account for the different effective speed of the film in different light levels.

Now, I haven't used one of the higher end ones -- at the least, a couple of the more expensive ones have better lenses -- but as far as I'm aware, they still don't compensate for film speed variation, even with short exposures.

 

[xya]

I think that I can say that I have quite some experience with Fuji Instax cameras https://www.instantphoto.eu/fuji/fuji_instant.htm and the non-Fuji Instants. https://www.instantphoto.eu/other/other_instant.htm. The Fuji cameras can't even focus to infinity. In broad light a smaller aperture may hide this a little bit, but on dull days it's well visible. They focus to 3 or 4 m and that's it. There is one exception, the 500 AF with a real autofocus, but that's an old one.

And yes, except the RF70 I have not seen a camera that takes the strange behavior of the Fuji Instax film into account. If you know one, please let me know...

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Fuji cameras can't even focus to infinity.

I'm sure this is because of the target market for the Fuji cameras: parties and party goers. Getting slightly drunk people to waste a lot of film trying to get good images (not because they're out of focus but because the flash is too strong for head-and-shoulders shots, the camera can't focus to selfie distance even though it has a convex mirror selfie viewfinder, etc.) is a nice marketing trick, but it's a shame to do that with such good film. A good auto-focus and auto-exposure makes the film a pleasure to use, but even with full manual it's a steep learning curve.

On the bright side, it's LOTS cheaper than Polaroid's current offerings -- actually a fair bit cheaper than shooting 120 color film and getting it commercially processed and printed. But wasting a whole pack trying to get one good print isn't a good way to cultivate repeat business. Of course, making a really good camera means you'll be selling the device in the over-$500 price range, comparable to the new Rollei 35 AF and a little higher than the Pentax 17 -- and folks who just want party pictures aren't likely to be interested in spending that kind of money...

 

[xya]

You are right, they just don't want to do it better. The 500 AF proves that they are able to make autofocus and the Neo 90 proves that they can take the erratic behavior of their film into account, but they only did it for Mini film https://www.instantphoto.eu/fuji/mini_90_neo.htm

 

[Arthurwg]

BTW, I imagine most of this information refers to Instax color film. I'm wondering if it applies to B&W as well, or if there's other formula for using monochrome.

 

[xya]

Unfortunately, it applies as well. B&W is no better...

 

[Arthurwg]

Unfortunately, it applies as well. B&W is no better...

BTW, your website is truly awesome.

 

[xya]

Thank you.

 

[brbo]

You are right, they just don't want to do it better. The 500 AF proves that they are able to make autofocus and the Neo 90 proves that they can take the erratic behavior of their film into account, but they only did it for Mini film https://www.instantphoto.eu/fuji/mini_90_neo.htm

Maybe that's it (well, I would bet that square film cameras would be at least as good as mini in this regard as well). Considering how popular Instax is, it would be quite hard to believe that none of the Fuji cameras could properly expose Instax film.

Going through kids Instax pictures I couldn't find any that were terribly exposed. They have Instax 8 mini (the cheapest Instax camera at the time).

I was surprised to find that the camera still had half a pack unused (probably 3-4 years old now) so I did two test shots:

I would call those exposures quite usable. For the test I used camera's suggested exposure. Otherwise I would use one position darker for the left picture.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The "suggested exposure" (the icon symbols for sunny, cloudy, rainy, and "house" for indoor, presumably with flash firing in all cases?) match my Mini 9, which none the less invariably overexposes indoor flash within about eight feet (and probably underexposes past ten) -- at least enough that light subjects lose detail while dark ones retain it. I haven't done many outdoor photos with mine, nor have I shot color in it (got a pair of 2-packs of Monochrome when I got the camera; still have 7 left in the second pack, second box unopened). Manual exposure with my LomoGraflok and the focal plane shutter of my Annie Speed usually underexposes, but that could be due to the (80+ year old) shutter needing regulation. I'll have to try the LomoGraflok on my Graphic View II next time I have it out; the shutter in its 150/5.6 Componon is very accurate, based on past negatives, and I have a Tessar 135/4.5 as well as a Tele-Tessar 250/6.3 (maybe f/8, I don't recall).