I have recently moved into shooting film, Currently shooting with Portra 400. Nikon f100
From what I’ve seen on YouTube it seems like overexposing 1, sometimes up to 2 stops is better for a more accurate exposure, than finding the balance (middle of meter), which often leads to under exposure.
Do you guys agree with this?
Thanks[/QUOTE
Giving B&W film a stop more exposure than it’s rated ISO is indeed quite common. I have never heard of giving colour film a full stop more exposure than it’s stared ISO, maybe one third of a stop after a test under controlled lighting I haven’t used colour film for many years but would expect some poor results overexposing by a full stop
What the YouTube videos maybe talking about is how to meter with a TTL meter. A TTL meter, like any meter, will give you an explore to record a scene as mid grey, if you are photographing a mid grey wall this is fine but if it is a black or white wall the meter reading will lead to over or underexposure. So in the case of a white wall you would indeed give it one or two stops more exposure than what the meter says, otherwise the wall would come out mid grey, not white.
No it isn't.
With B&W you will start to block up the highlights and make printing all that more difficult.
Do you guys agree with this?
...are you sure overexposure can cause crossed curves? This can arise when the exposing intensity is much higher or much lower than anticipated. Most often 'lower', sending the film into low intensity reciprocity failure - specifically 'differential' LI RLF. The separate sensitive layers of the film loose sensitivity at different rates - introducing colour castes that are density dependant.No it isn't. Especially with colour negative film. C41 film has such a wide exposure latitude there is no need to over/under expose. If it is over exposed then you do get more saturated colours to a certain extent then there is also a risk of getting what are know as crossed curves in the development stage. This where the different layers start to develop at different speeds and you get colour distortion that is almost impossible to correct
With B&W you will start to block up the highlights and make printing all that more difficult.
That's my general approach as well. I'd rather overexpose a little in order to retain shadow detail.If I'm not sure, I'll err on the side of overexposure, just from experience.
From what I’ve seen on YouTube ...
The vast majority of B&W workers routinely give film more exposure than a light meter set at the stated ISO would recommend. If you have highlights that are blocking up (printing as paper white) you need to reduce film development time.
That's my general approach as well. I'd rather overexpose a little in order to retain shadow detail.
That's what do as well. If there aren't any real important details in the shadows, I expose accordingly.That's my general approach as well. I'd rather overexpose a little in order to retain shadow detail.
No it isn't. Especially with colour negative film. C41 film has such a wide exposure latitude there is no need to over/under expose. If it is over exposed then you do get more saturated colours to a certain extent then there is also a risk of getting what are know as crossed curves in the development stage. This where the different layers start to develop at different speeds and you get colour distortion that is almost impossible to correct
With B&W you will start to block up the highlights and make printing all that more difficult.
Overexposing (like underexposing) is an advanced technique some photographers use to get the picture they want. If you're new to film don't go there - just trust your camera meter, use the ISO which is on the film box and find a relaible lab to send your film to. Practice lots like this before you try new techniques.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?