Is overexposing 1 stop normal?

[Vaughn]

I usually expose two sheet of film per image. Sometimes at the same exposure, sometimes the same amount of exposure at different aperture and shutter speed. Sometimes at a different amount of exposure. Then I may or may not give each sheet the same type/amount of development. On purpose, even.

 

[Luckless]

I usually expose two sheet of film per image. Sometimes at the same exposure, sometimes the same amount of exposure at different aperture and shutter speed. Sometimes at a different amount of exposure. Then I may or may not give each sheet the same type/amount of development. On purpose, even.

It almost sounds like there are any number of completely valid and sensible ways to go about producing an image...

But that is apparently horribly unprofessional of you. Whatever will you do!?

 

[MattKing]

Bracketing gives you a range of results. I like having choices when I'm printing or projecting.
There is intentional bracketing, and defensive bracketing. Both have their place.
There is also haphazard bracketing - I try to avoid that.

 

[Arvee]

When working professionally I always exposed two frames at the desired exposure; this just in case of an emulsion defect/equipment hiccup (it didn't happen often but always seemed to occur on an especially critical job). This is much preferred to a re-visit/re-shoot!

I also bracketed +/- a stop of so for alternative subject mood options. Quite often, the "technically correct" exposure was just plain boring; this allowed a measure of creative options to offer the customer in addition to the straight (often ho-hum) presentation. I also used this same protocol when I worked for the Poliice Dept. documenting crime scenes. Absolutely no option to 're-do;' no doubt would cost me my job for not 'bringing home the bacon.'

So the answer lies in the context: are you photographing professionally or are you a hobbyist where the stakes aren't nearly so high?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

When working professionally I always exposed two frames at the desired exposure; this just in case of an emulsion defect/equipment hiccup (it didn't happen often but always seemed to occur on an especially critical job). This is much preferred to a re-visit/re-shoot!

I also bracketed +/- a stop of so for alternative subject mood options. Quite often, the "technically correct" exposure was just plain boring; this allowed a measure of creative options to offer the customer in addition to the straight (often ho-hum) presentation. I also used this same protocol when I worked for the Poliice Dept. documenting crime scenes. Absolutely no option to 're-do;' no doubt would cost me my job for not 'bringing home the bacon.'

So the answer lies in the context: are you photographing professionally or are you a hobbyist where the stakes aren't nearly so high?

And not far from implying if one does not bracket he must be just an amateur with little clue about exposure?

 

[Vaughn]

It almost sounds like there are any number of completely valid and sensible ways to go about producing an image...

But that is apparently horribly unprofessional of you. Whatever will you do!?

Sell more prints, maybe?

But I also will take the same image twice, then process the negatives for different printing processes (primarily platinum and carbon transfer). So there I am again being unprofessional and can't bloody decide on the spot...can't even (pre)visualize which process to use, let alone what it should look like or what it should convey from the deepest recesses of my heart. Disgustingly amateurist...

My three boys, New Years Day, 2008
Same f/stop: Right image (Pt/pd) 1 min exposure...Left image (carbon transfer) 2 minute exposure.

Just noticed some horrendous photoshopping at the end of the log with the pt/pd image. sorry...

 

[KenS]

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

Film manufacturers spend 'Research time and money' when producing film of a given 'ASA/IS0 and provide users with that information TO ASSIST those of us using their product in achieving acceptable/good results.

I believe we are better off using that information more for OUR benefit.. or we may stop using their products. After many years of working 'under the dark-cloth' I rely more on information the Company provides than that of the "Uncle Joe' who resides but a few houses down the road who "wanders around the neighbourhood with a plastic 'point and shoot' hanging around his neck.

Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bracketing is laziness not professionalisn in general sense. It has its place, but if one uses it majority of times it is more like insecurity rather than assurance.

Not for those of us who actually know what we are doing. We only do it when there some extra exposures would be good practice. I do it rarely.

 

[eli griggs]

Besides getting the client their paid work on time, with several exposures to work with. Another advantage of shooting a six frame/sheet series is, in roll films, you have your two 'normal' frames with enough physical distance that any possibility of film slipping out of place and touching both money shots.

In sheet films, you have the option of separating the first or last normal sheets and waiting until the first five are run and verified accept able, only then running the spare as a backup in your files.

Pride goes before a fall and usually that fall comes at the worse possible moment.

IMO.

 

[Dave Ludwig]

Can’t get to the point of figuring this out. I imbibe, I set up the gear, I get distracted by a squirrel for an hour, get under the cloth and see the image is upside down and realize my camera is broken and go home.

I have over the years found and heard the same as what others have told. The ISO ratings are skewed to the top end. If using 400 shoot at 320. I shoot BW and to make it simple I meter shadows at indicated ISO and stop down 2 instead of 3. The second shot will be different (+/-) based on gut feel. The first one is good but I typically use the second. I’m with you Vaughn I like having 2 usable negatives just in case squirrels attack. Zone system was more important back in the day when we used graded paper so we only needed to have Grade 2 or 3. Now, you just dial in the contrast, but you still need to have silver in the shadows.

Dylan, color film is different than BW, regardless how you are making the final print you need to be as close as possible. Am sure you already ran some tests with exposures -3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2 to get a feel for where you need to be. Keep using the same film, you will get it down. Appreciate the time here to all as this was an opportunity for a guy from the 70’s to talk about squirrels-Thanks! Welcome to film Dylan there are a whole lot of people here to answer your questions. Squirrel !

 

[MattKing]

The ISO ratings are skewed to the top end.

The ISO ratings lead to the best prints from volume labs printing with machines.
They favour highlight and mid-tone rendition - because that is what people respond to most in a print.
Only a tiny percentage of photographers notice shadow rendition before they notice the mid-tones and highlights. If you are among that tiny percentage, increase your exposure.

 

[Vaughn]

Years of printing my negatives in many processes has demonstrated that it is exceedingly difficult to print shadow detail that is not on the negative...and very easy to print down detail in the shadows if so desired.

 

[radiant]

Scanning vs darkroom printing are so different stories. I would overexpose always if I'm only scanning. But printing, oh man. I think we should always separate the discussion when talking about exposing negative; are you going to scan or print it?

After banging my head multiple times with those negatives that are difficult to print I've designed my mantra: shoot less but when I'm at it: do it so well as you can. I rather take bracketing than badly exposed negatives. I would even consider bracket the development time too, just to get that print shine. Film is cheap if you compare it to all other things: your free time, travel, planning, measuring and in the end to the feeling in darkroom when you realize that the single frame just doesn't print. It is so crushing feeling that I will happily spend my money on film with excessive bracketing.

When I have learned how to expose in all situations - then I can MAYBE bracket less. I can happily and boldly say that I don't know how to expose & develop. I have a clue, I know the theory. Maybe some day I will master it. Until then, I will bracket and do whatever I need. I might even shoot the same frame on digital