Is overexposing 1 stop normal?

[removed account4]

Overexposing by one stop is not normal. Shooting at box speed is normal. There are reasons why you might want to overexpose by one stop, but that would be an exception and not the rule.

IDK
there have been people who have written books on this subject ...
personal iso and everything else --- from what i have
read and understand box speed and development time and temperature
are all "starting points" ... if you ( and others ) get great results using box speed
that's great, but i've always tended to give it a little more juice ...
at the moment my person ISO is about 4 stops extra light ... YMMV

 

[LolaColor]

According to my test above, the brightest neutral patch in the ColorChecker (which is 2.2 stops brighter than the D4 middle grey patch) begins to lose contrast ever so slightly at +3. I would conclude that there are 5 "straight" (ie: still on the straight line portion of the curve) stops above middle grey for Portra 400 before we enter the shoulder (which can contain many more stops, but contrast is decreasing).

There is one stop between the middle grey patch and the next darkest, and as we decrease exposure we begin to lose contrast between these two after the -1 exposure, suggesting there are 2 straight stops below middle grey. Then we're quite rapidly into the toe where detail is quickly lost and there is a heavy colour cast.

So if the straight line portion of Portra's curve is from -2 to 5, and if the average scene luminance is just over 7 stops the advice to slightly overexpose negative film as a general approach makes sense. Put simply, there is very little room in the shadows but lots and lots of room in the highlights. Three or four straight stops above 18% grey for +2 or +1 overexposure respectively is plenty for the average scene. However,at normal exposure levels two straight stops below middle grey may not be enough, especially if there is a metering error.

All in all, I think it's good advice to overexpose C41 and I do it regularly if I want a clean image. There are times I want a murky image and then I underexpose by one or two.

as you go over more and more, there is a slight color cast and no added benefit

The benefit is cleaner and more detailed shadows. Here, both shots of the greyscale portion of an IT8 chart have been density and colour corrected to give around 118 sRGB for the middle grey patch:

Yes there is a distinctive colour cast in the highlights at +2. There is also a colour cast at box speed (in the shadows) but it doesn't seem to be as noticeable here. The job of the printer or scan technician is then to judge how best to deal with that, whether to balance for highs, mids or shadows. The popular Jose Villa look in terms of pastel tones etc, is largely derived from riffing on the colour casts offered by overexposure, this example showing pink highlights for two stops over when colour balanced for middle grey. So for some, the colour casts of overexposure are actually a plus, as they can be quite flattering for skintones, in addition to the benefit of more shadow detail.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

It should also be noted that the Jose Villa look is somewhat dependant on the scanner used. Fuji Frontier SP3000s in this case. The over exposed Fuji film just interacts with that scanner in a certain way to make beautiful images. Those negatives may not scan or print well using other systems. CCD line scanners for instance may have problems with banding, and unless you are using Fuji Image Intelligence the color won't be as nice.

 

[138S]

According to my test above, the brightest neutral patch in the ColorChecker (which is 2.2 stops brighter than the D4 middle grey patch) begins to lose contrast ever so slightly at +3. I would conclude that there are 5 "straight" (ie: still on the straight line portion of the curve) stops above middle grey for Portra 400 before we enter the shoulder (which can contain many more stops, but contrast is decreasing).

There is one stop between the middle grey patch and the next darkest, and as we decrease exposure we begin to lose contrast between these two after the -1 exposure, suggesting there are 2 straight stops below middle grey. Then we're quite rapidly into the toe where detail is quickly lost and there is a heavy colour cast.

So if the straight line portion of Portra's curve is from -2 to 5, and if the average scene luminance is just over 7 stops the advice to slightly overexpose negative film as a general approach makes sense. Put simply, there is very little room in the shadows but lots and lots of room in the highlights. Three or four straight stops above 18% grey for +2 or +1 overexposure respectively is plenty for the average scene. However,at normal exposure levels two straight stops below middle grey may not be enough, especially if there is a metering error.

All in all, I think it's good advice to overexpose C41 and I do it regularly if I want a clean image. There are times I want a murky image and then I underexpose by one or two.



The benefit is cleaner and more detailed shadows. Here, both shots of the greyscale portion of an IT8 chart have been density and colour corrected to give around 118 sRGB for the middle grey patch:

View attachment 237352

Yes there is a distinctive colour cast in the highlights at +2. There is also a colour cast at box speed (in the shadows) but it doesn't seem to be as noticeable here. The job of the printer or scan technician is then to judge how best to deal with that, whether to balance for highs, mids or shadows. The popular Jose Villa look in terms of pastel tones etc, is largely derived from riffing on the colour casts offered by overexposure, this example showing pink highlights for two stops over when colour balanced for middle grey. So for some, the colour casts of overexposure are actually a plus, as they can be quite flattering for skintones, in addition to the benefit of more shadow detail.

I fully agree with your conclusions that look quite solid as based in well done testing. This is matching my own experience and many tests that can be found in the internet.

Not saying that overexposing has to be the rule, but I had never a problem when overexposing Portra if wanting to ensure that shadows are well recorded. Also it is for sure that overexposing Portra delivers beuatiful effects with a particular footprint, when one likes that.

Instead with Ektar one has to be more careful, it cannot be abused in the same way than Portra.

The other film that can be largely abused is Vision 3, in particular I tried to destroy the 50D with no success, you need a Zippo if you want to burn it , with light you can't.

The graph is impressive:

 

[138S]

It should also be noted that the Jose Villa look is somewhat dependant on the scanner used. Fuji Frontier SP3000s in this case. The over exposed Fuji film just interacts with that scanner in a certain way to make beautiful images. Those negatives may not scan or print well using other systems. CCD line scanners for instance may have problems with banding, and unless you are using Fuji Image Intelligence the color won't be as nice.

IMO what the Frontier has is not a particularly great scanner, but Image Intellince software that is very good in the Image Enhancing job.

Both Portra and Fuji Pro are films that are very, very easy to scan, and even a bare Epson V700 makes a very good job for MF and UP. (Villa shots 645)


What Villa has it is custom color profiles for his pro job delivering a particular footprint for the Fuji he mainly uses, those presets took some effort to him until he found what he wanted, now he sells those profiles emulating Frontier and Noritsu film look in the Villa way, with custom profiles for many digital cameras:

https://dvlop.com/shop/jose-villa/for-the-love-of-film-fuji


Well, beyond some hype & salt, this is a remarkable lesson on wedding photography.

 

[foc]

When you have areas at -2, which is a pretty common situation, 1 stop overexposure is almost always benefical with porta and Fuji pro C-41. There are more times that +1 is benefical than the counter, if not needeing the speed, so overexposing +1 is not the rule but close.

Many Pro photographers that have been shooting C-41 says that.

I can recommend you this book, that concludes also the same:

View attachment 237336

I have shot professionally for 35 years, and 20 of those years were on film. When shooting C41, I shot mainly Fuji Reala, but also Fuji 160NPC, Fuji 400NPH, Fujicolor Press 800 & 1600. I processed and printed all my work on Fuji SFA printer and Fuji Frontiers myself.

I always shot at box speed, using the camera's built in light meter (Olympus OM4ti & Canon Eos 1) and I always got consistently excellent results (otherwise I wouldn't be in business).

I never had one client complain about the quality of my prints ( the brief on the otherhand, well you can't win them all, all the time )

 

[138S]

I have shot professionally for 35 years, and 20 of those years were on film. When shooting C41, I shot mainly Fuji Reala, but also Fuji 160NPC, Fuji 400NPH, Fujicolor Press 800 & 1600. I processed and printed all my work on Fuji SFA printer and Fuji Frontiers myself.

I always shot at box speed, using the camera's built in light meter (Olympus OM4ti & Canon Eos 1) and I always got consistently excellent results (otherwise I wouldn't be in business).

I never had one client complain about the quality of my prints ( the brief on the otherhand, well you can't win them all, all the time )

Instead me I'm amateur only, I'm not able to tell you what you have to do, by far.

That being said, anyway let me point two things.

First in your location you have not much sun, your light is very different than in Mediterranean areas like where I'm, you usually should have a really, really flat illumination compared, at least most of the time.

Second many Pros use Matricial, which reads Latitude code from DX and takes smart decisions. With my F5 I don't need to worry, Nikon and and film manuffacturers teamed perfectly to ensure perfect shots with standard settings, it is when I shot manual at box speed when I had pitfalls, the Matricial 1005 RGB pixels meter of the F5 never failed a single shot, it knows when to overexpose better than me from its Neural Network.

Still, not knowing your metering way and style, and of course having nothing to teach you, sure you know that what's locally at -2 (see posts 40 and 41) is somewhat degradated, so probably you may have been avoiding that for important areas.

BTW this is the sky in Sligo:



0vercast half of the days, even when clear you have what in my location is dull illumination, you have a soft box in the sky !

Even digital may work nice there

Here if you leave the camera under sunlight later you cannot hold it because it burns your hands

____________________

Just pointing that in exposure YMMV, one may rate C-41 at box speed, but matricial mode of the Nikon F5 has the Latitude code from DX and it may overexpose (compared to average or incident) without photographer is even aware.

Also ponderated modes does it, if subject has a backlight, as center has more weight it exposes for the shadows, also overexposing compared to average.

So it's totally sterile comparing EI rates without saying the metering way. What we now is that C-41 is damaged in spot metered areas at -2 or -3, but not at +3.

If speaking in spot metering terms it's clear what we say, with other metering ways YMMV.

 

[foc]

Instead me I'm amateur only, I'm not able to tell you what you have to do, by far.

That being said, anyway let me point two things.

First in your location you have not much sun, your light is very different than in Mediterranean areas like where I'm, you usually should have a really, really flat illumination compared, at least most of the time.

Second many Pros use Matricial, which reads Latitude code from DX and takes smart decisions. With my F5 I don't need to worry, Nikon and and film manuffacturers teamed perfectly to ensure perfect shots with standard settings, it is when I shot manual at box speed when I had pitfalls, the Matricial 1005 RGB pixels meter of the F5 never failed a single shot, it knows when to overexpose better than me from its Neural Network.

Still, not knowing your metering way and style, and of course having nothing to teach you, sure you know that what's locally at -2 (see posts 40 and 41) is somewhat degradated, so probably you may have been avoiding that for important areas.

BTW this is the sky in Sligo:

View attachment 237403

0vercast half of the days, even when clear you have what in my location is dull illumination, you have a soft box in the sky !

Even digital may work nice there

Here if you leave the camera under sunlight later you cannot hold it because it burns your hands

____________________

Just pointing that in exposure YMMV, one may rate C-41 at box speed, but matricial mode of the Nikon F5 has the Latitude code from DX and it may overexpose (compared to average or incident) without photographer is even aware.

Also ponderated modes does it, if subject has a backlight, as center has more weight it exposes for the shadows, also overexposing compared to average.

So it's totally sterile comparing EI rates without saying the metering way. What we now is that C-41 is damaged in spot metered areas at -2 or -3, but not at +3.

If speaking in spot metering terms it's clear what we say, with other metering ways YMMV.

I think you may be confusing illumination (brightness) with contrast (the difference between light & dark).

You are correct about the lighting in my location (a giant softbox in the sky) and as the name suggests it is a soft light, low in contrast but brightness is the same whether it is soft or hard light.

For example, an incident light reading of say, f/5.6 @ 1/250 with ISO 100 is the same regardless of location, latitude or longitude. BTW the dome on an incident meter is there for a reason, it doesn't matter how bright or dark your subject is or the contrast, it won't affect the light reading.
The contrast ratio in the same lighting can vary according to the scene. If the contrast range is outside the dynamic range of the film, then the photographer should adapt the lighting to bring it back into range. This can be done, for example, by supplementary lighting, such as fill-in flash and/or reflectors or diffusion of the original light source or a mixture of all three

The adjustments should be made prior to exposure.

IMO, with so many variables involved with shooting C41 film, the more constants the better the success. The constants are shooting at box speed, C41 processing (dev 3' 15" @38C), correct scanning.

 

[138S]

I think you may be confusing illumination (brightness) with contrast (the difference between light & dark).

What I was saying is that an scene with a high SBR (Subject Brightness Range ) favors overexposing (say) Portra 160 for good results.

Let's think that we use the calculated 0+/- exposure, and in that situation we have shadows in the scene at -3 and also highlights at +3. Those areas at -3 will be damaged. A solution would be a general +1 overexposure, shadows will be better at -2, mids at +1 would be perfect and highlights at +4 would not be damaged, so if we improve shadows without damaging highlights then it's worth.

So a contrasty scene or constrasty illumination would favor overexposing, as we have more latitude in the highlights than in the shadows we'll get a better result.

I guess that in that case you would also do that... but in your location there is less a need because scenes are usually less contrasty.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What I was saying is that an scene with a high SBR (Subject Brightness Range ) favors overexposing (say) Portra 160 for good results.

Let's think that we use the calculated 0+/- exposure, and in that situation we have shadows in the scene at -3 and also highlights at +3. Those areas at -3 will be damaged. A solution would be a general +1 overexposure, shadows will be better at -2, mids at +1 would be perfect and highlights at +4 would not be damaged, so if we improve shadows without damaging highlights then it's worth.

So a contrasty scene or constrasty illumination would favor overexposing, as we have more latitude in the highlights than in the shadows we'll get a better result.

I guess that in that case you would also do that... but in your location there is less a need because scenes are usually less contrasty.

In the western US the SBR is so great that over exposing one stop would start blowing out the high lights.

 

[138S]

IMO, in challenging situations spot meter is what predicts how each region will be, with Portra what under -2 or over +5 will be damaged, so if we want then we can know the effects of our decision.

In 35mm we always can bracket, for 8x10" better nailing the job because a Portra 400 sheet is 30€ (in the EU) and a bracketing is 90€ in film alone

 

[LolaColor]

From what we've seen in this thread the toe of Portra 400 is from -2 to - 3.3, after which effectively no information is recorded. However, the shoulder continues from after +5 for many more stops indefinitely, depending on your ability to recover the information. My Noritsu can recover information at 8 stops over. Yes the contrast is a little compressed, but it's very usable. And there is more information recorded beyond +8, but contrast is now decreasing quickly. So if there are 7 equally contrasty stops (straight line portion of the curve from -2 to +5) there are 11 or more usable stops (from -3.3 to +8 and beyond).

Exposing a high contrast scene at box speed (let's say 10 stops with 4 below and 6 over) gives a very different look to slightly overexposing it. They are different aesthetics. One has soft, muted shadows and the other has hard, contrasty shadows. Individual photographers may prefer one look over another for a given application. For example, for certain kinds of portraiture I like box speed or even -1. For landscape or architecture I might favour +2. By being aware of the film's behaviour, a shooter will know how and why to get the results they want.

 

[138S]

From what we've seen in this thread the toe of Portra 400 is from -2 to - 3.3, after which effectively no information is recorded. However, the shoulder continues from after +5 for many more stops indefinitely, depending on your ability to recover the information. My Noritsu can recover information at 8 stops over. Yes the contrast is a little compressed, but it's very usable. And there is more information recorded beyond +8, but contrast is now decreasing quickly. So if there are 7 equally contrasty stops (straight line portion of the curve from -2 to +5) there are 11 or more usable stops (from -3.3 to +8 and beyond).

Exposing a high contrast scene at box speed (let's say 10 stops with 4 below and 6 over) gives a very different look to slightly overexposing it. They are different aesthetics. One has soft, muted shadows and the other has hard, contrasty shadows. Individual photographers may prefer one look over another for a given application. For example, for certain kinds of portraiture I like box speed or even -1. For landscape or architecture I might favour +2. By being aware of the film's behaviour, a shooter will know how and why to get the results they want.

IMO that explanation contains a good deal of wisdom. With a low contrast scene it's easy to expose, while with an scene with a really wide range better if we know well what we are doing.

 

[Randy Stewart]

YouTube is not a forum from which you will learn the technical components of film photography. The vast majority of "creators" of HowTo videos for film shootihg and exposure are hipsters who have little education in the subjects, just churning over what they have seen in some other YT video and repeating it with a summary of their personal experiences. There is a well identified group of younger guys who promote this "one stop over box speed" nonsense with a religious zeal. What's happening is that they never learned how to accurately use a light meter, so they are taking advantage of the huge latitude of color negative film for over-exposure, in effect building in a one stop cushion against their periodic accidental under-exposures. That is not taking a secret advantage of their film which box-speed shooters are denied. It's just a safety valve against sloppy technique.

 

[John Koehrer]

You don't like it, don't do it. See how easy that is?
I'm Waaay beyond hipsterism and even in the 60's there were people using that as a rule of thumb.
If you're using that thumb, keep in mind there was also compensation used in processing.

 

[wiltw]

Due to the fact that the color in the shadow areas of shots with color neg can tend to become somewhat 'muddy', I always exposed color neg by about +0.5EV to reduce possible muddiness when covering weddings.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

And when does everyone find time to shoot images? Everywhere I've been a day is still only 24 hours, and got to have some beer too.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

often overexposing/W negative film by 2/3 stop leads to better shadow detail than exposing for box speed but, strictly speaking, that's not overexposure but accurate exposure, ignoring the often liberal film sensitivity rating of the film manufacturer.

 

[Vaughn]

I only over or under expose accidentily. The rest of the time I expose the way I want to.

My most common way I over-expose is when I leave the lens open as I remove the darkslide. The most common way I under-expose is if I read my meter wrong and use, for example, 4 seconds instead of 1/4 sec. And of course the classic...having the ASA set wrong on my meter.

 

[macfred]

often overexposing/W negative film by 2/3 stop leads to better shadow detail than exposing for box speed but, strictly speaking, that's not overexposure but accurate exposure, ignoring the often liberal film sensitivity rating of the film manufacturer.

I agree!
That's what I've done for years - and I'm waaay beyond hipsterism ...

 

[markbau]

I can only speak of B&W film exposure, I don't do colour. A pretty universal truth about B&W for outdoors is to give a stop more exposure than the stated ISO and cut the recommended development by about 20%. Even in the western USA, where I lived for ten years, the SBR of a typical scene (unless you are photographing a coal mine surrounded by sunlit snow) is way less than a typical B&W film can handle. When people say they have "blown highlights" they mean they can't print the highlights, the highlights will all be there on the neg, they just have to learn how to burn at the printing stage. As David Vestal used to say, "make sure you give your film enough exposure and be careful not to overdevelop"

 

[macfred]

... As David Vestal used to say, "make sure you give your film enough exposure and be careful not to overdevelop"

His 'The Craft of Photography' (1975) is still a good read.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I bracket Portra +1 and -1. They all were acceptable but the colors are different.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not to be argumentative, but how do you know beforehand, how dark the shadows should be aesthetically? I've seen photos where lighter shadows look funny and darker shadows seem to fit better. Anyway, who looks into the shadows that much? Our eyes go to the lighter subjects. They tend to ignore shadow details as unimportant. I suppose with BW negative film, you have development options, but not so much with color negative. My aim is to get a normal looking picture, with nice contrast, accurate colors and normal looking exposure, and don;t particularly care about shadows letting them fall where they fall. I'll bracket landscapes +1 and -1. But that's just to cover for any errors I made in calculating the exposure. I mainly shoot Velvia positive film and process in a lab. So there's not much I can do anyway.

Of course, now I'm shooting 4x5 and not bracketing. So I'm learning anew. I'm shooting Tmax at box speed. Maybe I should give a little more exposure.????

 

[Vaughn]

Our eyes do go towards the lighter areas of the image, but it is the shadows that can control /define that movement.

My exposures are based on the shadows, so yes, I look very closely and carefully at the shadows on every image I make...very few exceptions. And pretty dang easy...meter the darkest shadow I want detail in and place it on Zone III, note where the highlights will fall so that I know how to develop it, and make the exposure. Things can shift a bit if one's scene and /or printing is not 'normal', but that is what experience is for.

I have never done formal testing of film for my ASA...I always thought it as a waste of my time. From day one in 1977 and my first 4x5, I have done it emperically by going out and making negatives and printing them. Keeping good exposure and developing notes helps so I can repeat the successes. Just the way my brain works -- YMMD, and probably should. Right now I am setting my meter at ASA 100 for FP4+ -- why? Because it is a nice round number and the exposure difference between setting my meter at 125 vs 100 makes no difference to me.