Is overexposing 1 stop normal?

[eli griggs]

If it has no been mentioned, simply rate your film 1/3 lower than box, you'll have good results, in general, IMO.

I also like a polarizer with colour films, which also renders (usually) the saturation of colours more intensely, also IMO.

One very good photographer I worked with, long ago, would shoot a series on each shot, 'normal, one half over, one stop over, one half stop under, one stop under and the last normal again.

All six shots, in b&w, Colour negative, or slide, gave him, the shot, regardless and he had a second normal shot, in case there was an error with the first.

Some folks here will call this excessive, however the man have a golden rep. reputation, , even if his film and processing costs were double of other photographers, and his work was outstanding.

If shooting on a budget, decide when the shot is so desirable that you'll stand the extra expense in a series, or if it can be risked with just half the frames, even negative colour, with it's long latitude, and go with your gut.

IMO.

 

[runswithsizzers]

RalphL brings up an interesting point, "...ignoring the often liberal film sensitivity rating of the film manufacturer"

I shot film (mostly slides) for almost 50 years before I enrolled in a Medium Format Photography class at university, where we developed and printed b&w negative film. On the first day of class, the instructor told us, "Remember, as always, meter at one-half of box ISO" (emphasis mine). That was a surprise for me, and I have been trying to figure out why this should be so.

One popular explanation is that the marketing department gets to set the ISO too high so the film will be easier to sell. I have no idea if there is any truth to this, but a couple of questions come to mind:
1. The very language we use to designate film sensitivity - ISO (International Organization for Standardization) - suggests there is a "standard" - presumably based on real-world testing of the film's sensitivity. So how can marketing just make up arbitrary ISO numbers different from what the engineers have determined?

2. If the film manufactures do have some latitude in deciding what ISO number to put on the box, wouldn't they choose a number which is most likely to give the best results for the largest number of users?
To me, it seems somewhat risky for the film manufacturers to say "Shoot this film at ISO 400" - (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), but what we really mean is, set your secret decoder ring to "400" and you will see, you are more likely to get better results at EI 200."

3. I assume the film manufacturers hire competent engineers and do adequate testing, so why wouldn't the ISO number as they measure it give the best results for the most people?
How can the film industry engineers always be wrong, and always by one f-stop too fast? How is it possible the YouTube gurus and photo bloggers know something that the film industry engineers do not?

Or is there some flaw in the ISO standard that unavoidably leads to over-optimistic ISO numbers?

 

[BradS]

Anybody who cares to can do a very simple test and show that giving more exposure, even several stops more, than the ISO rating would suggest produces acceptable, if not better results.

See David Vestal, "The Craft of Photography" for example.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I do not shoot images now, I only take photographs. I did imaging when I worked with spacecraft and did remote sensing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.????

Use a spot meter to read the darkest shadows in which you want details and set that in Zone 2 or Zone 3. In other words take that exposure and open reduce the exposure by two or three stops[ Non Zone Speak].

 

[Wallendo]

The idea of intentionally overexposing one stop requires that there is some type of standard "proper" exposure that produces a suboptimal image. I don't know of any criteria on which you can determine a "proper" exposure and subsequent modification, since such a value depends on meter accuracy, metering technique, and/or the metering algorithm. And even then, the ideal exposure often depends on the photographer's artistic intent.

 

[Vaughn]

Use a spot meter to read the darkest shadows in which you want details and set that in Zone 2 or Zone 3. In other words take that exposure and open reduce the exposure by two or three stops[ Non Zone Speak].

Might want an edit in that to make your non-zone speak speakable and understandable -- but that is what I basically suggested earlier.

Is there ever a part of ones image (and extend that to the print/presentation) that is unimportant, as Alan seems to be suggesting? All important to me...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The idea of intentionally overexposing one stop requires that there is some type of standard "proper" exposure that produces a suboptimal image. I don't know of any criteria on which you can determine a "proper" exposure and subsequent modification, since such a value depends on meter accuracy, metering technique, and/or the metering algorithm. And even then, the ideal exposure often depends on the photographer's artistic intent.

I just bought a 4x5 lens and checked the shutter. It 1/3 stop fast up to 1/60th sec. So if I used that one-stop adjustment, I'd really be at +2/3. Good for BW negatives. On the other hand, since I shoot Velvia 50 chromes, it might be better to jus shoot at box speed as the -1/3 faster shutter might prevent burning out the highlights. I was rading that the Copal 0 shutter are standardly accurate to only 1/3 stop. Does anyone actually check all their lenses for accuracies?

 

[Vaughn]

The idea of intentionally overexposing one stop requires that there is some type of standard "proper" exposure that produces a suboptimal image. ...

That is why I feel the term under (or over) exposing in this context is just lousy English.
Over or under exposing is something one does accidently...the idea is to adjust the exposure to get the negative one wants to make a print that one wants. If two people are photographing the same scene/light, and one chooses to put the detailed shadows in Zone III, and the other photographer places them in Zone II -- both people have exposed correctly, neither over or under exposing.

 

[Luckless]

That is why I feel the term under (or over) exposing in this context is just lousy English.
Over or under exposing is something one does accidently...the idea is to adjust the exposure to get the negative one wants to make a print that one wants. If two people are photographing the same scene/light, and one chooses to put the detailed shadows in Zone III, and the other photographer places them in Zone II -- both people have exposed correctly, neither over or under exposing.

Is it lousy English, or is English just mildly awkward for quickly expression complex technical details?

If I measure a scene according to a broadly accepted standard, but then deliberately extend/reduce my shutter/aperture[/plan to 'adjust' effective ISO in development, another kettle of fish I feel], then is there any more effective way to quickly describe this in English?

I've chosen to over/under expose my shot compared to the standard baseline method to achieve a goal.

Nothing says that the 'standard' need be optimal in any way, just that it is a consistent standard by which things can be measured by.

1kg is a consistent standard. 2.32kg is neither better or worse than 1kg. Unless of course you were aiming to create a 1kg reference mass, then a 2.32kg mass would very much be sub-optimal.... But most photographers aren't aiming for a strict scientific reference when they take a photo.

 

[Vaughn]

I do not think there really is a "broadly accepted standard" for exposure...so no need for an effective way to describe a deviation from something that does not exist.

Edited to add: Thanks, BradS! I realize that it is only semantics, but it can affect how one thinks about exposure.

 

[BradS]

The practice of consciously and purposefully giving more exposure than the minimum proscribed by the ISO standard is not “over exposure”.

 

[DREW WILEY]

This thread is mixing apples and oranges - black and white as well as color negs. Not a good idea to mix these up, or even specific flavors of each. Everything depends on the specifics. Generic advice doesn't help anyone.

 

[KenS]

I believe the 'best' way (using 'chrome or B/W film) is to meter for the "highlights with texture' and 'place' that on ZONE VIII+1/3 in order to maintain a "white with 'texture'" and let the shadows "fall where they may".... since the hominid eye is 'drawn' to the 'highlight' areas rather than the shadows (or darker parts) where any 'texture is less likely to be 'important'.
If you don't believe....try it !!!

Ken

 

[MattKing]

If you intend to have a volume lab process your film and give you machine prints, set your meter to the ISO speed because those prints will look best if you choose that speed.
Same if you print your own in a darkroom, but never dodge and burn.
Statistically speaking, the ISO speed will give you the best machine prints, because that speed was arrived at by analyzing the acceptability of those sorts of prints.
We are much more attuned to mid-tones and highlights, so exposure that renders them in a pleasing way will be much more likely to result in pleasing machine prints.
If you are willing to bring custom dodging and burning controls into the mix, increased exposure gives you more shadow detail to work with, as long as you are willing to massage the highlights a bit.

 

[Vaughn]

How one uses ones meter is probably more important than setting the 'exact' ASA on it (that is, within a stop or so).

 

[Adrian Bacon]

At +4, you may start to see highlights degrading instead.
ISO speeds are more closely related to highlight rendition than shadow rendition.
ZS speeds are more closely related to shadow rendition than highlight rendition.
For most viewers, un-manipulated prints or scans with poor (no detail) highlights look worse than prints with poor (no details) shadows.
If you want your prints (or scans) to come back from the lab looking pleasing, use box speed.

+1

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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.????

on a print (and generally on display if in Adobe LR, -2 stops from middle gray is relatively dark, -3 stops is is a light black, -4 stops is a medium black, and from there the blacks just get deeper as you go down, bottoming out at -7 to -8.

you can test this out with a digital camera and grey card. Put it in even light, meter it with the camera and expose it (shoot raw) per the meter. Pull it into Adobe LR or Adobe Camera raw, then drag the exposure slider down in full stop increments (it is pretty accurate) and observe where the grey card sits on the histogram and how it looks in the preview.

 

[logan2z]

If you are willing to bring custom dodging and burning controls into the mix, increased exposure gives you more shadow detail to work with, as long as you are willing to massage the highlights a bit.

Right, I tend to increase exposure by one stop in order to get more shadow detail captured on the negative. It does often mean additional burning in when printing in the darkroom (skies typically) but it's not too much effort.

 

[dylan77]

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

Hi. Do you use Portra 400 by any chance? I am looking to get more accurate colours with the 400 iso and i shoot later in the day, though this film seems quite saturated.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If it has no been mentioned, simply rate your film 1/3 lower than box, you'll have good results, in general, IMO.

I also like a polarizer with colour films, which also renders (usually) the saturation of colours more intensely, also IMO.

One very good photographer I worked with, long ago, would shoot a series on each shot, 'normal, one half over, one stop over, one half stop under, one stop under and the last normal again.

All six shots, in b&w, Colour negative, or slide, gave him, the shot, regardless and he had a second normal shot, in case there was an error with the first.

Some folks here will call this excessive, however the man have a golden rep. reputation, , even if his film and processing costs were double of other photographers, and his work was outstanding.

If shooting on a budget, decide when the shot is so desirable that you'll stand the extra expense in a series, or if it can be risked with just half the frames, even negative colour, with it's long latitude, and go with your gut.

IMO.

exposure bracketing is for the uninformed.

 

[eli griggs]

exposure bracketing is for the uninformed.

Ralph, the photographer I reference was a very experienced professional, and was using what was working in his best practices, saving time, eliminating reshoots for SANFUed photographs which kept his many, long term relationships with some big companies sweet.

In short, his work was considered top shelf.

Every professional photographer I worked with, bracketed still, landscape, architecture, posed multiple points/models and magazine cover shots, etc.

Only fast moving models, events, action shoots were shot in one metered setting, for changing conditions.

A number of top award winning photojournalist, including a well know photographer, who won a Pulitizer, shooting combat photography of Rhodesian troops, for one of a set of five bracketed shoots of a African combat battlefield prisoner, sitting in the mud, in the jungle where a firefight occurred.

Bracketed shooting generally allows a photographer to adjust his/her relationship with camera, film, lens, conditions, etc, and, allows the experince gained, to dictate any lessing of the number of brackets or partial stops, like a choice of 1/3ed or 1/2 increments.

Bracketing is no always needed or practical, but when it can be used, especially with 135, 4x4,r 6x6 cm, 70mm roll films, or 4x5 in. sheets, when a photographer has a must have additude and the will or discipline to apply bracketing to their work.

IMO.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Ralph, the photographer I reference was a very experienced professional, and was using what his best practices, saving time, eliminating reshoots for SANFUed photographs which kept his many, long term relationships with some big companies sweet.

In short, his work was considered top shelf.

Every professional photographer I worked with, bracketed still, landscape, architecture, posed multi-points/models and magazine cover shots, etc.

Only fast moving models, events, action shoots were shot in one metered setting, for changing conditions.

A number of top award winning photojournalist, including a well know photographer, who won a Pulitizer, shooting combat photography of Rhodesian troops, for one of a set of five bracketed shoots of a African combat battlefield prisoner, sitting in the mud, in the jungle where a firefight occurred.

Bracketed shooting generally allows a photographer to adjust his/her relationship with camera, film, lens, conditions, etc, and, allows the experince gained, to dictate any lessing of the number of brackets or partial stops, like a choice of 1/3ed or 1/2 increments.

Bracketing is no always needed or practical, but when it can be used, especially with 135, 4x4,r 6x6 cm, 70mm roll films, or 4x5 in. sheets, when a photographer has a must have additude and the will or discipline to apply bracketing to their work.

IMO.

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.

 

[foc]

When I studied photography many years ago, we were told that, to bracket exposure, was to be used only where lighting conditions were so unreliable that one single exposure could not be relied upon to achieve the correct result. It could also be used when testing a new piece of equipment or film emulsion.

When I shot professionally ( 35 years ) I only recall having to bracket once on a shoot. It was in a manufacturing plant that had mixed lighting (Reala took care of a lot of that) and we shot negative and transparency film, side by side. I used incident light reading throughout and bracketed only in certain situations (where I felt unsure) for the transparency film only. I knew the negative film would handle it.

 

[markbau]

I find that I rarely bracket when in normal outdoors conditions but if I have some sort of backlighting situation going on I'll always bracket. Most of my photography now is very low light/night photography and I have no problem taking 4 or more exposures. Film is cheap, travelling to a location is not. And I now do two stop brackets, with night work, one-stop brackets, with B&W, is a waste of time and film IMHO