Is shooting Lucky 200C at ISO 160 on a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 a good practice?

[Pedroga]

Hello everyone,

I have a question about exposure and would really appreciate the opinion of more experienced film photographers.

I’m currently shooting a roll of Lucky 200C (ISO 200 color negative, C-41) in a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000. The camera has a simple TTL light meter with LED indicators in the viewfinder: one LED for underexposure, a green LED for correct exposure, and one LED for overexposure. There is no half-stop indication in the viewfinder, only these three references.

I’ve been studying film exposure and learned that color negative film generally tolerates overexposure better than underexposure, especially when it comes to protecting shadows and achieving pleasant skin tones. Because of that, I’m considering setting the camera to ISO 160 instead of 200, which would effectively give me about +½ stop of exposure.

My question is:

Does it make sense to shoot the entire roll at ISO 160 (roughly +½ stop overexposed) and then develop it normally as ISO 200, without requesting push or pull processing?

My goals are:

• Better shadow detail
• Avoid slightly underexposed frames
• More pleasing skin tones in portraits
• Balanced contrast overall

I’m also unsure when it might be better to keep the film rated at ISO 200 instead — for example, in very harsh midday sunlight or extremely bright scenes.

Would you recommend rating this film at 160 as a general approach? Or is it better to shoot at box speed (ISO 200) and compensate only in specific lighting situations?

I would really appreciate more technical insight on how you would rate this film and how you would handle exposure using a simple LED-based meter like the one in the FX-3.

Thanks in advance.

 

[brbo]

Shooting it at 160 will be fine. 200 as well.

1/3 of a stop won't make it or break it.

 

[Pedroga]

Shooting it at 160 will be fine. 200 as well.

1/3 of a stop won't make it or break it.

I'm thinking of setting it to +1 stop... would that be the perfect point? The photos will only be taken on a very sunny day...

 

[blee1996]

Very few people have ever shot Lucky 200C, so you won't get much feedbacks. On the other hand, why don't you do the experiment and share your results with the community here? Shoot a few different scenes (well lit sunny, under cloud, in shadow) at different ISO (200, 160, 125, 100). Preferably with a color checker in the scene. Then scan with same manual settings and let us know your findings.

 

[loccdor]

I'm thinking of setting it to +1 stop... would that be the perfect point? The photos will only be taken on a very sunny day...

Most color negative film shot using an in-camera meter will be better with +1 stop, yes. Because these meters tend to underexpose if there is sky or bright objects in the scene, and overexposure on consumer color negative does very little to degrade the image generally. For something like Kodak Gold for example, you can even go +5 stops and still get decent pictures.

In other words, you'll get more keepers at +1 (or even +2) stops than at box speed.

If you find yourself somewhere quite dark where you need to handhold, you can change it back to 200 speed mid-roll. Or, if your subject is black or dark gray in color.

 

[Pedroga]

Very few people have ever shot Lucky 200C, so you won't get much feedbacks. On the other hand, why don't you do the experiment and share your results with the community here? Shoot a few different scenes (well lit sunny, under cloud, in shadow) at different ISO (200, 160, 125, 100). Preferably with a color checker in the scene. Then scan with same manual settings and let us know your findings.

I'm going to do it, or at least try... it's my first time ever doing this.

Most color negative film shot using an in-camera meter will be better with +1 stop, yes. Because these meters tend to underexpose if there is sky or bright objects in the scene, and overexposure on consumer color negative does very little to degrade the image generally. For something like Kodak Gold for example, you can even go +5 stops and still get decent pictures.

In other words, you'll get more keepers at +1 (or even +2) stops than at box speed.

If you find yourself somewhere quite dark where you need to handhold, you can change it back to 200 speed mid-roll. Or, if your subject is black or dark gray in color.

So it's better to leave it at +1 stop than +1/2stop?

 

[loccdor]

So it's better to leave it at +1 stop than +1/2stop?

For TTL metering, unless it's a very unusual color negative film, yes.

 

[brbo]

I shot my Lucky C200 in a compact (so at box speed of 200) and it was fine.



Just shoot it... or it will expire long before Photrio is done offering advice on how to shoot a damn consumer 200 ISO film.

It's NOT a rocket science. Really.

 

[MattKing]

If this wasn't Lucky film, my advice would be to follow the manufacturer's box speed recommendation, because cameras like yours were designed to use that and to give users like you pleasing results in the sort of situations you are likely to use it.
If you consistently see signs of under-exposure - or for that matter over-exposure - you could consider making a consistent adjustment.
That exposure adjustment approach makes good sense if you use it intentionally, in response to particular lighting conditions, and/or particular subjects
For example, if you were photographing a snow scene, or something in the forest, you can make a decision about exposure adjustment because of the unusual nature of the light or the subject.
As it is Lucky film, there may not be much knowledge out there yet about how well the box speed performance matches the performance of more commonly used films. There also may be changes to the film, as it is relatively new on the market.
So for that reason, I would be reluctant to build my "standard practice" on that film. If I was using it for something important, I would bracket exposures.

 

[Pedroga]

I shot my Lucky C200 in a compact (so at box speed of 200) and it was fine.



Just shoot it... or it will expire long before Photrio is done offering advice on how to shoot a damn consumer 200 ISO film.

It's NOT a rocket science. Really.

My question isn't about the ISO itself, but about the exposure. In the photos you took, did you overexpose them?

 

[Pedroga]

If this wasn't Lucky film, my advice would be to follow the manufacturer's box speed recommendation, because cameras like yours were designed to use that and to give users like you pleasing results in the sort of situations you are likely to use it.
If you consistently see signs of under-exposure - or for that matter over-exposure - you could consider making a consistent adjustment.
That exposure adjustment approach makes good sense if you use it intentionally, in response to particular lighting conditions, and/or particular subjects
For example, if you were photographing a snow scene, or something in the forest, you can make a decision about exposure adjustment because of the unusual nature of the light or the subject.
As it is Lucky film, there may not be much knowledge out there yet about how well the box speed performance matches the performance of more commonly used films. There also may be changes to the film, as it is relatively new on the market.
So for that reason, I would be reluctant to build my "standard practice" on that film. If I was using it for something important, I would bracket exposures.

I'm a bit hesitant to trust my camera's light meter and not get satisfactory colors.

 

[MattKing]

I'm a bit hesitant to trust my camera's light meter and not get satisfactory colors.

If the meter is already giving you negatives with too much exposure, increasing the exposure even more will make things worse.
Cameras like this were designed for photographers like you. The centre weighted metering was designed to minimize the effects from too much sky and other common metering challenges. You should try it as it is before you consider making systematic changes.
I know that it is easy for someone like me to give this advice, but if it gives you any comfort, its advice I have given to many people over a very long time, including a few years actually selling cameras like this (although not this specific model) to people, and then helping them understand the results.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you have only a single of roll of any color film then shooting +1/2 or so stop is not a bad idea. If you are planning on shooting multiple rolls then sacrifice a roll and test by shooting a ring around. In soft even shade shoot a test set up, if you have color chart have a model hold it and shoot at ISO 50, 100, 160, 200, 250 and 400, then repeat in the open, maybe at sunset at well. Standard development and printing. If you are using a mini lab make the lab prints at 000 with no auto correction.

 

[MattKing]

If you have only a single of roll of any color film then shooting +1/2 or so stop is not a bad idea. If you are planning on shooting multiple rolls then sacrifice a roll and test by shooting a ring around. In soft even shade shoot a test set up, if you have color chart have a model hold it and shoot at ISO 50, 100, 160, 200, 250 and 400, then repeat in the open, maybe at sunset at well. Standard development and printing. If you are using a mini lab make the lab prints at 000 with no auto correction.

I would use a good part of the roll doing what @Paul Howell suggests, with the rest of the roll being used for the type of photos you like.
That will give you lots of information.

 

[wiltw]

You would be fine rating your ISO 200 film at EI 160. I shot weddings professionally 30+ years ago, and I would routinely change the rating of my color neg emulsions -1/3EV in order to reduce chances that shadow areas would be underexposed, rendering color in those areas 'muddy'. While I would often supplement sunny conditions with fill flash to fill in the shadows, the speed rating further helped to reduce the likelihood of underexposure.

 

[brbo]

My question isn't about the ISO itself, but about the exposure. In the photos you took, did you overexpose them?

?! Why would I say I shot the film at box speed, but in reality overexpose it?

 

[loccdor]

If you shoot Portra, Gold, Lucky, etc, setting the exposure +1 will help you get better results on those likely 2-4 shots in an average roll that trick your camera's meter, while not hurting the others. It's a no brainer set-it-and-forget-it that will help the 95+% of users who aren't chasing that last little diminishing return of accuracy. It's not a Velvia transparency where you need 1/3 stop multi-spot metering accuracy and a graduated ND filter.

 

[ic-racer]

I would really appreciate more technical insight on how you would rate this film and how you would handle exposure using a simple LED-based meter like the one in the FX-3.

Thanks in advance.

Don't know anything about the film or its useful exposure index, but the meter circuit in the fx-3 is relatively advanced for a mechanical camera. The silicon photodiode circuit uses a voltage regulator to minimize battery voltage differences. The led circuit eliminates any mechanical issue with a galvanometer. The metering is open-aperture and the range is respectable EV2 to EV19. I have about five fx-3 bodies, I think it is a great camera.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

ISO 200 to EI160 for negative film of no concern.
Neg film has a lot of playfully generous latitude for under- and over-exposure, upwards of 2 to 3 stops for some films like Portra (in experienced hands it can be taken high and low with excellent results). I doubt that a small change in the speed (exposure index/EI) will make much of a difference. Expose at the speed it is marked at, then switch the ISO dial to the next high or lowest speed, make a note of the exposure for reference when the negatives are back and make comparisons. Taking notes is the surest way of learning how much change gives how much better or worse results from those you are anticipating. Now, if you were using slide film you would quickly find a great deal more care is required in making any adjustment no matter how small (e.g. an 0.3 stop bet each way from a metered-ideal is very noticeable!). That's a whole new animal to play with, but one well worth while acquainting yourself with to understand how small exposure steps can effect a film that has less generous tolerance for error compared ease of use of negative stock.

 

[blee1996]

I shot a roll of Lucky C200 at box ISO of 200, and here are the straight from scan results:

Lucky C200 film

The new color film from Lucky: C200. Looks like a pretty decent color negative film, no weird things like Harman Phoenix I/II. A bit old school look. Also the ISO might be a bit optimistic, so next time I will shoot at ISO 100 or 125.

www.flickr.com

Overall looks like a pretty decent color negative film, no weird things like Harman Phoenix I/II. The colors are more neutral and balanced. A bit old school look, probably from their Lucky/Kodak heritage. Also the ISO might be a bit optimistic, so next time I will shoot at ISO 100 or 125.

 

[MattKing]

I shot a roll of Lucky C200 at box ISO of 200, and here are the straight from scan results:

Lucky C200 film

The new color film from Lucky: C200. Looks like a pretty decent color negative film, no weird things like Harman Phoenix I/II. A bit old school look. Also the ISO might be a bit optimistic, so next time I will shoot at ISO 100 or 125.

www.flickr.com

Overall looks like a pretty decent color negative film, no weird things like Harman Phoenix I/II. The colors are more neutral and balanced. A bit old school look, probably from their Lucky/Kodak heritage. Also the ISO might be a bit optimistic, so next time I will shoot at ISO 100 or 125.

I likev those images.
But I don't know that I would base any going forward exposure decisions on a roll where so many of the images were of subjects including a lot of sky.

 

[thinkbrown]

Just to chime in since I've recently shot two rolls of lucky 200. I shot the first roll at 200 and found the negatives a little thin and the shadow detail lacking. Shot the next roll at 125 which I'm hopefully developing tomorrow and we'll see if that helped

 

[Pedroga]

@MattKing @blee1996 @Taylor K Nankervis @ic-racer @loccdor @brbo
Today I went out to take photos for the first time in my life. I shot most of them at ISO 160, but for some portraits I shot at ISO 160, then 200, and if my memory serves me right, ISO 100 as well.

One thing I noticed is that there aren't many nice places to photograph where I currently live. I live in the interior of São Paulo state, and things here only look beautiful when the trees bloom at a certain time of year, then everything becomes very colorful. At the time of year I went, and in the places I went, there was only green and blue because of the water...

I tried to compose as much as possible. I didn't know that using theory would be so difficult. I took a picture of a landscape where there were water sluice gates and many pine trees, but it must have come out dark because of the exposure, even though I aimed the center of my viewfinder at a place where there was no sky. But even so, the sky was still appearing in the viewfinder...

I woke up at 5 am to do this. I must have about 15 more photos to take still inside my camera. I think I'll save them for tomorrow or next weekend and research more nice places to photograph near me. Well, I don't think I'll even post the photos here, judging by how bizarre they must have turned out, lol.

 

[MattKing]

I tried to compose as much as possible. I didn't know that using theory would be so difficult

You are definitely over-thinking this.

Today I went out to take photos for the first time in my life. I shot most of them at ISO 160, but for some portraits I shot at ISO 160, then 200, and if my memory serves me right, ISO 100 as well.

At your stage in the process, you won't see much difference between the results at 100, 160 or 200. Heck, even those of us who have been doing this for decades don't see much difference between the results from those three choices.

Today I went out to take photos for the first time in my life.

Congratulations, you might have taken your first steps along the fun and fulfilling road that has brought me joy and satisfaction (plus a bit of frustration) for most of my life.

But you have to "focus" on three important things - not the fine details like exact choice of ASA setting (as it then was - essentially the same as ISO now) on your camera.

Those three things are fun, joy and satisfaction.

You will get very little of those from paying close attention to the technical issues. Instead, they will come from looking out into the world, seeing what interests you, and then pointing your camera at that subject of interest, focusing and releasing the shutter when the view that presents itself appeals to you.

There are a few fiddly things that you will learn as you go along that may help cut down on results that disappoint you - things like if there are lots of very bright things in that view, you can tweak the camera settings a bit (e.g. set it to ASA 100 instead of 200) to help ensure that the results come out a bit better. But at your stage of the process, you need not worry very much at all about that. Your camera and most negative films and the developing process are fairly forgiving. You should pay almost all of your attention toward finding subjects you like, and pointing your camera at them, and then looking carefully at the results when you get them back. Those results will help you learn when tweaks to the settings are called for.

 

[thinkbrown]

Those three things are fun, joy and satisfaction.

You will get very little of those from paying close attention to the technical issues.

Unless that's what brings you joy. I love taking pictures, but the reason I shoot film is for the love of the technical and refining my skills.