Is this image muddy/flat due to severe underexposure?

My Sekonic L-358 and Alienbee B400 setup is causing me major headaches. One because the strobe is so inconsistent at its lowest powers (almost drops a full stop sometimes, very unreliable) and two because my light meter's flash reading always seems to give 1 to 1.5 stops under what it should be (as in, it meters white skin close to middle gray). This only happens with flash, outdoors the exposures are always maxed just before clipping and dead on. Here is an example image developed and scanned at one of the best labs in my city. This was shot with a 110mm lens + RZ67 + TMAX100 with the handheld meter reading f/2.8, ISO100, 1/200:


Full res here (3300px): http://i.imgur.com/DYUds7v.jpg

Also, if you look very closely or even boost the contrast, there are some very subtle/nasty vertical lines or streaks in the shadows. Is this happening due to severe underexposure? How can I flx this issue? I want to shoot at a shallow DOF of f/2.8 but this requires my strobe's power level to be at the absolute minimum (which I think causes major inconsistencies). If you had to guess, how many more stops of light would get a better exposure? I'm assuming two or three, I may just start using ISO 400 film.

Are those completely black areas in your images showing base density with no detail on the negative? If so, then yes, they are underexposed. Many of your midtones look like they're still in the toe of the film's characteristic curve.

If you want to shoot with the lens wide-open, you can try using an ND filter, which should allow you to crank up the power on the strobes. ND4 would give you 2 stops more, ND8 would give you 3.

Switching to ISO400 film won't help, it'll require even less light for the same results.

A view of the negative on a light table would help to determine if you're getting the optimum exposure. Plus this is a tricky subject with dark background, clothing and skin tones. The highlight areas on the ear, forehead and thumbnail look reasonable to me. If you overexpose too much you may start losing highlight detail in these areas. Also, the scan itself may be introducing some artifacts that you're seeing. Once you start inspecting a digitized image, you're no longer seeing the full information contained in the negative.

jimjm said:

If you want to shoot with the lens wide-open, you can try using an ND filter, which should allow you to crank up the power on the strobes. ND4 would give you 2 stops more, ND8 would give you 3.

Switching to ISO400 film won't help, it'll require even less light for the same results.

A view of the negative on a light table would help to determine if you're getting the optimum exposure. Plus this is a tricky subject with dark background, clothing and skin tones. The highlight areas on the ear, forehead and thumbnail look reasonable to me. If you overexpose too much you may start losing highlight detail in these areas. Also, the scan itself may be introducing some artifacts that you're seeing. Once you start inspecting a digitized image, you're no longer seeing the full information contained in the negative.

Click to expand...

Confirmed before you put the negative in the film holder you hold it up to the light and look at the zone 1 areas if there is only clear film it is not going to print.
You could go two stops over with that shot and still have highlight graduation on the negative

moodlover said:

My Sekonic L-358 and Alienbee B400 setup is causing me major headaches. One because the strobe is so inconsistent at its lowest powers (almost drops a full stop sometimes, very unreliable) and two because my light meter's flash reading always seems to give 1 to 1.5 stops under what it should be. This only happens with flash, outdoors the exposures are always maxed just before clipping and dead on. Here is an example image developed and scanned at one of the best labs in my city. This was shot with a 110mm lens + RZ67 + TMAX100 with the handheld meter reading f/2.8, ISO100, 1/200:

Full res here (3300px): http://i.imgur.com/DYUds7v.jpg

Also, if you look very closely or even boost the contrast, there are some very subtle/nasty vertical lines or streaks in the shadows. Is this happening due to severe underexposure? How can I flx this issue? I want to shoot at a shallow DOF of f/2.8 but this requires my strobe's power level to be at the absolute minimum (which I think causes major inconsistencies). If you had to guess, how many more stops of light would get a better exposure? I'm assuming two or three, I may just start using ISO 400 film for safe.

Click to expand...

Need to see the negative. Can we see it to check for shadow detail.

Nathan King said:

Are those completely black areas in your images showing base density with no detail on the negative? If so, then yes, they are underexposed. Many of your midtones look like they're still in the toe of the film's characteristic curve.

Click to expand...

I held the negative up to a light, the black areas are as clear/empty as the actual film itself is, so I'm guessing light didn't hit it (see image below).

jimjm said:

If you want to shoot with the lens wide-open, you can try using an ND filter, which should allow you to crank up the power on the strobes. ND4 would give you 2 stops more, ND8 would give you 3.

Switching to ISO400 film won't help, it'll require even less light for the same results.

A view of the negative on a light table would help to determine if you're getting the optimum exposure. Plus this is a tricky subject with dark background, clothing and skin tones. The highlight areas on the ear, forehead and thumbnail look reasonable to me. If you overexpose too much you may start losing highlight detail in these areas. Also, the scan itself may be introducing some artifacts that you're seeing. Once you start inspecting a digitized image, you're no longer seeing the full information contained in the negative.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind using an ND filter it's just that I think it's hard to focus as is with just the modeling light and with an ND filter on it would make it even harder. I'm on a tripod but the subject moves slightly and this means I have to watch for when the eyes are sharp and trip the shutter as soon as I can. What do you mean switching to 400 speed won't help, wouldn't it make it more sensitive and give me two more stops of light? Alternatively, could I set my light power and f/5.6 or f/8 and use f/2.8 on my lens to pull it off? I don't have a light table but I tried to take a [cruddy] picture of the negative against my monitor screen at the bottom of this post, maybe it'll help? I'm really not too sure how to pull off this tricky scene with just one light and no fill light (which would make f2.8 hard to get I think).

Xmas said:

Confirmed before you put the negative in the film holder you hold it up to the light and look at the zone 1 areas if there is only clear film it is not going to print.
You could go two stops over with that shot and still have highlight graduation on the negative

Click to expand...

Yeah it's definitely clear now that I'm looking at it. I think two more stops wouldve did the trick nicely. The post before you says the highlights would blow out and that's something I wouldn't want either. At the same time I thought film would be better with highlights!

ic-racer said:

Need to see the negative. Can we see it to check for shadow detail.

Click to expand...

This is the best I can do to show you, sorry I don't have a light table:


Full res: http://i.imgur.com/6jXBAPy.jpg

Edit: upon close inspection there are actually lots of subtle lines on the negative itself, as if some sort of soft sand was brushing against them. I'm quite excited to get into home film development because I don't think the lab is worth the money.

That's really underexposed. Like previously stated, you could bump up the duration of the strobe quite a bit before you lose any highlights.

Nathan King said:

That's really underexposed. Like previously stated, you could bump up the duration of the strobe quite a bit before you lose any highlights.

Click to expand...

Yeah this confirms what I was thinking. I remember shooting Ektar 100 on 35mm once and it was such a sensitive film that even 2/3 of a stop underexposure muddied up the blacks.

Okay so now that we know it's underexposed, and that my light power at f/2.8 is far too low, what power could I bump it up to? I'm still going to leave my camera aperture at f/2.8 for the DOF but I figure adding light will at least bring the exposure up. Does f/5.6 (2 stops more) sound like it will overexpose it? My reasoning:

+1 stop for correct exposure
+1 stop for extra shadow detail and quality

Perhaps underdevelop it myself by about 20% to kick the highlights back (though I don't think I'd need to if the film retains detail).

I do recognise film is expensive but experience is difficult - with a studio you can bracket in stop intervals until you are happy.
Black people need an extra stop and are more difficult to light as well.
If you are wet printing you can push highlights hard scanning you need to be careful of the scanners DMAX.
Wet printing is an art form as difficult as lighting.
Some labs care...

I would suggest investing in a copy of the Ansel Adams book The Negative. Among other things it will be a help in evaluating your negatives for under-exposure and under-development.

A few suggestions: expose Kodak Tmax 100 at an EI of 50. Use an incident meter to read the flash and use a developer that produces full shadow speed such as Kodak Xtol. Most of your issues should be solved.

moodlover,

This looks like what I thought was happening with your studio lighting. You have one light, there is no way for the light to reach the shadows (if you used one unit), you could either add a reflector or accept pitch black. I think it could be effective if the background in lower-right were pitch black, but I would want some detail in the jacket.

I think this would have benefited from more development.

Seeing the photo of the lighting helps bunches in understanding the specific challenges you are facing.

I believe that the position of your light is the root of the issue. Time for some fine tuning of the lighting setup and a bit more advanced metering.

Your L-358 is an exceptional meter and fully up to the task. (I have 2 myself.)

You are also on the right track in thinking that exposure is part of the problem, when you are working with artificial light though you need to think a bit differently. You have to consider and control more points than just "under the subjects nose".

So several things will help solve your exposure problems (yes plural).

1- I'm going to take a SWAG and bet that you probably didn't want the background high and left quite that bright (even if you did it provides me a good example of controls available to you and to demonstrate my thought).

So first, feather your main light that's high on camera left. What that means is that instead of pointing the light directly at your subject turn it, more toward the camera, so that less light falls on the background. This will darken the background at the top left of the photo but the main subject shouldn't change much, just recheck and adjust the main light brightness as needed. (If you get to a point where the light starts flashing the camera lens you may need to add a blocker of some sort.) Moving the subject farther away from the background would work similarly.

2- The other exposure problem is low and camera right, the bottom of the jacket seems underexposed, that's because of your setup. The general exposure is fine, the difference in exposure between the forehead and the bottom of the jacket is out of range. Even if you gave more general exposure, the difference between the two subjects is too large, you need to change the relative exposure.

One possible fix is to put a reflector, maybe white backer board, sheet, or similar, low and camera right to bounce just a little bit of light back onto the bottom of the jacket. Moving the main light back toward the camera just a bit is another option.

From experience I'm betting that solves the problem you were complaining about.

So in summary, IMO the real problem is not the general exposure, just the specific exposure in a few areas.

The question becomes, how do you figure that out with your meter?

First, decide what aperture, time, and EI you are going to shoot at and set the camera. You said f/2.8, 1/200, and EI 100. That's fine.

Second, meter at the subjects nose but point the dome straight at the main light. Adjust your light to get the meter to read f/2.8, 1/200, and EI 100 when the light is fired.

Third, meter at the background top left, point dome at camera. Feather the light until the meter tells you it's maybe 1 or 2 stops darker back there than at the subjects nose, say f/1.4 or f/2 @ 1/200, and EI 100.

Forth, meter at your subjects left hip and move the white reflector (that's low & camera right) around until that hip measures a lot like the background in the top left.

Fifth, shoot the photo. Bet ya, you are much closer. Judge your result and season the lighting to taste from there.

Once you get the hang of this you can actually draw the lighting changes you want right on the proof print, just like printers of old like Ansel Adams marked up proof prints to prepare for final prints. Once you see this work, you can then use your lighting setups to eliminate the need for burn and dodge and changes in development or paper grade.

Bill Burk said:

moodlover,

This looks like what I thought was happening with your studio lighting. You have one light, there is no way for the light to reach the shadows (if you used one unit), you could either add a reflector or accept pitch black. I think it could be effective if the background in lower-right were pitch black, but I would want some detail in the jacket.

I think this would have benefited from more development.

Click to expand...

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I like side/rembrandt lighting for it's drama and I absolutely love shadows/dimensionality but just need to boost the fill somehow (a fill card doesn't always work, or my placement isn't great probably). I definitely want detail in the jacket. I guess I shouldve made the lighting more frontal when the subject put a black jacket on.

markbarendt said:

I believe that the position of your light is the root of the issue. Time for some fine tuning of the lighting setup and a bit more advanced metering.

Your L-358 is an exceptional meter and fully up to the task. (I have 2 myself.)

You are also on the right track in thinking that exposure is part of the problem, when you are working with artificial light though you need to think a bit differently. You have to consider and control more points than just "under the subjects nose".

So several things will help solve your exposure problems (yes plural).

1- I'm going to take a SWAG and bet that you probably didn't want the background high and left quite that bright (even if you did it provides me a good example of controls available to you and to demonstrate my thought).

So first, feather your main light that's high on camera left. What that means is that instead of pointing the light directly at your subject turn it, more toward the camera, so that less light falls on the background. This will darken the background at the top left of the photo but the main subject shouldn't change much, just recheck and adjust the main light brightness as needed. (If you get to a point where the light starts flashing the camera lens you may need to add a blocker of some sort.) Moving the subject farther away from the background would work similarly.

2- The other exposure problem is low and camera right, the bottom of the jacket seems underexposed, that's because of your setup. The general exposure is fine, the difference in exposure between the forehead and the bottom of the jacket is out of range. Even if you gave more general exposure, the difference between the two subjects is too large, you need to change the relative exposure.

One possible fix is to put a reflector, maybe white backer board, sheet, or similar, low and camera right to bounce just a little bit of light back onto the bottom of the jacket. Moving the main light back toward the camera just a bit is another option.

From experience I'm betting that solves the problem you were complaining about.

So in summary, IMO the real problem is not the general exposure, just the specific exposure in a few areas.

The question becomes, how do you figure that out with your meter?

First, decide what aperture, time, and EI you are going to shoot at and set the camera. You said f/2.8, 1/200, and EI 100. That's fine.

Second, meter at the subjects nose but point the dome straight at the main light. Adjust your light to get the meter to read f/2.8, 1/200, and EI 100 when the light is fired.

Third, meter at the background top left, point dome at camera. Feather the light until the meter tells you it's maybe 1 or 2 stops darker back there than at the subjects nose, say f/1.4 or f/2 @ 1/200, and EI 100.

Forth, meter at your subjects left hip and move the white reflector (that's low & camera right) around until that hip measures a lot like the background in the top left.

Fifth, shoot the photo. Bet ya, you are much closer. Judge your result and season the lighting to taste from there.

Once you get the hang of this you can actually draw the lighting changes you want right on the proof print, just like printers of old like Ansel Adams marked up proof prints to prepare for final prints. Once you see this work, you can then use your lighting setups to eliminate the need for burn and dodge and changes in development or paper grade.

Click to expand...

Amazing tips, you're very helpful. Basically, measure the range between the highlight and deepest shadow before I shoot and determine if it will be out of range...which is how many stops, like 3 before it gets muddy? My L-358 renders all flash hitting the incident dome as middle gray, is that normal? All the compensation/calibration is off, and it's extremely accurate in ambient. However when using flash and taking a reading, then testing with a digital camera the photo always lands in the middle of the histogram when it should be 1-2 stops higher for a clean exposure. Is the meter supposed to average the light this way or could mine be faulty?

I'll definitely push the background back, as I do want it to be darker and I want the face to pop out like classic photos/paintings. What you're saying about local exposure difference from the brightest point to the darkest point being too high makes a lot of sense...basically my contrast is very high. It requires a lot of precision to pull off a one-light scene well, I need lots of practice...or perhaps need to buy another light to add fill.

A flash meter used in incident mode should give you the right amount of exposure to render (if your scene is normal):
1) highlights as highlights;
2) mid-tones as mid-tones; and
3) shadows as shadows.

moodlover said:

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I like side/rembrandt lighting for it's drama and I absolutely love shadows/dimensionality but just need to boost the fill somehow (a fill card doesn't always work, or my placement isn't great probably). I definitely want detail in the jacket. I guess I shouldve made the lighting more frontal when the subject put a black jacket on.

Amazing tips, you're very helpful. Basically, measure the range between the highlight and deepest shadow before I shoot and determine if it will be out of range...which is how many stops, like 3 before it gets muddy? My L-358 renders all flash hitting the incident dome as middle gray, is that normal? All the compensation/calibration is off, and it's extremely accurate in ambient. However when using flash and taking a reading, then testing with a digital camera the photo always lands in the middle of the histogram when it should be 1-2 stops higher for a clean exposure. Is the meter supposed to average the light this way or could mine be faulty?

I'll definitely push the background back, as I do want it to be darker and I want the face to pop out like classic photos/paintings. What you're saying about local exposure difference from the brightest point to the darkest point being too high makes a lot of sense...basically my contrast is very high. It requires a lot of precision to pull off a one-light scene well, I need lots of practice...or perhaps need to buy another light to add fill.

Click to expand...

Your welcome.

Don't think in numbers yet. Measure the scene, look at the results, try something different, see what happens. Most importantly have fun and make mistakes.

Couple more clarifications.

moodlover said:

My L-358 renders all flash hitting the incident dome as middle gray, is that normal? All the compensation/calibration is off, and it's extremely accurate in ambient. However when using flash and taking a reading, then testing with a digital camera the photo always lands in the middle of the histogram when it should be 1-2 stops higher for a clean exposure. Is the meter supposed to average the light this way or could mine be faulty?

Click to expand...

Your meter is working fine I'm sure. Matt is right.

The centered histogram is not an indication of underexposure, in fact it's meaningless by itself. It must be judged against an accounting (in your head) of all the different tones in the shot. A centered histogram doesn't mean grey, it means it counted an equal amount of darks and lights in the scene.

MattKing said:

A flash meter used in incident mode should give you the right amount of exposure to render (if your scene is normal):
1) highlights as highlights;
2) mid-tones as mid-tones; and
3) shadows as shadows.

Click to expand...

What Matt is rightly saying is that the incident meter finds/defines is a single reference point.

It's job is to peg "middle grey" (give you a time and f/number) to place middle grey at a specific point on the film curve (based on ISO/EI setting).

The rest of the tones will "fall" appropriately around that "peg".

Using the meter as I've suggested helps you "see" where too much or too little light falling on the scene.

If you measure your current setup where I suggested this should be obvious, a change of 1-2 metered stops at those points is going to make a big difference.

moodlover said:

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I like side/rembrandt lighting for it's drama and I absolutely love shadows/dimensionality but just need to boost the fill somehow (a fill card doesn't always work, or my placement isn't great probably). I definitely want detail in the jacket. I guess I shouldve made the lighting more frontal when the subject put a black jacket on.

Amazing tips, you're very helpful. Basically, measure the range between the highlight and deepest shadow before I shoot and determine if it will be out of range...which is how many stops, like 3 before it gets muddy? My L-358 renders all flash hitting the incident dome as middle gray, is that normal? All the compensation/calibration is off, and it's extremely accurate in ambient. However when using flash and taking a reading, then testing with a digital camera the photo always lands in the middle of the histogram when it should be 1-2 stops higher for a clean exposure. Is the meter supposed to average the light this way or could mine be faulty?

I'll definitely push the background back, as I do want it to be darker and I want the face to pop out like classic photos/paintings. What you're saying about local exposure difference from the brightest point to the darkest point being too high makes a lot of sense...basically my contrast is very high. It requires a lot of precision to pull off a one-light scene well, I need lots of practice...or perhaps need to buy another light to add fill.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of you tubers and bloggers claiming a one-light setup is all one needs for portraits but I believe a min of 2 or 3 makes more sense.In some ways, that's easier than getting all out of a single light.Also ,any light output variations are averaged and lighting is more consistent from pop to pop.I never see more variation than 0.1 stops with 3 lights

moodlover said:

I

This is the best I can do to show you, sorry I don't have a light table:

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a good representation of the negative. It shows lack of shadow detail, making printing difficult. Increase exposure by about one stop next time.

MattKing said:

A flash meter used in incident mode should give you the right amount of exposure to render (if your scene is normal):
1) highlights as highlights;
2) mid-tones as mid-tones; and
3) shadows as shadows.

Click to expand...

The meter only sees a middle gray and doesn't know what you want.
You need to do the interpretation bit. If you read all three areas you'll probably find an average near
the midtone reading. You want more detail in shadows, open the lens a bit.
More in the highlights stop down.
What you're doing really depend on your desired results are but once you get that, you know the basic exposure.

Maybe the (obvious or not) Shoot a test roll with a similarly lit subject with varying exposure and a few notes will help.

John Koehrer said:

The meter only sees a middle gray and doesn't know what you want.
You need to do the interpretation bit. If you read all three areas you'll probably find an average near
the midtone reading. You want more detail in shadows, open the lens a bit.
More in the highlights stop down.
What you're doing really depend on your desired results are but once you get that, you know the basic exposure.

Maybe the (obvious or not) Shoot a test roll with a similarly lit subject with varying exposure and a few notes will help.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct that the meter doesn't know what you want. Nor does it know what you have pointed it at. So yes one does need to factor in that info.

Just for clarity though I want to say that the meter "sees" all the light that falls on it's dome.

The reading it displays is a camera setting that will normally place middle grey, and shadows, and highlights appropriately on the film curve per the ISO standard.

In the shot in question above, the incident meter properly placed all the tones, not just middle grey. The subjects hair shows a very nice black. That black was defined by the camera setting the incident meter suggested. The highlights on the subjects forehead were defined by that same reading.

The reading taken at the subjects nose defined the basic exposure setting perfectly.

In studio:

Adding extra camera exposure might help, if it is added by extra time which allows ambient light to fill the dark spots better and contrast is reduced, but the risk of blur increases. (Longer shutter times do not affect the exposure coming from the strobe. A low power pop on the Alien bees light in play here might only be 1/30,000th of a second, full power 1/1,500th)

If exposure is added by aperture or faster film the contrast problem remains constant.

If the main artificial light is bumped up contrast across the model is increased/worse/harder yet to print.

If a reflector (or another light is added low and camera right) it can solve the underexposure and contrast issues.

What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that "in studio", actually anytime artificial light is involved, the rules get much more complex.

In the photo above we are trying to manage 3 separate exposures: Background, Face and shoulder, lower offside.

In studio the norm is to set the camera exposure first and not adjust it on the fly. The lighting is designed to fit the camera setting we want.

That is very different from normal ambient light camera work where we adjust the camera to fit the situation.

"The meter only sees a middle gray and doesn't know what you want."

Middle gray has nothing to do with it anymore than any other gray. An incident meter sees and measures the integrated light falling on the subject, and is calibrated to place everything at it's proper place on the characteristic curve, based on the ISO of the film. As Matt says, highlights where they should be, mid-tones where they should be and shadows where they should be. Nothing is averaged; it is precise if done correctly.

Does anyone know why the rebate edge (border around the actual photo) is also a milky gray? Shouldn't it be pure black since it wasn't exposed at all? Could the lab have had anything to do with it?

markbarendt said:

In the shot in question above, the incident meter properly placed all the tones, not just middle grey. The subjects hair shows a very nice black. That black was defined by the camera setting the incident meter suggested. The highlights on the subjects forehead were defined by that same reading.

Click to expand...

Why is there no actual black tones in the photo though? It just stops at 40,40,40 on a RGB scale when it should be closer to 5, 5, 5. I have to add 30-40 black points in the levels tool to normalize the tones.

moodlover said:

Does anyone know why the rebate edge (border around the actual photo) is also a milky gray? Shouldn't it be pure black since it wasn't exposed at all? Could the lab have had anything to do with it?

Click to expand...

Think backwards/in the negative. Opaque (dark) negative areas are the highlights, the areas that got lots of exposure. The print goes the other way.

moodlover said:

Why is there no actual black tones in the photo though? It just stops at 40,40,40 on a RGB scale when it should be closer to 5, 5, 5. I have to add 30-40 black points in the levels tool to normalize the tones.

Click to expand...

That my friend is a truly digital issue. It can be fixed but explaining how and why is truly off topic here at APUG.

What I mean is, why is the darkest tone in the overall photo not black? If no light hit the film, shouldn't it render those parts as black...like this:



Or is a lab returning scans with milky gray tones a normal thing for underexposed photos?