ISO rating on the film.

[baachitraka]

I have ISO rating on the camera till 1600 but I use ISO 400 film. Will setting my camera to ISO 1600 give me proper exposure?

 

[lxdude]

The ISO or ASA dial calibrates the meter to match the ISO number of the film. So, the dial should be set to 400 to match the film in the camera. Setting to 1600 will cause the meter to indicate an exposure for 1600 speed film, which is two stops less exposure than 400. So, your pictures will come out two stops underexposed.

You can underexpose film and then change the developing process, which is called
push-processing. That is commonly done when there is not much light.

 

[thanos]

You can underexpose film and then change the developing process

Unless it's print film or slide film where you better set the camera dial to match the box ISO speed.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Film isn't digital...

You *can* expose a 400 ISO film as 1600 ISO, but then the developing times will have to be changed to compensate for that (called "push processing" in English).
One result will be that the noise (er... Grain!) will be much more visible and you will lose some tonality.

 

[baachitraka]

Film isn't digital...

You *can* expose a 400 ISO film as 1600 ISO, but then the developing times will have to be changed to compensate for that (called "push processing" in English).
One result will be that the noise (er... Grain!) will be much more visible and you will lose some tonality.

It is little disappointing to see there are not many 800 and 1600 rated films. I do not know whether it is necessary at all.

 

[marco.taje]

I would keep it simple, since the OP is just beginning with chemical supports

For the moment, baachitraka, think that your film has ONE nominal speed. Your camera usually has no way to know what film is in it, so you have to tell her: that's what the ISO dial on the camera does.

 

[lxdude]

Unless it's print film or slide film where you better set the camera dial to match the box ISO speed.

Well, actually...both can be push processed.

 

[lxdude]

I would keep it simple, since the OP is just beginning with chemical supports

For the moment, baachitraka, think that your film has ONE nominal speed.

Good advice.

Your camera usually has no way to know what film is in it, so you have to tell her: that's what the ISO dial on the camera does.

Good explanation.

 

[Les Sarile]

Is it the new Kodak Portra 400? If so you might be interested in seeing these results I got from it. The frame 400-01-17 is the ideal - gray card metered at ISO400, all others are + or - so many indicated stops (shutter speed adjust) from there and auto exposed scanned no pre or post adjustment of any kind.

For larger size -> Kodak Portra 400


This wide exposure latitude allows recovery of both underexposed and overexposed areas such as in this scene.

For larger size -> Kodak Portra 400 scene

 

[baachitraka]

Is it the new Kodak Portra 400? If so you might be interested in seeing these results I got from it. The frame 400-01-17 is the ideal - gray card metered at ISO400, all others are + or - so many indicated stops (shutter speed adjust) from there and auto exposed scanned no pre or post adjustment of any kind.

For larger size -> Kodak Portra 400


This wide exposure latitude allows recovery of both underexposed and overexposed areas such as in this scene.

For larger size -> Kodak Portra 400 scene

I shoot only black-and-white and I prefer ILFord or may be Kodak T-Max.

 

[Les Sarile]

I shoot only black-and-white and I prefer ILFord or may be Kodak T-Max.

Not mine but I saw these examples of TMZ 3200, TMZ3200 at 25,500 and TMAX 400

 

[baachitraka]

Not mine but I saw these examples of TMZ 3200, TMZ3200 at 25,500 and TMAX 400

It is very nice to see TMZ3200 @3200 and above. I am very new to film and my experiment started with ILFord 3200 and I really liked it. I will experiment with other speeds and see how it goes..

 

[markbarendt]

Here's a kink to Ilford's Delta 3200 info. http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdf

It, like TMax 3200, is actually an ISO 1000 film.

Use the development recommendations from the appropriate data sheet and you should get very reasonable results.

 

[baachitraka]

Today, I went out and shoot along the river Weser, Bremen, Germany. It was bright and sunny.

I used the following settings.

- Shutter 1/1000, this is the maximum and I set it to maximum.
- ILFord HP5+ 400: So, I set the ASA/ISO dial to 400.
- Aperture variable: I set to F8.0 and I do not want to go any further why because I worry about diffraction limits.

At 1/1000 with the give speed of the film and aperture opening, for some subjects the meter pointed to over-exposure.

Remedy: I set the ASA/ISO dial to 200 and sometimes to 100 to get the proper exposure.

Do you recommend such settings?

 

[Steve Smith]

Shutter 1/1000, this is the maximum and I set it to maximum.
- ILFord HP5+ 400: So, I set the ASA/ISO dial to 400.
- Aperture variable: I set to F8.0 and I do not want to go any further why because I worry about diffraction limits.........

Remedy: I set the ASA/ISO dial to 200 and sometimes to 100 to get the proper exposure.

Do you recommend such settings?

If you have set the shutter speed and the aperture, the ISO setting is irrelevant as you are ignoring the meter (other than looking at it to see what it suggests).

Sunny 16 rule would suggest that an aperture of f8 with a shutter speed of 1/1000 would need an EI of about 200 so I agree with your meter but all you are doing is giving it enough exposure for an ISO 200 film. If you are using HP5+ as an ISO 400 film rather than pushing or pulling, that is only a one stop over-exposure so doesn't matter too much.

If you are processing the film yourself, reduce the development time to about 80% of the normal ISO 400 time.


Steve.

 

[baachitraka]

If you have set the shutter speed and the aperture, the ISO setting is irrelevant as you are ignoring the meter (other than looking at it to see what it suggests).


Steve.

I do not think that I understood correctly. Poor me... :-(

I am afraid that I am going to get over exposed photos. :'(

 

[Steve Smith]

I do not think that I understood correctly. Poor me... :-(

I am afraid that I am going to get over exposed photos. :'(

If you read the bit I added after you posted this, it's not so bad!


Steve.

 

[baachitraka]

If you read the bit I added after you posted this, it's not so bad!


Steve.

Thank you.

My stupidity. Now I understood this ASA/ISO dial is only for the meter, whose value is based *only* on speed of the film.

May be next time, I will try to use some grey filters.

 

[perkeleellinen]

May be next time, I will try to use some grey filters.

Why not close your lens aperture down more?

 

[baachitraka]

Why not close your lens aperture down more?

Well, I was little afraid about diffraction limit that start to kick in at narrow apertures.

Further, I am very new with this lens so I have no idea how this performs at those apertures.

Okay, it was just two shots with wrong exposure...Now, I learned the lesson. ;-)

 

[perkeleellinen]

Further, I am very new with this lens so I have no idea how this performs at those apertures.

The best way to find out is to shoot at those small apertures, then you'll find out if diffraction limits are a real problem for you.

 

[Steve Smith]

If it was only two shots and they were only over-exposed by one stop, I wouldn't worry about it. Just process normally and I'm sure it will all be fine.

I ruined two shots on a 36 exposure roll yesterday. One was a shot of my feet and the other of the sky caused by holding the camera too close to the shutter release whilst carrying it.


Steve.

 

[baachitraka]

The best way to find out is to shoot at those small apertures, then you'll find out if diffraction limits are a real problem for you.

This is second role of film in my life ;-) I'll certainly do more experiments to find out the performance of that lens.

 

[Steve Smith]

Whilst it is true that diffraction can soften an image at the higher aperture numbers, it needs to be put into perspective.

If you are hand holding a camera then the shake you induce into it is probably equal to or greater than any problem caused by diffraction.

Print size is also an issue. If you are getting prints up to 8"x10" then you probably won't see much. It's when you are making large prints or posters that you will want to use a tripod and mirror lock up to minimise shake.

If you are new to this, just shoot some film and look at the resulting prints and learn from them rather than pre-empting some problems - some of which might be semi-mythology!


Steve.

 

[baachitraka]

Whilst it is true that diffraction can soften an image at the higher aperture numbers, it needs to be put into perspective.

If you are hand holding a camera then the shake you induce into it is probably equal to or greater than any problem caused by diffraction.

Print size is also an issue. If you are getting prints up to 8"x10" then you probab;ly won't see much. It's when you are making large prints or posters that you will want to use a tripod and mirror lock up to minimise shake.

If you are new to this, just shoot some film and look at the resulting prints and learn from them rather than pre-empting some problems - some of which might be semi-mythology!


Steve.

Yeah, I am at the origin of the learning curve. It will take some time to perfect the things up...