I've got some in the gallery here if you want (go easy on me - they aren't scans or anything, just iphone snapshots of the prints).
You might be surprised, though. In examining literally thousands of negatives - perhaps over 10 thousand at this point (yikes!) - both my own and other people's, the single biggest sin I've seen committed is underexposing the shadows. For people anxious to just get going, I have often repeated the "1/2 box speed, 20% less development" rule of thumb. They pretty much always come back saying that their negatives are much better. Nothing takes the wind out of a beginner's excitement than to tell them they need a densitometer and a year of testing before they really will know what they are doing
For my own part, I more and more have gravitated to the view that the purpose of computing exposure (and thus selecting the proper EI) is to achieve a negative that gives me the most possible interpretive choices in the silver printing process. I haven't touched my densitometer in years because with a new film/dev/agitation combo, the 1/2 ASA -20% rule above gets me close enough to get going. From there, I just eyeball it.
I'd much rather make pictures than tests - some of my favorite images were test pictures taken at the "wrong" EI, developed at the "wrong" dilutions, the "wrong" time, or agitated the "wrong" way. These mistakes led to a refining of how I expose a given film/dev/agitation scheme but they still are glorious in their results (at least some of the time).
(I still would love to see some of your pix ...
Shoot at box speed, but don't push or pull. Keep things simple.
There's a bit of history involved but the ISO speed criteria are rooted in print quality. It's based on the minimum shadow exposure for excellent quality, not the minimum exposure to get an acceptable image.
It began with a lot of work on what constitutes an excellent print (see L. A. Jones) which led to print judgement speeds. It turned out for the "first excellent print" negatives there was a relationship between the shadow contrast and the overall contrast (see fractional gradient). Since the fractional gradient speed was cumbersome to measure directly, later work on methods of estimating this speed led to the Delta-X criterion, which is built-in to the ISO criteria.
Life and observation taught me the opposite. The reduced latitude of slide film just doesn't like overexposure - contrast suffers and highlight detail gets lost very quickly. To keep detail in say dramatic sunset skies, you err on the underexposure and shoot Provia 100F at 125-150. Doing this and seeing what you get, you'll want to have skies shot only on slide film I'm afraid, as the tonal range will be direct, saturated and astounding, and no colors will get approximated to the nearest pure tone, rendering a colorful scene full of subtle neighboring tone interactions rather one-dimensional (digital).Now, back in Ye Olde Days, I was taught to slightly overexpose my Velvia 50 (meter set to 40 ASA) to punch up the colors a bit. And I did. Because with slide film, the film itself is the final image. We projected slides and could not really correct.
I'm a frequent participant on reddit's Analog Community
and I still get perfectly good scans
Shoot at box speed, but don't push or pull. Keep things simple.
This is the general advice I follow, as well as the manufacturers' datasheets. As we discuss B&W negative, it's box speed plus some margin (+1/3 stop) as well as to meter accordingly. At the end of the day, as amateur, it has worked for me.When I shot film professionally, many years ago, I always used box speed BUT metered according to the film type used.
For transparencies, I used an incident light reading and for C41 and B&W reflective reading. This worked for me.
I'm a frequent participant on reddit's Analog Community and a big proponent of shooting box speed. I soap-box out on "I overexpose because I like the look" and "I underexpose/push to get more contrast/grain".
The ISO value is defined by a published (paywalled) standard; end of story. Except when the distributor of a boutique film cheats for marketing reasons.What's special about those "difficult scenes" in relation to ISO printed on box
Photography is an creative pursuit, and it's entirely up to the photographer to create their "work of art" - if that mean exposing at box speed, great, over by 1-3 stops, perfectly fine by me, under by .5-1 stop, if it works that's all that matters. Telling someone they are doing it "wrong" is, IMHO, "wrong"; we don't know what they are trying to achieve, what their equipment's quirks are or how they like to print.
When I'm asked for advice, I suggest starting at box speed and then move on from there - if they like the results, why change? If they have problems, is it their metering? Their processing? Something else entirely?
Today's shooters seem to love the overexposed look, which, when I started out, was a hearty "NO! That's wrong; you need to expose correctly!!" But you know what? I've actually grown to love this result for some photos (not all though). Am I wrong to like it? Maybe, maybe not. Are they wrong to shoot like this? Some may say yes, others, no.
But you know what? It's really none of my business; if the photographer is loving the results they are getting, that's all that matters. Life's far too short to be dictating how a film photographer should/should not be enjoying the experience and the results.
IMHO - just get out there and shoot the way you want, not the way people expect you to.
...on Reddit but there are some MUCH more knowledgeable people here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?