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".
I started film in the early 1990s and would call my film knowledge average for that era; I've learned/read since I went back to film (2019) but I'm certainly I'm no darkroom chef. I'm one of the old-timers on Reddit but there are some MUCH more knowledgeable people here. SO... I would like to post my latest rant for critique, in the interest of becoming better educated.
Here it is, in reply to someone asking why one should NOT shoot at box speed. Thank you in advance. Please be gentle and remember I never did better than a "C" in chemistry.
--
I'm one of the naysayers, so I'll say nay here, and explain why. Forgive the long answer; I'm a bit of a lunatic on this subject.
First, yes, I do sometimes shoot off box speed -- if I am shooting indoors, my go-to is HP5 exposed two stops under (ASA dial set to 1600), then I push-process (overdevelop) to compensate. The results are less than optimal (increased contrast and grain in the negative), but it's more convenient then carrying a roll of Delta 3200 "just in case".
As far as I'm concerned the ONLY consideration for exposure should be getting the optimal amount of information on the negative. I'm a broken record here: The negative is not a final image. It stores the information from which we make our final image, which is the print or scan.
Some people examine their negatives with a densitometer, and may decide that their camera with a given film needs a little more or less light. This is totally legit. In fact it's really the only way to check/correct film speed. (I'm too lazy/ignorant so I just eyeball the negatives.) They'll say "XXX 400 is really an ASA 320 film" -- yes, perhaps, but also perhaps only on your camera with the wonky shutter, I'm just sayin'.
Some people underexpose and push-process to get more contrast and grain, particularly with B&W. This is wrong IMHO -- the place to get contrast is in your print (enlarger, filters or editing scans). Why not do it in the negative? Because you destroy data and narrow your options. You can always get more contrast from a flat negative; you cannot get more gray tones from a contrasty negative. Want more grain? Shoot wide, enlarge and crop. Remember, there is often more than one photograph in a single frame. Why narrow your options?
Some people overexpose because they like the more contrasty/punchy look. This too is wrong IMHO because all you do is slather too much silver (or dye) on the negative. The scanner then has to blast more light through this thick negative. Problem is, a lot of these people don't look at the negative, only the scans. Yes, you may get punchy colors, but you also lose the ability to recover highlights because of all that silver/dye. You've narrowed your options. You can get the same results by editing scans, adjusting contrast, dodging and burning -- all the things we were meant to do in the darkroom. I think that's the best way to do it.
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.
Back to negative film -- it has tremendous latitude, and that's how disposable and very cheap cameras work. They have a fixed exposure and count on the latitude of the film to get a usable negative, and the person (or machine) printing them to compensate. You'll notice the photos look good in daylight adn crummy at night/indoors.
Negative tolerates too much light better than too little light, and if in doubt you should err on the side of overexposure. But some people have turned this into a rule that one should always overexpose negative film. No, no, no, no and no, and if everyone got and paid attention to their negatives, I think they'd see why.
Film is forgiving stuff. I have a couple of cameras that expose a little hot (about 1 stop), the negatives are a little dense and I still get perfectly good scans, but I still shoot for that perfect negative, or as close as li'l ol' undereducated me can get.
Film is not some mysterious substance we discovered in a deep underground mine, and whose properties we struggle to comprehend. It is a carefully engineered product, and companies have invested millions to devleop it. I say trust the film engineers rather than second-guess them.
Now, I might get roasted by the much smarter people on Photrio. In fact, I think I'll ask them. But this is my opinion. Hope it didn't put you to sleep!
I started film in the early 1990s and would call my film knowledge average for that era; I've learned/read since I went back to film (2019) but I'm certainly I'm no darkroom chef. I'm one of the old-timers on Reddit but there are some MUCH more knowledgeable people here. SO... I would like to post my latest rant for critique, in the interest of becoming better educated.
Here it is, in reply to someone asking why one should NOT shoot at box speed. Thank you in advance. Please be gentle and remember I never did better than a "C" in chemistry.
--
I'm one of the naysayers, so I'll say nay here, and explain why. Forgive the long answer; I'm a bit of a lunatic on this subject.
First, yes, I do sometimes shoot off box speed -- if I am shooting indoors, my go-to is HP5 exposed two stops under (ASA dial set to 1600), then I push-process (overdevelop) to compensate. The results are less than optimal (increased contrast and grain in the negative), but it's more convenient then carrying a roll of Delta 3200 "just in case".
As far as I'm concerned the ONLY consideration for exposure should be getting the optimal amount of information on the negative. I'm a broken record here: The negative is not a final image. It stores the information from which we make our final image, which is the print or scan.
Some people examine their negatives with a densitometer, and may decide that their camera with a given film needs a little more or less light. This is totally legit. In fact it's really the only way to check/correct film speed. (I'm too lazy/ignorant so I just eyeball the negatives.) They'll say "XXX 400 is really an ASA 320 film" -- yes, perhaps, but also perhaps only on your camera with the wonky shutter, I'm just sayin'.
Some people underexpose and push-process to get more contrast and grain, particularly with B&W. This is wrong IMHO -- the place to get contrast is in your print (enlarger, filters or editing scans). Why not do it in the negative? Because you destroy data and narrow your options. You can always get more contrast from a flat negative; you cannot get more gray tones from a contrasty negative. Want more grain? Shoot wide, enlarge and crop. Remember, there is often more than one photograph in a single frame. Why narrow your options?
Some people overexpose because they like the more contrasty/punchy look. This too is wrong IMHO because all you do is slather too much silver (or dye) on the negative. The scanner then has to blast more light through this thick negative. Problem is, a lot of these people don't look at the negative, only the scans. Yes, you may get punchy colors, but you also lose the ability to recover highlights because of all that silver/dye. You've narrowed your options. You can get the same results by editing scans, adjusting contrast, dodging and burning -- all the things we were meant to do in the darkroom. I think that's the best way to do it.
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.
Back to negative film -- it has tremendous latitude, and that's how disposable and very cheap cameras work. They have a fixed exposure and count on the latitude of the film to get a usable negative, and the person (or machine) printing them to compensate. You'll notice the photos look good in daylight adn crummy at night/indoors.
Negative tolerates too much light better than too little light, and if in doubt you should err on the side of overexposure. But some people have turned this into a rule that one should always overexpose negative film. No, no, no, no and no, and if everyone got and paid attention to their negatives, I think they'd see why.
Film is forgiving stuff. I have a couple of cameras that expose a little hot (about 1 stop), the negatives are a little dense and I still get perfectly good scans, but I still shoot for that perfect negative, or as close as li'l ol' undereducated me can get.
Film is not some mysterious substance we discovered in a deep underground mine, and whose properties we struggle to comprehend. It is a carefully engineered product, and companies have invested millions to devleop it. I say trust the film engineers rather than second-guess them.
Now, I might get roasted by the much smarter people on Photrio. In fact, I think I'll ask them. But this is my opinion. Hope it didn't put you to sleep!
