My rant on shooting box speed. Am I out to lunch?

[Milpool]

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 ...

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).

Media added by Milpool

www.photrio.com

 

[Autonerd]

Shoot at box speed, but don't push or pull. Keep things simple.

That's basically what I said to the Reddit OP. But in a *lot* more words.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

Thanks very much for the correction and the education!

 

[Paul Howell]

The idea of box speed being carved in stone is not what Kodak, ILford, Agfa, or going back the way back machine GAF or Defender ever said. All said that the posted film speed was a starting point adjust as needed. Looking at Foma's posted data sheet for 400 and 100 only get to box speed with high energy developers like Microphen. Foma 200 a hybrid of traditional and T gain does a better job of getting to box speed with most developers. Tmax and Delta 3200 seems to best out at 1600 to 1200 ISO, but ILford and Kodak DX codes for 3200, they intend their 3200 speed films to be push. Although with DDX or Tmax developer you can get closer to 3200 than with other developers. When I was a working PJist I favored high flm speed, TrixX at 400, pushed to 600 to 800 was common. For news I sacrifed shadow detail for speed. On the other hand fine arts photoogs like AA who hated dark empty shadows and often sacrfited speed for shadow detail. What is best, what ever work for you.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Many years ago I read Barry Thornton's essay on the "No-Zone System". He explained at length that you usually need to overexpose BW negative film, because the vast majority of films do not reach the box speed, as advertised by the manufacturer, and therefore would turn out underexposed if used at box speed. According to Thornton, a slight overexposure (which technically is the correct exposure), will lead to better tonality and finer grain.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have always liked open, luminous shadows. Shooting at box speed doesn't give me that. Depending on the film, (and developer to some degree), I always have to give 2/3rds to a stop more exposure to get me there... that extra exposure gives me a about a .10-.12 density on Zone I. For gelatin silver papers, I always targeted the negatives to print on a grade 2...same with VC papers. Grade 2 gives the best tonal rendition (and grain). But, at the end of the day, there is no right or wrong way. It's whatever works for you.

 

[F4U]

It seems popular internet scuttlebutt to profess we know better than the factory (specifically Kodak), who spent millions of dollars paying chemists, scientists, and technicians, to arrive at a film speed and maintain that for batch runs repeated for many years. The fact is that film has a range from dark to light. They publish graphs and curves to ft the range between toe and shoulder in those curves. When we meddle and depart from their published speeds by telling ourselves we want better shadow detail, it means you are risking burning out highlights on the other end. There is no contrast stacking with film as there is in digital photography. When Kodak says the film speed is what it is, and I'm processing with atterntion to procedure, and I don't get the expected results, I'm bound to question my shutter accuracy, meter, or another fault of my own. Often a fault of ignorance. I contend that most people have no idea how accurate their shutter is. After testing and servicing a good many shutters, I've found that very few are actually anywhere near the speed markings across their range.

 

[Craig]

Slight correction for the slide film you mentioned. You underexpose slightly to give greater saturation, so you could rate Velvia 50 at 64. Rating it to 40 will wash out the colours.

 

[MattKing]

At the risk of channeling @Stephen Benskin , ( ) all these discussions about "box speed" or "ISO speed" seem to be inter-mixing the concepts of film speed and film exposure in unproductive ways.
Your approach to metering and your preferences in final output are personal to you.
And it is entirely appropriate if you choose an EI for setting your meter that reflects those, and if necessary differs from the more objectively determined ISO speed.
But unless I had my own film manufacturing line, I don't think it would make much sense to label my film with its "Matt" speed. And it certainly wouldn't help anyone else if the box was labelled that way, and they wanted to use the film!
All that being said, the ISO speed standard didn't come out of nowhere - as has been described earlier in the thread. It does serve a real and practical purpose, and if one should decide to do so, it is quite easy to adapt one's own approach to using it to create very good results. It may result though in prints that favour mid-tone rendition over some other qualities, which while pleasing most viewers of photographs, doesn't necessarily please a segment of darkroom practitioners.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Do I smell too much vinegar overflowing from reddit?

Let's not forget that today there are plenty of emulsions around that:
- doesn't meet the targeted ISO - based on shadow density, leaving them often crushed;
- there are many repackaged aerial film products with rating all-over the place.
- what about expired emulsions, blindly following the print on the box too? Or is life just a tad more complicated?

In their product line, Rollei Analog rates a single Aviphot 200 source film in the range 80-400 based just on marketing. Which "box" speed is the correct one, which one do I follow blindly, disregarding what actually happens on the film? Especially when you consider that the "200" in Aviphot 200 doesn't target pictorial gamma and seeks to boost the contrast of a rather flatly illuminated aerial shots.

I don't think that following BOX speed religion blindly will get you very far. We need more understanding of it instead.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

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.

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).

So - a deviation from "box speed" is beneficial after all?!

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Box speed, the marked ISO, is just a guide, a starting point, if you will.
Experience and knowledge is what will ultimately inform you what is best for your specific circumstances. What may be well and good for /reddit users by populist opinion will not necessarily be the right choice for you. Take-away: experiment, take notes, experiment again.

 

[albireo]

I'm a frequent participant on reddit's Analog Community

'frequent participant' on the Reddit analog community is an understatement.

You're basically on there polluting every. single. post. soliciting guidance on exposure and development with the same axiomatic take you've contributed above.

and I still get perfectly good scans

No you don't.

 

[koraks]

Guys. Gloves back on, please.
/moderator note.

 

[foc]

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.

 

[Prest_400]

Shoot at box speed, but don't push or pull. Keep things simple.

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.

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.
In the local photoclub I happen to run into many newcomers, and give them the same general advice of using the manufacturer (usually Ilford) datasheets as the first guidelines. Did get some of the "push because contrast, grain etc" as well as "Kentmere, HP5 is flat" and Rodinal for everything for a combination of the aforementioned "qualities". BUT, I also observe they do not frequently print.

BUT the best way personally is to take the argument into the darkroom...
I find negatives developed and exposed as per guidelines rather easy to print. Pushed (as underexposed) film has given me quite some extra gymnastics to get a nice print. Of course, depending on the scene and exposure, eg K400 or HP5 at +1 or +2 has also given nice prints but with some extra test strips.

Ivo has a good point against Box speed, but specifically for "exotic" films for which sources and documentation is rather dubious. For the standard Kodak, Ilford ISO 100-400 film; the guidelines are great.

Side topic, there was this big photographer who also owns a lab and had beautiful (contrasty) results, as well as recommended HP5 at 3200. But also, this was lab scanned without darkroom prints in sight. That goes a bit into how color film can be metered vs its box speed (400H and Portras in a pro people subject setting)

To bring another old can of worms into the table, there was the relatively controversial "The zone system is dead" some years ago: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/over-expose-over-develop.166234/

 

[albireo]

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".

Let me be more constructive.

I think we need to draw a distinction first. From your post it's unclear if you're talking about black and white film or colour. I suspect, based on what I think Reddit trends are, that you're ranting against people who, by default:

• Overexpose portra or other colour film by 2/3 stops to get the "pastel" tones
• Underexpose and overdevelop black and white film by 2/3 stops by to get "the crunchy grain/deep blacks". E.g. people who suggest it only makes sense to use HP5+ pushed, regardless of light conditions.

If I understood correctly, and you're ranting only against the above, I'm actually kind of with you. These gross deviations from manufacturers recommendations applied blindly, as if they were the key to unlocking some magical properties of those film somehow concealed by the manufacturer, don't make a lot of sense to me at least. However, people above have expressed much better than me that it's personal preference.

On the other hand if you're ranting against people taking measurements and tweaking the manufacturer's recommendations for black and white film to optimise (whatever that may mean for them) or modulate certain properties of the materials to suit their process, gear and importantly their vision, then I think you're profoundly wrong. There is absolutely no need to be so prescriptive about what's at its core a personal artistic endeavour.

For starters, something you really don't quite grasp and that you've been told multiple times on Reddit, is that some people might want to get to their final image by tweaking chemical or optical variables, and not by tinkering with the Photoshop sliders and dodge burn buttons. I'd accept that and move on, to do what you like to do best.

 

[ozphoto]

Shooting box speed isn't "wrong" or "right" - it's a starting point to see how the negatives work for the user. For some, their metering might be spot on, and box speed gives them perfect results (ITHO), while someone else may need to overexpose or underexpose.

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.

 

[bernard_L]

@Autonerd​

• Basically agree
• Like throwing a match in a firework warehouse
• Nobody mentioned metering for difficult scenes; that is IMO where the largest errors can occur.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

What's special about those "difficult scenes" in relation to ISO printed on box?

 

[bernard_L]

What's special about those "difficult scenes" in relation to ISO printed on box

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.

Then there are the discussions about fractional gradient, Delta-X etc… Unending story. All that for a fraction of an EV.

Then I’m in the woods. Light levels can be surprisingly low, like 1/30 f/2.8 @100ISO. But there is a tree trunk hit by the sun, reading 1/125 F/16. What to do? (I shoot FP4, thank you) The answer does not reside in the choice of an ISO value.
Assuming of course that the top level goal is to bring the picture home.

 

[Milpool]

Emulsion speed and exposure / metering are not the same thing. You meter a scene, parts of it etc. and make exposure decisions, but you have to set your exposure meter to some exposure index first.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

There is great wisdom in this post. (IMO)

To the OP: why do you feel such a great need to dictate to strangers on the internet how to make their art? That seems like the ultimate in futility to me.

That said, if you feel that you know better and have ideas about how to improve someone else’s experience with film photography, how about providing meaningful instruction, rather than barking at them “you’re doing it wrong!” Write a detailed post (perhaps start a blog) that describes your personal approach to photography and give thoughtful instruction to illustrate why you think it’s useful/meaningful information. Lead them to drink from your well of knowledge rather than clubbing them over the head with a leaden ladle. Teach, don’t dictate.

Ultimately, it’s not your job to instruct others how to make a good photograph. Your opinion on what makes “a good photograph” isn’t going to be the same as many of the Reddit users (or the Photrio community, for that matter), so why push so hard to “enlighten” others to adopt practices they don’t think they want/need?

 

[Milpool]

...on Reddit but there are some MUCH more knowledgeable people here.

Why would assume that to be the case?

 

[runswithsizzers]

I find this whole discussion to be very confusing because without defining imprecise language, I don't know what prople are trying to say.

It seems like some people are defining "overexposure" as metering at an EI below box speed, and "underexposure" is defined as metering at above box speed. These definitions depend on the assumption that metering at box speed gives the "correct exposure," which may or may not be true. And it ignores the fact that the box ISO speed was determined using a specific set of developing parameters. If you use a different developer, processing time, or agitation scheme, then the "correct exposure" is no longer correct.

In my mind, the definitions of under and overexposure should be determined by the final results. Practically speaking, I would define an underexposed negative as one which lacks adequate shadow detail, and a correctly exposed negative as one which has adequate shadow detail. Introducing the word "adequate" means the definition is subjective -- as it should be. They are your negatives so they should be correctly exposed for your purposes.

The definition of overexposed negatives is a little more difficult. Unlike slide film where overexposure is easily defined as lack of highlight detail, I think it is possible to have negatives which are overexposed, but which still have some highlight detail. Overexposed negatives will be "too dense," but without a densitometer how do we define "too dense"? I think darkroom printers and the people who scan their negatives may heve different definitions of overexposure?

So @Autonerd, to answer your original question, yes, I think you are a little bit out in left field because your rant does not mention shadow detail, which I think should a part of any discussion about metering.

I am delighted that others have already addressed your use of the words, "right" and "wrong" (mostly "wrong"), so I don't have to. Those words are much harder to define than under and over exposure, and tend to convey a moral judgement, so should probably be avoided.