New to analog photography - Under exposed problems (See my photos)

[photosJL]

I just read about 200 pages on EI -vs- Box Speed -vs- Exposure adjustments

Wow! about ..
33% of you guys shoot at Box Speed,
33% of you shoot at a EI value, and
33% of you guys play with the exposure (either at Box Speed or EI)

So many views! & so many opinions! ...

"I shoot pretty much everything at box speed"

"Kodak's work best at box speed because I shoot them frequently"

"I usually shoot all my color film with one stop extra exposure"

"Shot it one stop overexposed to cram more detail into it"

"I like the little extra snap of a little over exposure".

So there is no magic recipe, we have to do our own tests, and find the settings we like.

 

[Alex1994]

Can't go far wrong with box speed, after all it is what the manufacturer recommends.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

It's an important thing but really a personal preference built on experience. It's kinda like wondering if one should open that bag of hundreds from either here or here. Once you open it, the possibilities are endless. Well, you get the analogy.

Now, shoo. Go have some fun. The sun is shining. It's a beautiful hot day. Well, here in Delaware anywho.

Go on, now. I mean it.

 

[MattKing]

My $0.02 on this:

Discussion of exposure needs to be "focussed" on meters, how they work, and how to use them.

The question of whether to meter using the box speed or to use a personal EI turns on two factors:

1) whether the film being used is a typical film (like Tri-X) where the ISO and the box speed are one and the same, or a film like Neopan 1600, where the "1600" refers to a speed that is applicable to some relatively special conditions, and is different from the ISO; and
2) whether one has engaged in the procedure of testing one's metering and shooting and developing at a number of different EIs, and come to the conclusion that a particular EI works best for them.

Personally, I would avoid drawing general conclusions from a film like Neopan 1600 - it is a specialized product, and the lessons learned by using it are likely to differ from those learned from using other, more typical films.

Reading through the thread may cause the OP to wonder whether there are a whole bunch of different versions out there of various films, meters and processors. In the case of films, they are remarkably consistent. Meters and development procedures vary, but special purpose developers like Diafine or Microdol-X excepted, they don't vary as much as one might think.

What does vary a lot, is photographers, and their approach to metering. To a very great extent, choice of a personal EI is predicated on choice of a metering technique. And for a metering technique to work, and to result in predictable exposures, one needs to have a good understanding of how meters actually work.

An in camera meter can work very well if the photographer understands how the meter reads a scene, and understands how light intensities and scene reflectances and colours interact. And that understanding is what comes from experience and study.

One additional point - negative film is very forgiving, while transparency film is not.

Using an EI that is less than the "box" speed will move one's exposure more into the "forgiving" area with negative film, but that is always a compromise that may result in increased grain and loss of highlight sharpness.

With transparency film, the final results will starkly reveal any problems, but it is pretty while impossible to find any way to make them forgiving. For that reason, I recommend them highly as a learning tool, but only after gaining some basic experience with negatives first.

Two final points:

a) go out and shoot and have fun while you are doing so; and
b) make notes, and keep track of what you do, and the results. This will help you with learnin.

 

[stillsilver]

“Well, I am afraid that there is no such things as "correct E.I." When you choose to expose the film you will have to take into account a number of things. Your equipment is just the first. However, judging from your the shots you showed your lightmeter and shutter times seem to be in the ballpark. “
Eric is right.
Jean, you have to find the EI that YOU like the best. Most of the EIs you find should only be a place to start your experimentation. And again, only start out with one or two different films and learn them well. Then you will have a good understanding of what you want out of a film.

Mike

 

[markbarendt]

Discussion of exposure needs to be "focussed" on meters, how they work, and how to use them.

I agree, if you understand where to point your meter to get a reliable reading, what it is measuring, and how to interpret/translate that reading into a camera setting; you will be able to get the results you expect nearly every time.

The question of whether to meter using the box speed or to use a personal EI turns on two factors:

1) whether the film being used is a typical film (like Tri-X) where the ISO and the box speed are one and the same, or a film like Neopan 1600, where the "1600" refers to a speed that is applicable to some relatively special conditions, and is different from the ISO;

Here I disagree, The box speed is only correct when it's developed as specified for box speed and with the same chemicals at the same temperatures.

Shooting Neopan 1600 (or Delta 3200 or TMax 3200) at 1600 is normal, developing it for 1600 is normal too.

The magic of getting the shot you want though still lies in placing the exposure properly. The OP thinks the Neopan shots were too dark, that's just a placement issue not an EI issue.

and 2) whether one has engaged in the procedure of testing one's metering and shooting and developing at a number of different EIs, and come to the conclusion that a particular EI works best for them.

Exactly, what I've actually found for myself over the last year or so of playing with this, is that the EI's I like are: 1-specific to the situation (i.e. back-lit vs. front-lit, night vs. day, landscape vs. cityscape, etcetera), 2-specific to the meter I'm using (and it's idiosyncrasies), and 3-specific to my mood or intention.

I've gone back to using the box speed as my reference point and just factoring in all the variables on the fly.

 

[MattKing]

Hi Mark:

I may not have been totally clear with respect to my comment about Neopan 1600.

I was trying to stress that the "1600" in Neopan 1600 is very different than the "400" in T-Max 400, because 1600 is not the ISO speed for the film, but rather an EI that can be used when light conditions suggest under-exposure and "push" development. For that reason, I don't think it a good idea to use one's experience with Neopan 1600 (or the 3200 films) to determine how best to determine an EI for another film.

 

[markbarendt]

No problem Matt, I knew what you meant, just wanted to be practical and my hope here is just not to let Jean (the OP) off the hook.

Jean, my point is simple and born of my own mistakes.

Using an arbitrary EI is not a magic bullet capable of getting you good exposures.

Matt and others have put it well, understanding what the meter is telling you and being able to translate that into a workable camera setting is almost always the the fix.

Hi Mark:

I may not have been totally clear with respect to my comment about Neopan 1600.

I was trying to stress that the "1600" in Neopan 1600 is very different than the "400" in T-Max 400, because 1600 is not the ISO speed for the film, but rather an EI that can be used when light conditions suggest under-exposure and "push" development. For that reason, I don't think it a good idea to use one's experience with Neopan 1600 (or the 3200 films) to determine how best to determine an EI for another film.

 

[ted_smith]

Welcome to APUG. It's the finest photographic community on the net, in my view.

I like your shots. I think as one poster has already said, you're perhaps too used to looking at over saturated "photoshopped" digital nonsense. Many of us here have either always shot film, or were raised shooting film, or now shoot both film & digital.

Your Neopan shots look nice and dark where they need to be. I'd simply recommend some sharper focusing, unless you were deliberately trying to capture them slightly blurry, to go with the B&W feel? I've shot a few Neopan 1600 and ahev struggled to get shots nice and dark like that, even using my Nikon F5. Are these "pure scans" from the print or negative, or are they scans of the prints that have since been tweaked with Photoshop? I'd be intrigued to know.

I'm not that used to Velvia, but again, they look OK to me. Slide film is (as already been said) very unforgiving of incorrect metering. Read up on that subject first then use a few rolls to test, otherwise you'll be broke before you've even begun with film! "Understanding Exposure" by Peterson is a great book.

Ted

 

[pentaxuser]

If you want to stick to your camera's meter and have no choice(pity - there is a choice in fact as home developing isn't that difficult) except to have your films developed commercially then try and get hold of Carson Graves book " The Zone System for 35mm Photgraphers" It describes how to establish your own Exposure Index using nothing more complicated than your own camera's meter and a willing model wearing a textured white and black garment and carrying a 18% grey card.

Some of what he says relies on doing your own developing but in your circumstances it comes as close as any book I have read to get you to the right E.I. and how to expose accurately without expensive spot meters, densitometers etc. Secondhand copies of the book sell for silly prices on Amazon or Allibris Books.

pentaxuser

 

[borek]

Hi,Your photography - good contrast and good compositions,I like ,great for me.
I wish You GOOD LIGHT, borek