Overexposing color negative film?

[rayonline_nz]

I'm a newbie with C41 film. I have shot mainly E6 film. Often we hear about rating our film 1 stop slower to get those pastel colors, link below. Is this only for certain films like Fuji ProH 400 and maybe Kodak Portra 400? Is it also only done when it is quite bright outside? I usually use a handheld light meter and take my time to meter correctly but in saying that modern cameras like Nikon's 3D matrix metering is pretty accurate also in day-time.

https://shootitwithfilm.com/how-to-shoot-fuji-pro-400h/


I did it once with Kodak Gold 200 and I did get kinda pastel colors and the one I metered correctly was more normal colors. I took 2 frames of the same subject. Is this technique generally only done to certain film stocks and when it is brightly lit? Otherwise we shoot the film at box speed?


Thanks.

 

[btaylor]

Color negative (C41) is very tolerant of over exposure, and not so much under exposure. Many people expose 1/3- 1/2 stop to get good detail in the shadows, taking advantage of the tolerance not to blow highlights. The minor overexposure sometimes leads to slightly more saturated colors. Experiment and see what you like best.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's motheaten old advice that often doesn't work well with modern color films, which are optimized for box speed. Of course, if you just want to have some fun stretching the parameters to see what happens or for some "creative effect", have at it. But one film you need to meter as carefully as a slide film and always shoot at box speed is Ektar; it won't cooperate with any exposure "latitude" shoot-from-the-hip nonsense.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I've had quite a fair bit of work with C41 films over a 25 year period, some of that in a professional environment. Ektar 25 professional was the only C41 film that required bang on the money exposure, most others could allow a little bit of leeway, but not much. When Fuji came out with their 4 layer Reala film, things changed a little. These days that film has morphed into Superia Reala and is probably far better, but I don't know as I have little use of it, even though I have around 10-15 x 135 rolls of it in the darkroom refrigerator.

One of the main things we would do when we received a new batch of C41 film, was to quickly speed test it for a camera, lens combination. We did this by over exposing the film in 1/10 of a stop increments, then checked the film with a loupe on a light box. As you get closer to actual correct speed, the grain gets smaller and smaller, once the grain starts to increase ever so slightly, you had gone too far. In general, Kodak three layer C41 film was usually very close to box speed, maybe the worst we ever noted was possibly 1/3 of a stop away from box speed for our camera/lens system. Kodak stuff was incredibly good and consistent, the best really.

This was a very quick way of obtaining very close to correct exposure, for a given speed rating. You could be there within an hour of unwrapping a roll of film, as C41 was around 25 minutes dry to dry. You could do a speed test like this, but probably in 1/3 stop increments as your lenses would not be calibrated to 1/10 stop settings like ours were. This should get you very close to an optimum speed rating for your set-up. It will not give you a definitive film speed rating, but for all intents and purposes, it'll tell you what works best for your equipment without needing anything fancy.

Hobby C41 film stock is usually quite contrasty, (or was) while professional film stock was often much less. Most portrait C41 films, from Fuji and Kodak being very low contrast and both manufacturers portrait film stock is where you will need to dial in to get what you require.

In short, you will need to test your system to see where things are, once you know, you'll be sweet.

Mick.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Thanks for that. Here is a video that just popped up. This kinda look is it new trend or something, overexpose C41 film and keep it like that maybe do a bit of post work but generally keep that brighter muted look ......




All these Portra 160/400 and the Fuji Pro 400H / NPH are wedding / skintone film. Wouldn't some clients be complaining if they got those brighter muted colors? I would imagine they wanted more natural colors? If it was overexposed and it helped the shadows wouldn't the labs generally pull back the highlights so it was natural? I can understanding coming from a art / documentary perspective, was this a popular approach in the film days?

 

[MattKing]

I can understanding coming from a art / documentary perspective, was this a popular approach in the film days?

No!

 

[wiltw]

Back in the 1990's I shot weddings and primarily used Fuji 160 for portraiture and Fuji NPH400 for wedding/reception coverage. I derated NPH by about -1/3EV or -2/3EV, so that colors in the shadow areas did not become 'muddy' but would stay reasonably saturated in the shadows, even when I had no control over lighting. I never got complaints from customers about color presentation. I worried less while shooting portraits, as I could better control lighting...subject lighting ratios were controlled and I never had to worry about shadow area color presentation.

The general wisdom about color neg is that it could well tolerate up to -2EV underexposure, and +3EV overexposure with acceptable results and not highly visible lose of quality or color or detail. Demonstrated in multiple maganzine test reports. While I am not an expert in current emulsions, I have never heard that current emulsions are different from the films of 25-30 years ago (apart from Ektar). it is easy enough and inexpensive enough to shoot a series from -3EV to +4EV and look at prints (be sure to identify each via visible signage in the photo so you can identify photos taken beyond what is acceptable to YOU!) Shoot the overexposures in bright sun conditions, shoot the underexposures in indoor lighting conditions.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Back in the 1990's I shot weddings and primarily used Fuji 160 for portraiture and Fuji NPH400 for wedding/reception coverage. I derated NPH by about -1/3EV or -2/3EV, so that colors in the shadow areas did not become 'muddy' but would stay reasonably saturated in the shadows, even when I had no control over lighting. I never got complaints from customers about color presentation. I worried less while shooting portraits, as I could better control lighting...subject lighting ratios were controlled and I never had to worry about shadow area color presentation.

The general wisdom about color neg is that it could well tolerate up to -2EV underexposure, and +3EV overexposure with acceptable results and not highly visible lose of quality or color or detail. Demonstrated in multiple maganzine test reports. While I am not an expert in current emulsions, I have never heard that current emulsions are different from the films of 25-30 years ago (apart from Ektar).

Thanks. When you down rated your NPH they still looked pretty much the same / natural right? Did any of your images looked like the video above is this a new trend nowadays or something?

I did shoot a roll of NPH at boxed speed while it is not as saturated as some other films all the colours were natural natural and accurate. I did take a roll of Pro400H and overexposed it and also Kodak Gold 200 which I shot some frames at 100 ISO and the others at box speed 200 so I could see the difference after scanning and before any post work.

 

[wiltw]

Thanks. When you down rated your NPH they still looked pretty much the same / natural right? Did any of your images looked like the video above is this a new trend nowadays or something?

I did shoot a roll of NPH at boxed speed while it is not as saturated as some other films all the colours were natural natural and accurate. I did take a roll of Pro400H and overexposed it and also Kodak Gold 200 which I shot one at 100 ISO and the other at box speed 200 so I could see the difference after scanning and before any post work.

One of the trends in film, near the end of my coverage of weddings, was the introduction of deliberately higher color saturation films. Frankly I never used the deliberately high contrast or high saturation films...I used NPS because of its natural skintones and somewhat muted colors...draw the viewer to the subject's FACE and not to the clothing or flowers! I deliberately did a comparison of NPS vs NPH for portraiture and preferred NPS for its presentation when shooting under controlled portriature situations, vs the hip-shoot of live coverage during wedding and reception. For general shooting, the selection of emulsion based upon its ability to reproduce 'faithful color' is how I chose emulsions, both transparency and neg.

I will not comment about that video...old expired film, processed in labs of unknown processing quality...it is hard to find good labs with sufficient process control and volume of film processing now, so it is difficult to truly compare then vs. now.

 

[MattKing]

Before you consider any results from your questions about past practices, you need to also consider the past practices of labs, and the films available.
I probably used more colour negative materials during the late 70s and early 80s than any other time - various versions of Vericolour.
My lab was very good, and the quality of the prints was almost always maximized when I metered carefully, using box speed.
An over-exposed, overly pastel result would have been a failure.
If I wanted that result on a particular shot, I would have used filtration and lighting to accomplish it.
It could also have been acieved with an (expensive) custom enlargement, which would have reduced my profit margin.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Thanks all for their input. I was a bit baffled because I don't shoot much C41, preferring E6, also certainly with my school photographs I never got this look.

I will not comment about that video...old expired film, processed in labs of unknown processing quality...it is hard to find good labs with sufficient process control and volume of film processing now, so it is difficult to truly compare then vs. now.

Not just this video but I have read stuff online and even published library books. There are those who advocate buying fresh Kodak Portra 400 or Fuji 400H Pro, generally these 2 types of film and they overexpose it. There was a library book I read that the person does it professionally with weddings with a Contax 645AF system but they also shoot digital as well.

 

[Vincent Peri]

I read somewhere online that Kodak Ektar 100 color negative film requires pretty close to accurate exposures to get a good photo. Has anyone else heard this?

I shoot Ektar occasionally, but I always make sure my exposures are spot on.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I bracket medium format film normally. (+1, 0, -1). What I noticed about Portra is that color accuracy does shift even at one stop. Bracketed Portra negatives are OK to scan. But the colors aren't consistent .

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My comments in my last post refer to landscape shots. I didn't try it with portraiture.

 

[rayonline_nz]

I read somewhere online that Kodak Ektar 100 color negative film requires pretty close to accurate exposures to get a good photo. Has anyone else heard this?

I shoot Ektar occasionally, but I always make sure my exposures are spot on.

I have a roll to try the first time but here is someone who has pushed ektar 3 stops? I plan to shoot box speed and a few frames pushed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A lot of this second-hand advice is equivalent to offering you five lanes of freeway so you can drive drunken on it, with hopefully nobody else on the road. Where is the professionalism in that? Amateur films were engineered with an immense amount of latitude in them because of their intended market; and the typical results generally did look quite amateurish, with low expectations. Pushing Ektar 3 stops??? - take the first exit ramp off the freeway, because there's yet another drunk weaving all over the place on the road, if someone takes that advice. Don't push it either, though running casual tests to find out what happens is not a bad idea per se. The gent in the video doesn't claim to be an expert with this film; in fact, it's the first time he ever tried it. Since he was dealing with very low-contrast evening and early morning shots, with even the sky contrast diminished via an ND grad filter, I suspect his strategy was to undexpose the shot and then boost overall contrast and saturation using blatant plus development. Seems logical, but there's a Bridge Out Ahead sign on the road, not only with most color neg films, but especially with Ektar. My own learning curve with it was using 8x10 film, which equated to a very stiff financial penalty anytime I ignorantly or presumptuously broke the rules. If you want to tempt those rules yourself, at least be smarter than me, and try it on relatively inexpensive roll film first.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

As someone who owns a lab I can tell you that over exposing color negative film should be standard practice from box speed with most (not all) films.

There is virtually no penalty by increasing exposure 1-2 stops if need be and often even greater than that. Fuji 400H pros regularly rate it at least at 100 ISO and it looks fabulous.

Here is my quick guide:

Portra 400: 320
Portra 160: 125
Portra 800: 640
Ektar 100: 100

Fuji 400H: 100

I process hundreds of rolls a week. The film can take it. Very few people are actually carefully spot metering every exposure they make in a rigorous fashion as some forum people will tell you they do.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So what if you process ten thousand rolls of film a week? The mere fact that most of your clients don't even use meters indicates they don't give a damn about actually optimizing image quality according to how the film was originally engineered to begin with. That being said, you yourself just listed some VERY CONSERVATIVE overexposure advice which I would concur with, including Ektar at strictly box speed. If your clients followed that kind of sobriety, I'll bet much of their work would look even better. Of course, I'm speaking of objective parameters. We photographers always have and always will, bend the curve for sake of enhancing certain flaws in color reproduction, for personal esthetic or creative reasons. But it helps to know when and why. Being in the same neighborhood as when 70's photographers like Misrach indulged in the ability of color negative films like Vericolor L to produce pink mush, and knowing those lab owners quite well, I would hope that style, as interesting as it was for awhile, has been left in the dust along with other mummies of the past. It's been a cliche for a long time now; and digital can do it even uglier.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Correcting myself with new post so it's clear. The above ektar 100 is pulled 3 stops. Not pushed. Then developed normally I think.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

So what if you process ten thousand rolls of film a week? The mere fact that most of your clients don't even use meters indicates they don't give a damn about actually optimizing image quality according to how the film was originally engineered to begin with. That being said, you yourself just listed some VERY CONSERVATIVE overexposure advice which I would concur with, including Ektar at strictly box speed. If your clients followed that kind of sobriety, I'll bet much of their work would look even better. Of course, I'm speaking of objective parameters. We photographers always have and always will, bend the curve for sake of enhancing certain flaws in color reproduction, for personal esthetic or creative reasons. But it helps to know when and why. Being in the same neighborhood as when 70's photographers like Misrach indulged in the ability of color negative films like Vericolor L to produce pink mush, and knowing those lab owners quite well, I would hope that style, as interesting as it was for awhile, has been left in the dust along with other mummies of the past. It's been a cliche for a long time now; and digital can do it even uglier.

I definitely did not say that most of my clients are not using meters. I really don’t know what you’re on about or who Misrach even is. I wasn’t
born in the 70s...

My customers range from wedding professionals with Contax 645s or Pentax 67IIs, to enthusiasts who just bought their first K1000. In that case I’m merely saying that it’s totally fine to tell someone with an unsophisticated meter or understanding of metering that they can set their camera 1 or even 2 stops over when using color negative films. It just sets them up a little farther from under exposure which is a much steeper cliff toward poor outcomes.

In fact I would go so far as to say that shooting negative films at all is more about putting yourself in a range of acceptable exposures as opposed to nailing a single correct exposure. That’s more the territory of positive films. I have exposed Portra 160 at the equivalent of ISO 6 and it scanned just fine. I had to do a little bit more highlight recovery but that’s about it.

The range of acceptable exposures probably thins out a bit if you’re intending to RA4 print, but I haven’t tested it.

Canada film lab did a pretty extensive test a while back: http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

 

[Agulliver]

I think we can all agree that colour negative films aimed at consumers, especially from the introduction of "instamatic" type cameras in the 60s and C22 (later C41)......these films were manufactured intentionally with great resilience to over or under exposure because most users had cameras which were very simple. Slap in a film, point it vaguely at the subject on anything from a cloudy to sunny day and the camera might, if you're lucky, have a couple of shutter speeds or apertures. I began learning photography in the late 70s on a fully manual medium format folder when many people were still using 126 instamatics and flash cubes. Even most of the 35mm point and shoots of the day were very simple and don't get me started on 110. But that's what Kodacolor was made for, and to some extent we still have that legacy. You can take Gold and even Portra or Fuji Superia and over-expose a stop or two if you really want. Some people find the resulting small differences compared to accurate exposure pleasing, others do not. You can get away with half a stop to a stop under exposure too, at the expense of detail for sure but you get images which you can use.

I would agree that the whole concept for consumer or "amateur" use is to find an acceptable range of exposures. Newbies to film often worry about something like "My light meter (or app) says 1/125 but my vintage camera has 1/100s. Panic! Help!"....when there really is no need for panic. Unless you have stepless control of your aperture and shutter, you're always going to be finding an acceptable group of settings on any manual or semi-auto camera. And that's before we start looking into whether the preference or intention is to present the shadows or the highlights with maximum detail.

Whether you wish to deliberately over expose all the time is another matter. The general idea is that it probably does no harm in the majority of cases. Especially considering that CN film is more tolerant of over-exposure than under-exposure. However I would say that in many instances Kodak Ektar 100 does not like over exposure. It tends to overdo the red end of the spectrum, which might be something you want when photographing a flower garden but not if you're subject is a Caucasian person.

With the case of nervous newbies, I'd not specifically advise to over expose but explain that with most CN and B&W films it isn't going to ruin their photos if the exposure is off by a stop, and if in doubt over expose rather than under expose.

 

[pentaxuser]

I had difficulty following everything he said in terms of what he meant ( that's the problem with Brits - can you always trust them?) but it would seem that he was shooting at 2 stops over rather than 3 so EI 25 as opposed to EI 12.5. Certainly his pics did not seem to resemble the light conditions in which he shot and this seemed to be the case for both his dusk and dawn shots

I saw no saturation that people associate with Ektar and if you are going to try for the first time a 100 speed film like Ektar then his choice of the light conditions in which to try it, did seem strange to me

However for 2 stops over or was that 3 there appeared to be no issues per se in doing this

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

( that's the problem with Brits - can you always trust them?)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentaxuser - no issues? There wasn't a single thing objective about that so-called test. Everything in it was hokey. We don't even know if it's developed film shots he posted, or something parallel shot digitally. And of course there's no proper saturation if one is trying to squeeze juice out an orange that is nearly dry to begin with, and that was picked green. It's been said enough already - if one thinks like a total amateur and expects some kind of so-so result regardless of a degree on nonchalance and carelessness, then just buy an amateur film and have at it. But don't expect a well balanced color palette. Nor expect the excellent color balance Ektar is capable of if you treat it a sloppily itself as if it were an amateur film. You might get something, but what? Why spend the extra money?

 

[pentaxuser]

Pentaxuser - no issues? There wasn't a single thing objective about that so-called test. Everything in it was hokey. We don't even know if it's developed film shots he posted, or something parallel shot digitally. And of course there's no proper saturation if one is trying to squeeze juice out an orange that is nearly dry to begin with, and that was picked green./QUOTE]

Quite, hence my point about whether you can trust a Brit . foc has a quizzical smilie against his reproduction of a quote of mine but now he will understand, I hope. I think I began to mistrust Brits when I saw that there was a period on made-for-tv movies in the U.S. when every Brit was a villain complete with a "cockernie" accent

On a more serious note and goodness I hate serious notes, I just didn't see any issues per se with his prints of his film negatives. Not what I might have wanted as representative of dusk and dawn but each to his own.

I think he probably did make those negatives on Ektar and I have difficulty thinking of reasons why he would not have taken them as he states. In England we have people called "geezers" who are labelled that way because there may be something suspect about one or more aspects of their behaviour usually connected to their honesty but having studied a lot of geezers on British t.v. I feel that on balance he was just not enough of a "geezer" to pass the "geezer" test.

The Celtic races in the U.K.(Welsh, Irish and Scots) are free of "geezers." Not free of dishonest or suspect people, you understand, just free of the word geezer" being appropriate which brings me back to "cockcernies" as Dick Van Dyke referred to himself when he was a chimney sweep in Mary Poppins

Are we any further forward now on Ektar and over-exposure? Probably not

pentaxuser