Pulling ASA 160 film?

My specialty camera store where I get my Medium Format film developed has suggested that when using ASA160 film that I meter at ASA100. She says that it will slightly overexpose but that the results will be more pleasing. Does anyone have any experience in pulling the film that way?

Graham,

C-41 is assumed here.

It's not really a pull because you are not changing the processing, it's just an intentional overexposure.

For me it gets the shadows off the "toe" a bit and in challenging light it makes color balancing easier.

My "straight prints" lean a bit pastel but the corrected prints have more shadow detail.

Ditto. Many photographers used to expose the old Kodak Vericolor Professional Film Type S by 2/3 stop to 1 stop (E.I. 100 or 80) to get better color saturation and to get the shadows up off the toe of the film a bit. I continue to follow that practice with the new Kodak films and am equally happy with the results. Actually, I'm happier, because the new films are better.

Peter Gomena

Many photographers who are shooting negative film usually overexpose the film a bit (compared to the box ISO). Without digging into the nitty-gritties of film testing, developing etc. I can say that with most neg.films I set the meter at about half the box speed for a start. This without intending any change or compensation in the developing stage. While I personally shoot mostly b/w the same rules apply regardless of b/w or color.
Also in color (C-41) underexposed shadows do look mushy and have a very non-appealing grain, so lifting the shadows up a bit really helps. Most neg. color films have a lot of latitude, so a bit of "over-exposure" doesn't hurt at all, i.e. you will not get "burnt" highlights.

//Björn

Thanks Bjorn and everyone else who has responded. The information is very helpful and educational. Until now, I never fully understood what it meant by color negative film having more latitude. For this reason, I became a paying subscriber as of last night. I can see that this website adds a lot of value. I am assuming that with chrome I should set my meter at the same ASA as the film due its not having the same degree of latitude?

One last question, what does "getting the shadows off the toe" mean? I am guessing that it refers to making the shadows more visible. I am curious as to how the term came about.

Graham_Martin said:

I am assuming that with chrome I should set my meter at the same ASA as the film due its not having the same degree of latitude?

Click to expand...

Normally yes and your metering technique needs to adjust accordingly.

Graham_Martin said:

One last question, what does "getting the shadows off the toe" mean? I am guessing that it refers to making the shadows more visible. I am curious as to how the term came about.

Click to expand...

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301939551456.pdf

This link will take you to a pdf for Delta 400, on page 6 you'll see a Characteristic Curve.

The bottom (dark) end of the curve is the toe, the top (bright) end is the shoulder.

With C-41 there are literally 3 color curves and they act independently. If one of the color curves is under-exposed the negative may have a color cast you can't fix. A little extra exposure can help solve that problem.

Yes it is about better shadow detail.

I agree with the above, that chart is very helpful for understanding.

I'll just throw in one other observation: rating a colour c41 film a lot slower than box speed (while developing for box speed) tends to move the colours more into coarser primaries... a bit like what you get with certain E6 films*. The colours become substantially less nuanced and more 'saturated.' Offhand I am not quite sure how to explain that in terms of knees and toes, but it is an effect that I have seen many times. Let's see, I think I have an example. Fuji pro s (160) rated at 100. The sky is so strongly shifted into primary blue that it almost posterizes. As a result, the area where the cloud interacts with the sky is fouled up, in my opinion... not enough blue nuances to let the cloud be its own pure white.

*Exposed and developed normally, I mean.

There is no reason why, all things being in working order, using box speed should not provide the best possible results for the average shooter in average-contrast light on most photos using the average camera meter. That is what an ISO is; the number that does exactly that. The simple fact is that if most people who metered a grey card or used an incident meter truly got better exposures downrating their film, then the ISO of the film would be lower on the box. Manufacturers are not out to make people have slightly underexposed pix all the time.

The problems come when you pull individuals out of a huge test group. Individuals who are part of the calculation of an average often fall either side of the average. Individuals also usually don't meter as well as the manufacturer. I would say that you should only downrate across the board if when grey card is metered, it is consistently underexposed when read with a densitometer, or consistently prints darker than middle grey when the film edges are manually printed to the threshold of zone 0. This would mean that you are one of the people falling on either side of the average. Additionally, I would say that you can employ downrating situation by situation if, based on an incident or grey card reading, you need a tool to lower contrast in a high contrast situation, or raise contrast in a low-contrast situation, yet still want a direct-reading exposure from your meter.

These are specific reasons that make sense, not an across-the-board easy fix for all situations. You'd do it across the board to calibrate to inconsistencies between camera meters, shutters, hand held light meters, and processing, or situation by situation in order to shift things on the characteristic curve based on the lighting conditions and the desired contrast, yet when you want to be able to read directly off your meter's scale without applying manual exposure adjustments to achieve this end.

The way the person suggested doing it, in all situations at all times, it is nothing but an ass-covering technique for those who don't know their materials, don't know how to get a good meter reading, or don't have time to do so, as even though it is not ideal, it will not "kill" negative film. It is simply a way for the employee to to give you a short and quick answer without having to explain to you the intricacies of film and metering (which I can understand, because it is something that takes some time, explanation, and experimentation/testing to understand, and it is *not* his/her job to teach you, but the job of a school, book, tutor, etc.).

In general, I would not take shooting advice from people who work at a camera store. It's not their job, they are often pressed for time, so will resort to quick rules of thumb to do the teaching, and they often really just don't know anything. Remember: They work in a camera store; don't teach photography. There are many exceptions, but how do you know how to judge that?

If you are going to overexpose in all situations, it should be for some reason other than resorting to a rule of thumb. It should be an across-the-board decision for calibration purposes, or to achieve specific goals in a specific situation, not as a general shortcut to replace knowledge of your materials.

And after reading 2F's little note, Many people who work in the specialty camera store DO know what they're talking about.
Just like determining an EI for B&W you can do the same for color.
Try this: Shoot one frame at box ISO(160) one @ 125 and one @ 100. It's not expensive to find out which example YOU prefer.
You have to remember though, opinions are like other portions of the anatomy.

2F/2F said:

Manufacturers are not out to make people have slightly underexposed pix all the time.

Click to expand...

I agree 2F but the average C-41 shooter is also normally satisfied with just getting the subject right, shadow detail be damned.

2F/2F said:

The way the person suggested doing it, in all situations at all times, it is nothing but an ass-covering technique for those who don't know their materials, don't know how to get a good meter reading...

Click to expand...

Knowing your material is very important, but so is success, and while somebody is learning a little CYA is okay.

If the OP takes all this advice with a grain of salt and experiments a bit he'll do just fine.

John Koehrer said:

And after reading 2F's little note, Many people who work in the specialty camera store DO know what they're talking about.
Just like determining an EI for B&W you can do the same for color.
Try this: Shoot one frame at box ISO(160) one @ 125 and one @ 100. It's not expensive to find out which example YOU prefer.
You have to remember though, opinions are like other portions of the anatomy.

Click to expand...

Some people do know what they are talking about. I stated this clearly in my earlier post. However, many do not. They know products, and they know specs, but they often give less than stunning technical advice. My point is simply that one cannot and should not rely on camera store employees for ones photographic education.

You absolutely determine an individual EI for color. That was the main point of what I wrote. The key word is "individual". "Blindly" downrating is *not* determining a personal working EI. I am not saying that one should not find the EI that is accurate with ones individual process. What I am saying is that not everyone's film will be exposed as well as it could be by simply downrating to a lower EI. You and I could shoot the same film from the same batch and get different working EIs. Thus, each of us would benefit from the use of a different EI, and not simply downrating our film a predetermined amount.

On the other hand however, you need to start somewhere.
And unless you already have had some experience with the stuff (which would mean you would not be starting), the only way you can do things is "blindly" (in a limited sense in which it means "without having seen or experienced it yourself". Culture - in the broaded sense - was made possible because we, as individuals, discovered that we need not exprience everything ourselves to be able to know something about things. We could, and can, make use of the first hand, or second, or third, or ... experience of others. Why, without that principle, a forum like this would make no sense at all! The answer to all questions should then have to be: "Don't ask! Find out yourself!" Or rather: the idea that you could ask something would not even exist. ).

The manufacturer puts a recommendation on the box. You can also get one of those (a recommendation) from users of what is in the box.
There's no harm in asking, and provided the collected wisdom of the users of the stuff has some truth in it (for instance because they are not all morrons ), the answer will be as valid as the thing that is printed on the box.

Technical advice should be geared to the level and interest of the picture taker.

Color negative film abhors underexposure. If you always overexpose by halving the ISO rating on the box, you will build in a safety factor to make sure you don't underexpose. And, it will not yield a "worse" picture than using the ISO on the box under any circumstances.

Manufacturers used to build this self same safety factor into their ratings on the box then abandoned the practice during their competitive speed wars.

Generally speaking for color, if you are not taking advantage of the film's dynamic range, you may as well be shooting digital.

Tom Duffy said:

. . .
Generally speaking for color, if you are not taking advantage of the film's dynamic range, you may as well be shooting digital.

Click to expand...

That's the best quote I've read in quite a while.

One of the more interesting things about C41 film is grain size change with over or under exposure.

Most people do not realise that C41 grain size is often changed with camera exposure, at least my empirical observations over the years have shown this. If you develop and print your own C41 to a strict standard, you will notice this effect, maybe not so much with mini lab processing.

I do believe that your camera shop assistant is basically correct with her advice, in this instance.

Slight over exposure of C41 film will give you a reduced grain structure. If it doesn’t actually give you a reduced grain structure, then it certainly gives that effect, especially when printing and/or doing gross enlargements.

160 designated film is not an amateur film, whether you are using the Kodak version or Fuji’s version their true speed is probably very, very close to 160. Currently I am using a Kodak 160 C41 film, it’s true speed is 160, this rating was arrived at by the use of a densitometer at a local lab.

Exposing and printing film at 160 is really great, most people would be very happy with the results, but when I expose this film very carefully, and also allowing for my shutter speed and aperture variables, the results are definitely slightly better.

I have found that giving the film a speed of 125 seems to give the best possible colour print I can do. Obviously I did some testing, as I always do and went a fair bit either way. At 100 the colour is starting to change ever so slightly, whilst at 125 it is identical to anything exposed at 160. These are my seat of the pants observations, gained from quite a few years fiddling with C41 film.

You must also understand that unless your lab is keeping their C41 bath on the money, you will get some processing variables which can make life interesting, especially if you do you own printing. However you do mention that it is a specialist store so hopefully things should be good in that department.

C41 film has possibly the best exposure latitude of any film, regarding its ability to get a more than usable result from gross exposure to gross under exposure.

Anybody who has used Ilford XP1 or XP2 film will know from the literature that you can grossly under or over expose this film, and get a more than acceptable result. Most people though know that this film with a rating of 400 is excellent, but if you rate it at a slightly lower speed, you will get finer grained film.

Ilford XP2 film is actually C41 colour negative film, but it uses only one of the colour layers.

Mick.

Tom Duffy said:

Generally speaking for color, if you are not taking advantage of the film's dynamic range, you may as well be shooting digital.

Click to expand...

Hate to say it but this is true. This problem hinges on understanding how the medium works and using it's strengths.

The most common problem I've seen across all the shooters I know is underexposure. Everybody seems to want to push every once of speed they can out of their medium.

I think most of the world just does not get (or even want to get) that a negative film is just an intermediate step or how much latitude it really has or that the 4x6's you get back with your neg's are normally just cheap digital proofs, not finished work.

The average Joe or Jane is expecting finished photos when they get their prints back from Wal-Mart. When the prints do not look any better than their buddies digital stuff, it is easy for them to be disappointed and wonder why they still shoot film. Most labs in my estimation are simply trying to compete on price not selling their real value.

The lab in the OP's case is actually trying to sell a value added product. Take the intentionally "overexposed" roll to Wal-Mart and you get proofs, take them to that the OP's lab you might just get nice prints.

Simply rating a 160 ISO film at 100 or 80, or a 400 ISO film at 250 or 200, will get the average Joe or Jane more usable exposures without any significant penalty. Once Joe and Jane understand that film rated a bit slow gets them more keepers they will start picking faster films when they need it rather than pushing the speed limit and get even more keepers.

If Joe and Jane get more keepers from film they will use more film.

2F/2F said:

Some people do know what they are talking about. I stated this clearly in my earlier post. However, many do not. They know products, and they know specs, but they often give less than stunning technical advice. My point is simply that one cannot and should not rely on camera store employees for ones photographic education.

You absolutely determine an individual EI for color. That was the main point of what I wrote. The key word is "individual". "Blindly" downrating is *not* determining a personal working EI. I am not saying that one should not find the EI that is accurate with ones individual process. What I am saying is that not everyone's film will be exposed as well as it could be by simply downrating to a lower EI. You and I could shoot the same film from the same batch and get different working EIs. Thus, each of us would benefit from the use of a different EI, and not simply downrating our film a predetermined amount.

Click to expand...

I agree with this point of view entirely, there have been some excellent posts to this thread . I think you should first shoot filmstock at the boxed speed before considering pulling it or pushing it I've been shooting Fuji Pro 160 and Kodak Portra 160 for about as long as they have made them, and am very happy with the them at I.S.O 160.
P.S Having myself managed Photographic stores for about twenty years the thought of getting ones photographic education from some of the people I have worked with in past fills me with a mixed feelings of amusement and horror, not many of them are practising photographers, and most companys are more interested in employing them for sales than photographic abilitys.

As a rule of thumb...
C41 film shares a couple over riding characteristics (especially now that there are only 2 players). It has multi layers, is tested using an international standard and has far greater exposure latitude than any other film. After some very quick testing you will find that the box speed is generally a minimum exposure; that as you add exposure to the the box speed the grain tightens, the global and local contrast improves, the useable/printable detail in the shadow improves whilst the highlight detail holds and finally and most importantly the colour fidelity is unchanged. You'll find that after you've reached half the box speed there is a point of diminishing return (there are some exceptions to this NPL a 160 film was best around 50 or 64).

It is true that people should test film and that the EI that they arrive at is going to be specific to their tools, technique and desire. For my self there isn't a colour film I currently use that is better in anyway shot at box speed (unless i want empty shadows, more grain, and weak colours) and all of the c41 materials I currently use (NC, 160s and 160c), and almost every film I've ever used in the past was superior at half box speed. Half the box speed is not a guess but based upon the rules of the testing done on all films to achieve the ISO. If your metering is good, equipment reliable, and you desire a fully exposed frame through all layers , half box speed is better than box.

YMMV, when mine has it has been the exception.

Ben and 2F you make good points and yes starting at the box rating is a good thing.

I get the impression though that the OP had already been there and done that and is looking for ideas on how to move forward.

Finding out what works individually, as you point out; is a vital step.

Like Graham, a year ago I had no clue what C-41's latitude could do for me. That latitude was a purely nebulous concept.

Before APUG, I was all wrapped up in E6 (and before that digital) and getting a everything perfect straight out of the camera (a fine idea BTW). I still shoot some E-6 but the magic of C-41's latitude, has truly seduced me, when it comes to color work.

Shooting E-6 (& digital) now fells like being put in straight jacket. This change has become a reality because I understand (better) what C-41's latitude brings to the table.

For me using C-41 is about being able to move the exposure around the curve for effect. Using C-41 is about being able to change my EI between shots, just like digital, and still getting nice printable negatives. I'm not suggesting the proofs from Wal-Mart will look perfect, just that the negatives will be very workable when I go for a final print. 400 speed C-41 films easily rival the real usable EI range of my old D200 (100-800).

Fuji claims -1 to +3 from the box rating, and I believe it, placing oneself in the middle of that latitude range by using half the box rating gets -2 to +2, that makes it real easy to get nice results in a final print.

By experimenting and using C-41's latitude wisely, I can focus my thoughts more on the composition, background, effect, and posing instead of focusing on getting within 1/3 of a stop of perfect.

My own experience - Kodak films (Vericolor and Portra) at 80 speed for the 160 rating and 200 for that rated 400. Fuji seems to work OK at the box speed of 160 or 400.

Vericolour, wow,I'd forgotten about that Frank, thats a "rave from the grave" I used to use a lot of Vericolour L in the studio with hot lights more than twenty years ago.

I use a grey card to find my working EIs, then test to find the printable detail on either side of that grey card, so I can place detail where I want it. I don't use the common b/w method of finding the zone I threshold. I have had not issues with color fidelity, high amounts of grain (in fact, I rarely get enough grain for my taste UNLESS I deliberately overexpose; I swear films are TOO GOOD now), or loss of detail in the shadows that I did not want. What I DO get upon half rating is too much density in the shadows to get a nice punchy print with rich blacks, lowered contrast, and a highlight look that I do not like.

Like b/w, each of us will have different results, and consistency of processes is key to predictability and repeatability. If you go to a mini-lab sometimes, a pro lab sometimes, and process yourself sometimes (sometimes one shot and sometimes non-replenished?), none of this matters anyhow, as you will never get repeatable results.

FWIW, I shoot fuji 160 films at 125. I shoot Kodak 160 films at box speed. (They tested somewhere in between box speed and 200, so I am OK with giving them 1/6 stop overexposure.) Both companies' VC/C versions test to the same EI on a grey card, but the VC/C versions can't capture the edges of detail from as wide a luminance range (to be expected). I shoot the Kodak 400NC at 500. Have not tested Fuji 400H or Kodak 400VC, though I think based on using it a few times that I might rate the Fuji a bit lower. When shooting anything faster, I don't really care about anything being exact, so I have not made testing for a working EI a priority.

All my testing was done using A and I and their Refrema. When I hand process, I am usually using 400 or 800 film, pushed.

OK, please bear with me on this, anyone remember FP3, HP3 etc.. I recall that emulsions used to be rated for AVERAGE exposure and then quite suddenly the trend was to rate for minimum exposure. This meant that FP3 (64 ASA) became 125 ASA, from this I was taught to expose for the shadows with negative film and the highlights with positive film. This works for me, with a hand-held meter, TTL measurement may require adjustment depending on type. Perhaps this is why counter staff recommend under-rating negative material if taking a general/average reading.

I guess I'll live with my methods until my results fail me.

jd callow said:

I guess I'll live with my methods until my results fail me.

Click to expand...

Amen to that!