School me on ISO.

[Sirius Glass]

I have for decades shot box speed, but I meter without the sky in the light readings. That means my photographs are a the least usable and not washed out. Noting that this practice adds some shadow detail. Depending on the situation is would be equivalent to shooting with the ISO reduced by 25% to 50% on the light meter and taking reading including the sky.

I do metering without the sky because I first discovered with slides that the slides sometimes got washed out or lacked color. The more I metered the subject without the sky, the better the exposures got. This is a very easy method to improve the expose, increase the number of got shots and get better color in color film and better shadows in black & white film.

 

[Mr Bill]

Very interesting backstory. Let's say I'm shooting Delta 400 in my SRT-101 and I have the camera set to box speed. What would be achieved by changing the camera setting to a lower or higher ISO than 400?

Hi, let me add a couple of points to fhis...

Bill Burk sort of skipped over one significant thing... when they did the print evaluations they were actually looking for the least amount of film exposure that gave high-quality prints. They were aiming for "just enough" exposure.

Fwiw the ISO film speed test (for negative filns) is to find a condition where the film is just barely beginning to be affected by light. So what happens when you underexpose the film? Essentially the film does not get enough exposure to record detail in the darkest areas - shadows or near-black things.

The result of printing these underexposed negatives, USING TRADITIONAL PRINTING ONTO PHOTO PAPER VIA AN ENLARGER, is difficulty in getting dark "blacks" on the print. They will tend to end up as a darkish-gray. Now, not every scene has dark shadows/blacks in it. In these cases, no problem - they'll print fine.

Let me point out, in case it's not clear, "underexposing" the film is roughly equivalent to using a higher exposure index, EI, for the film. In the case of your Delta 400, setting the camera meter to film speed = 800 is equivalent to underexposing by one f-stop.

So why would you do this? Well, one example might be shooting something in dim light, where your metered shutfter speed is so long that you will likely get too much motion blur. For example, a basketball game in a high school gym. Say that your meter gives 1/60 second exposure. From experience you may know that most shots are unacceptably blurred. But...if you can cut that exposure in half, to 1/125 second, the blur streaks are cut to half - this might be acceptable. (Note: this is equivalent to rating your Delta 400 at film speed = 800.) So... you might be willing to sacrifice shadow detail in order to minimize the motion blur.

Now, as I said before, loss of shadow detail typically means that you don't get good blacks in the print. How might you deal with this? Well, first you could try just printing darker. Presto! Good blacks. But... people's faces are probably too dark now. Another method is to print on paper that is more "contrasty," this lets you get better blacks, although detail is still missing in the shadows. But it generally looks OK, more or less. One other method is to overdevelop the film, generally called "push processing." This essentially increases contrast in the film, similar to printing on a "harder" (more contrasty) paper grade. Push processing might increase shadow detail just a little bit, and combined with a harder paper could give improved results.

Note that I'm sticking with the traditional methods - if you scan your film digitally you can do all sorts of manipulation. But I'm not gonna go there.

Now what about the opposite situation, where you meter at a lower film speed, roughly equivalent to overexposure? For b&w film I would see this mostly as a "safety measure," to protect against accidental underexposure. (In my book underexposure is, by far, the worst error.) Although some people prefer what they call "meaty," or perhaps "bullet proof" negatives - those with a lot of density. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm not one of them.

In the case of color negative film, though, there can be reasons why one might want to increase exposure beyond what the meter says. This is a more complicated situation; I'm not gonna explain that (unless you wanna know).

 

[KerrKid]

Hi, let me add a couple of points to fhis...

Bill Burk sort of skipped over one significant thing... when they did the print evaluations they were actually looking for the least amount of film exposure that gave high-quality prints. They were aiming for "just enough" exposure.

Fwiw the ISO film speed test (for negative filns) is to find a condition where the film is just barely beginning to be affected by light. So what happens when you underexpose the film? Essentially the film does not get enough exposure to record detail in the darkest areas - shadows or near-black things.

The result of printing these underexposed negatives, USING TRADITIONAL PRINTING ONTO PHOTO PAPER VIA AN ENLARGER, is difficulty in getting dark "blacks" on the print. They will tend to end up as a darkish-gray. Now, not every scene has dark shadows/blacks in it. In these cases, no problem - they'll print fine.

Let me point out, in case it's not clear, "underexposing" the film is roughly equivalent to using a higher exposure index, EI, for the film. In the case of your Delta 400, setting the camera meter to film speed = 800 is equivalent to underexposing by one f-stop.

So why would you do this? Well, one example might be shooting something in dim light, where your metered shutfter speed is so long that you will likely get too much motion blur. For example, a basketball game in a high school gym. Say that your meter gives 1/60 second exposure. From experience you may know that most shots are unacceptably blurred. But...if you can cut that exposure in half, to 1/125 second, the blur streaks are cut to half - this might be acceptable. (Note: this is equivalent to rating your Delta 400 at film speed = 800.) So... you might be willing to sacrifice shadow detail in order to minimize the motion blur.

Now, as I said before, loss of shadow detail typically means that you don't get good blacks in the print. How might you deal with this? Well, first you could try just printing darker. Presto! Good blacks. But... people's faces are probably too dark now. Another method is to print on paper that is more "contrasty," this lets you get better blacks, although detail is still missing in the shadows. But it generally looks OK, more or less. One other method is to overdevelop the film, generally called "push processing." This essentially increases contrast in the film, similar to printing on a "harder" (more contrasty) paper grade. Push processing might increase shadow detail just a little bit, and combined with a harder paper could give improved results.

Note that I'm sticking with the traditional methods - if you scan your film digitally you can do all sorts of manipulation. But I'm not gonna go there.

Now what about the opposite situation, where you meter at a lower film speed, roughly equivalent to overexposure? For b&w film I would see this mostly as a "safety measure," to protect against accidental underexposure. (In my book underexposure is, by far, the worst error.) Although some people prefer what they call "meaty," or perhaps "bullet proof" negatives - those with a lot of density. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm not one of them.

In the case of color negative film, though, there can be reasons why one might want to increase exposure beyond what the meter says. This is a more complicated situation; I'm not gonna explain that (unless you wanna know).

Very interesting and I understand what you're saying. It's been at least 40 years since I've printed on paper, dodging and burning along the way. Using an ISO of 200 for Delta 400 or another 400 film would be something I need to try. I like the idea of a safety margin and, now that you mention it, I do remember hearing something about it being better to overexpose than underexpose. We'll save the color negative film explanation for when I cross that bridge or I'll just forget it by then. Thank you for your lengthy and easy to comprehend response.

 

[Paul Howell]

A ring around can be complicated, the less complicated version is to shoot a short roll 24 exposure of your current fav film, HP5 is as good as any. In open shade, have a model with average Caucasian skin tones, (better yet is to have second model with dark skin tones as well) a swath of white cloth with texture, swath of dark cloth with texture, have the model hold a 18% gray card. Set your camera to ASA/ISO 25 meter the scene shoot a frame. Cover the lens with your hand and shoot a blank. Shoot another frame at 50, then a blank and so on until max the meter on your camera, likely 1600 or 3200 that will be 12 or 14 exposures. Have your lab develop in their standard developer and print without adjustment a 4X5 of each frame. Then look to find the negative that prints 18% gray card as zone V middle gray, your model with light skin should be zone VI, if you have a dark model she/he should zone III or IV. You ought to have texture in the white and black cloth. That negative ASA/ISO is your working or personal or E.I (different names for the same thing) ISO for your camera, film and developer combo. The more advance method is over and under develop a given personal ASA/ISO to fine tune the tones.

"I haven't shot the kentmere or foma brands, but I have used Arista. It's bargain film,"

Arista is rebranded Foma, some say that is not quite the same emulsion as Foma uses for their brand, don't know, I see no difference between the 2. Kentmere is a Harmont Tech budget film, lacks an anti halation. Kentmere is Dx coded, I use in my point and shoots as my walk around film.

 

[KerrKid]

I have for decades shot box speed, but I meter without the sky in the light readings. That means my photographs are a the least usable and not washed out. Noting that this practice adds some shadow detail. Depending on the situation is would be equivalent to shooting with the ISO reduced by 25% to 50% on the light meter and taking reading including the sky.

I do metering without the sky because I first discovered with slides that the slides sometimes got washed out or lacked color. The more I metered the subject without the sky, the better the exposures got. This is a very easy method to improve the expose, increase the number of got shots and get better color in color film and better shadows in black & white film.

This is something I read about not long ago. Metering for the shadows. Huh? I had no idea to do this, but it makes all the sense in the world. Like metering without the sky in the light readings. I learn something new every day. Thanks!

 

[jnamia]

KerrKid

do you have the ability to roll your own film with a bulk loader? If you don't it is something to consider .. you can roll short rolls of 12 exposures. photograph a handful of subjects and bracket 1 full stop ( either 1 full aperture on either side +/- of what the meter reads for "box speed" or 1 shutter speed it's effectively the same thing )
for each subject, process the film in your favorite developer 1st roll for what the chart says, and bracket the development by 30% more 1 roll and 30% less 1 roll
contact print your negatives as contact sheets or scan them and decide which you like the best and then shoot a whole roll for that personal ISO and personal development time .. I said previously ISO is determined in a lab, I know for sure I don't process like their machine, I don't use the same developer, my cameras are not well calibrated and my light meter might be off .. this way I know with my camera &c and my developer &c I know what to do. regards to shadows, if you bracket you will get used to how to develop certain scenes. a lot of people are stingy with exposures, don't' be, I mean you have spent the time to take the photograph you might as well make a few exposures to make sure you got what you needed, you can always print a negative with too much exposure, if you film is thin / not enough light on the negative, you are pretty much screwed .. for whatever it is worth, I have never exposed film at the ISO it says on the box, I have over exposed all my film by 1 full stop (negative) and under exposed my film 1 full stop if it was slide film. I'd rather have film with images on it than come back empty handed.

good luck!

 

[KerrKid]

KerrKid

do you have the ability to roll your own film with a bulk loader? If you don't it is something to consider .. you can roll short rolls of 12 exposures. photograph a handful of subjects and bracket 1 full stop ( either 1 full aperture on either side +/- of what the meter reads for "box speed" or 1 shutter speed it's effectively the same thing )
for each subject, process the film in your favorite developer 1st roll for what the chart says, and bracket the development by 30% more 1 roll and 30% less 1 roll
contact print your negatives as contact sheets or scan them and decide which you like the best and then shoot a whole roll for that personal ISO and personal development time .. I said previously ISO is determined in a lab, I know for sure I don't process like their machine, I don't use the same developer, my cameras are not well calibrated and my light meter might be off .. this way I know with my camera &c and my developer &c I know what to do. regards to shadows, if you bracket you will get used to how to develop certain scenes. a lot of people are stingy with exposures, don't' be, I mean you have spent the time to take the photograph you might as well make a few exposures to make sure you got what you needed, you can always print a negative with too much exposure, if you film is thin / not enough light on the negative, you are pretty much screwed .. for whatever it is worth, I have never exposed film at the ISO it says on the box, I have over exposed all my film by 1 full stop (negative) and under exposed my film 1 full stop if it was slide film. I'd rather have film with images on it than come back empty handed.

good luck!

I would like to roll my own film. Any suggestions for a bulk loader? I would also need film canisters that are DX coded for at least one of my cameras. I'm not developing my own film, yet, either. I have just shot about 6 rolls of b&w and color and sent them to The Darkroom for developing. I don't have a darkroom or anyplace that I could go in the house where it's dark. I need to learn how to do all this without one and get those supplies.

 

[jnamia]

hmm, I'm not going to be able to help you at all I am afraid
I really can't help you with DX coded stuff, nothing I have ever rolled for has ever needed that, so I can't help you there, a bulk loader, it depends on how "fancy" you want it, I have only used "LLOYDS" bulk loaders, they are as basic / cheapskate as you can get. others might be able to help you with ones with bells and whistles (I've never been a bells and whistles person). .. If you are using a lab to develop your film, I'd just bracket your exposures and see how the lab does. from what I hear the darkroom are fantastic so you are in good hands, you might consider asking them what they think you should rate your film ( what ISO that is ) labs know films better than all the photographers who know it all !!

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is something I read about not long ago. Metering for the shadows. Huh? I had no idea to do this, but it makes all the sense in the world. Like metering without the sky in the light readings. I learn something new every day. Thanks!

We have two different paths here and I use both but not simultaneously, together at once:

1. Meter without the sky method: Set the light meter to box speed, but I meter without the sky in the light readings. I select the composition, focus, take a reading of the composition but without the sky in the field of view, set the shutter speed and aperture, recompose, fire the shutter.
2. Zoom System method: Set the light meter to box speed, but I meter without the sky in the light readings. I select the composition, focus, take a reading of the darkest area in the composition that has shadow details that I want and set that in Zone 2, Zone 3 or Zone 4, based on that reading set the shutter speed and aperture on Zone 5 [one, two or three stops faster], recompose, fire the shutter.

 

[Mr Bill]

This is something I read about not long ago. Metering for the shadows. Huh? I had no idea to do this, but it makes all the sense in the world. Like metering without the sky in the light readings. I learn something new every day. Thanks!

You gotta understand what you're doing metering for the shadows. It's not just pointing the meter there and then use that exposure. The basic conventional meter takes a reading then gives an exposure intended to put a "mid-gray" exposure on the film. In other words, the meter "presumes" that it is pointed at something that is a mid-gray. If you point it at something much lighter or much darker then your exposure won't be correct.

What you wanna do if you meter the shadows is to have an idea in your head about how far off from mid gray you want the shadows to be. For example, perhaps I decide that some specific shadow area should be 2 f-stops darker than mid gray. So I meter that shadow, knowing that it is two stops darker than what the meter expects. So I know the indicated exposure is gonna be in error by two stops, and after taking a reading I make a 2 f-stop correction.

The people that do this sort of thing are often familiar with the Ansel Adam's Zone System, so they may look at it things by the Zone number. Loosely they will consider the exposure meter to "expect" a Zone V subject - whatever the meter sees, it will try to convert to Zone V. So they decide what Zone that scene element SHOULD be, then make the appropriate correction to the meter reading.

So it's not a simple case of just pointing your camera at a shadow area. Just be forewarned.

[Update... whoops! Sirius Glass has already responded. He's using Zone System nomenclature]

 

[Sirius Glass]

...

So it's not a simple case of just pointing your camera at a shadow area. Just be forewarned.

[Update... whoops! Sirius Glass has already responded. He's using Zone System nomenclature]

Great minds run in the same paths.

 

[wiltw]

One of the most common deviation from box speed in recent times was the standard use of EI40 rather than ISO50 for shooting Fuji Velvia. Folks just found that beneficial bump simply resulted in 'better' exposures for the characteristics of that film.

When I was shooting weddings on film 30 years ago, I used Fuji 160 and Fuji 400 color neg film, rated to EI100 and EI250 respectively, to simply avoid underexposure in the shadow areas which resulted in 'muddy' colors in the shadows. The forgiving 'over' exposure of color neg allowed the use of the slower rating without worry, while assuring me of good color even in the shadows.

 

[Paul Howell]

Your Minolta SRT 101 and later models have a compensating metering system, from Wiki

"contrast-light-compensation" and was a kind of an early Matrix metering: Two CdS-cells, placed at the front and rear end of the viewfinder prism, provide an overlapping coverage of the center-weighted light-detection area and are electronically coupled together. Therefore the metering system always detects an average of the light travelling through the lens, determined by the contrast division of the metered motive. Landscape photographs with a large area of bright sky and a smaller area of dark ground, for example, are automatically corrected by the contrast-matching "CLC"-metering system. This system works for almost every landscape-format image regardless of the metered contrast range, but requires a much more skilled usage when it comes to portrait-format images"

To learn the Zone with roll film I recommend The Zone System for 35mm Photographers by Carson Graves.

 

[KerrKid]

hmm, I'm not going to be able to help you at all I am afraid
I really can't help you with DX coded stuff, nothing I have ever rolled for has ever needed that, so I can't help you there, a bulk loader, it depends on how "fancy" you want it, I have only used "LLOYDS" bulk loaders, they are as basic / cheapskate as you can get. others might be able to help you with ones with bells and whistles (I've never been a bells and whistles person). .. If you are using a lab to develop your film, I'd just bracket your exposures and see how the lab does. from what I hear the darkroom are fantastic so you are in good hands, you might consider asking them what they think you should rate your film ( what ISO that is ) labs know films better than all the photographers who know it all !!

Ok, I can get individual rolls of DX-coded film to feed the two cameras that need that. Not a big deal.

I'll look into Lloyd's loaders.

I feel better about using The Darkroom now. From my research, they seemed to be a good choice I didn't think of asking them how to rate my film, but I will now.

Thank you!

 

[KerrKid]

You gotta understand what you're doing metering for the shadows. It's not just pointing the meter there and then use that exposure. The basic conventional meter takes a reading then gives an exposure intended to put a "mid-gray" exposure on the film. In other words, the meter "presumes" that it is pointed at something that is a mid-gray. If you point it at something much lighter or much darker then your exposure won't be correct.

What you wanna do if you meter the shadows is to have an idea in your head about how far off from mid gray you want the shadows to be. For example, perhaps I decide that some specific shadow area should be 2 f-stops darker than mid gray. So I meter that shadow, knowing that it is two stops darker than what the meter expects. So I know the indicated exposure is gonna be in error by two stops, and after taking a reading I make a 2 f-stop correction.

The people that do this sort of thing are often familiar with the Ansel Adam's Zone System, so they may look at it things by the Zone number. Loosely they will consider the exposure meter to "expect" a Zone V subject - whatever the meter sees, it will try to convert to Zone V. So they decide what Zone that scene element SHOULD be, then make the appropriate correction to the meter reading.

So it's not a simple case of just pointing your camera at a shadow area. Just be forewarned.

[Update... whoops! Sirius Glass has already responded. He's using Zone System nomenclature]

Ok, good to know, because I probably would have just pointed my camera at a shadow area. I need to look up AA's Zone System so I know what you guys are talking about.

 

[KerrKid]

Your Minolta SRT 101 and later models have a compensating metering system, from Wiki

"contrast-light-compensation" and was a kind of an early Matrix metering: Two CdS-cells, placed at the front and rear end of the viewfinder prism, provide an overlapping coverage of the center-weighted light-detection area and are electronically coupled together. Therefore the metering system always detects an average of the light travelling through the lens, determined by the contrast division of the metered motive. Landscape photographs with a large area of bright sky and a smaller area of dark ground, for example, are automatically corrected by the contrast-matching "CLC"-metering system. This system works for almost every landscape-format image regardless of the metered contrast range, but requires a much more skilled usage when it comes to portrait-format images"

To learn the Zone with roll film I recommend The Zone System for 35mm Photographers by Carson Graves.

Thank you for explaining how the metering system works. I have the 101, 201, and the X-570. I'm sure the X-570 meters differently but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. My standards were probably quite low without realizing it back in the day, but the 101 always seemed to produce good photos to my eyes. I only had the 58mm lens.

I will check out The Zone System book. Thank you for the recommendation.

 

[KerrKid]

One of the most common deviation from box speed in recent times was the standard use of EI40 rather than ISO50 for shooting Fuji Velvia. Folks just found that beneficial bump simply resulted in 'better' exposures for the characteristics of that film.

When I was shooting weddings on film 30 years ago, I used Fuji 160 and Fuji 400 color neg film, rated to EI100 and EI250 respectively, to simply avoid underexposure in the shadow areas which resulted in 'muddy' colors in the shadows. The forgiving 'over' exposure of color neg allowed the use of the slower rating without worry, while assuring me of good color even in the shadows.

Very interesting. So if I shoot HP5 at 200 ISO I would be doing much the same thing it looks like.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One of the most common deviation from box speed in recent times was the standard use of EI40 rather than ISO50 for shooting Fuji Velvia. Folks just found that beneficial bump simply resulted in 'better' exposures for the characteristics of that film.

When I was shooting weddings on film 30 years ago, I used Fuji 160 and Fuji 400 color neg film, rated to EI100 and EI250 respectively, to simply avoid underexposure in the shadow areas which resulted in 'muddy' colors in the shadows. The forgiving 'over' exposure of color neg allowed the use of the slower rating without worry, while assuring me of good color even in the shadows.

But would the bump be necessary if the user metered without the sky? I found that was the case.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One of the most common deviation from box speed in recent times was the standard use of EI40 rather than ISO50 for shooting Fuji Velvia. Folks just found that beneficial bump simply resulted in 'better' exposures for the characteristics of that film.

When I was shooting weddings on film 30 years ago, I used Fuji 160 and Fuji 400 color neg film, rated to EI100 and EI250 respectively, to simply avoid underexposure in the shadow areas which resulted in 'muddy' colors in the shadows. The forgiving 'over' exposure of color neg allowed the use of the slower rating without worry, while assuring me of good color even in the shadows.

Wouldn;t ISO40 overexpose the highlights in Velvia?

 

[Paul Howell]

Thank you for explaining how the metering system works. I have the 101, 201, and the X-570. I'm sure the X-570 meters differently but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. My standards were probably quite low without realizing it back in the day, but the 101 always seemed to produce good photos to my eyes. I only had the 58mm lens.

I will check out The Zone System book. Thank you for the recommendation.

AA's developed the Zone System for sheet film in which each exposure can be metered for the shadows, then developed for the highlights. With roll film Carson advocates for metering for the highlights. Both AA and Carson use the same 10 Zones, utilize the concept of visualization to determine how you want the final image to appear in the final print. The difference is that AA metered for the shadows, while Carson places his highlights. What I do is meter for the shadows, zone III shadows with detail then I develop the entire roll highlights to fall in zone VII highlights with detail with grade 2 paper, if I want my zone VII to fall into Zone 8 or 9 or bring down to zone IV I use multi contrast filters and paper to bump contrast up or down as visualize.

 

[KerrKid]

AA's developed the Zone System for sheet film in which each exposure can be metered for the shadows, then developed for the highlights. With roll film Carson advocates for metering for the highlights. Both AA and Carson use the same 10 Zones, utilize the concept of visualization to determine how you want the final image to appear in the final print. The difference is that AA metered for the shadows, while Carson places his highlights. What I do is meter for the shadows, zone III shadows with detail then I develop the entire roll highlights to fall in zone VII highlights with detail with grade 2 paper, if I want my zone VII to fall into Zone 8 or 9 or bring down to zone IV I use multi contrast filters and paper to bump contrast up or down as visualize.

As luck would have it, I have misplaced my Enigma machine or I would be better able to understand all this. A knowledge of the zone system referred to would help immensely. Once I learn that, I’ll be to use this as a valuable reference. Thank you!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Even with Enigma and Ultra, it takes numerous readings and time to absorb the Zone System enough to understand what I wrote. If you still have problems with this in a few days, PM me we can find a way to talk.

 

[Paul Howell]

As luck would have it, I have misplaced my Enigma machine or I would be better able to understand all this. A knowledge of the zone system referred to would help immensely. Once I learn that, I’ll be to use this as a valuable reference. Thank you!

Carson's book is a good place to start, he provides all of the basic information in a step by step approach. AA's texts can be tough sledding.

 

[KerrKid]

Even with Enigma and Ultra, it takes numerous readings and time to absorb the Zone System enough to understand what I wrote. If you still have problems with this in a few days, PM me we can find a way to talk.

Lol. I forgot about Ultra. Darn. Now I have to find two things.

 

[KerrKid]

Carson's book is a good place to start, he provides all of the basic information in a step by step approach. AA's texts can be tough sledding.

Ok, will do. I confess to being confused about this whole photography thing. I thought all you had to do is point a camera at something and mash the shutter.