Under or overexposed?

[quinnmat]

Hey everyone,

First time poster here! I've just started shooting film after finding moms old Pentax in the closet, and am absolutely loving it.

However, I'm a bit confused when it comes to over and under exposure. I'm aware that film exposure isn't like digital; underexposed doesn't mean dark, and overexposed doesn't mean too light.

I've been getting a mix of nicely exposed shots, and shots that look murky and washed out. I've spoken to two different guys at two different camera stores, one says I'm overexposing, the other says I'm underexposing.

Hope you guys can help me out here. Are the shots I'm showing here under or overexposed? I'm shooting superia 400 at 400 on a Pentax ME.


Cheers,

Quinn

See what I mean by murky? Everything looks overly faded.

The shot of my dog is what I want to achieve - the dark areas appear dark and not washed out.

Thanks In advance!

 

[Leigh B]

HI Quinn, and welcome aboard.

Yours is not a simple question, nor is there a simple answer.

The problem is there are multiple steps involved in the process.

The first is exposure of the film itself in the camera.
The second is the process of printing those negatives, most likely automatically.
The computerized printing system tries to get a "normal" print from any negative.

If you don't have full density range in the print, from good black to good white...
determining the nature of the exposure error can be difficult.

Look at the shadows. Do you see good detail there (whatever was there)?
Similarly look at the highlights (bright areas).

The aress that have no detail tell you which way the exposure error was.
If shadows lack detail, the film was underexposed.
If highlights lack detail, it was overexposed.

If they both lack detail, there may be a processing problem.
Sometimes printers don't leave the paper in the developer long enough to develop fully.
That's one way they can speed up their production run.
This is evidenced by muddy unsaturated blacks.

- Leigh

 

[Chan Tran]

The guy picture is a bit underexposed but not much. The print needs to be printed darker to look right. The hall way exposure is fine but should be printed dark.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

With color or B&W negative film, it is best to look at the negative itself to assess whether the shadows or highlights lack detail - which tells you whether it was underexposure or overexposure.

The printing step adds another layer of variability in what you may see.

 

[tedr1]

Yes, to judge exposure inspect the negative rather than the print. The almost clear areas on the negative that you can see through easily are the places that were dark in the original scene, known as the shadows. The areas on the negative that are opaque were bright in the original scene, known as highlights. A well exposed negative has very little completely clear areas. An overexposed negative has no completely clear areas, everything is opaque.

The camera probably includes an automatic exposure system, often these require a battery, if you haven't already done so replace it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

Just shoot box speed unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise. Some shoot at a lower speed and do not realize that the speed seems off because the take light readings of the sky. Some using the Zone System actually know what they are doing. Basically the film manufacturer will know more about their product and an amateur unscientifically testing will ever learn or know.

 

[pentaxuser]

It might just be me but the picture with the man in it looks to have a noticeable blue cast and while the dog picture looks OK it too has a slight blue cast around the white fur near the mouth. This may or may not affect the desired "vibrancy" required. Both pics look a little on the "cold" side and while this is just about OK for the dog the man picture loses some necessary warmth.

Does anyone else see what I see? It's just an observation on my part and I cannot say if warming up the colours will cure the OP's issues

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

hi quinn

whenever i have prints that look like that
the negative is dense and the mini lab didn't give the print enough exposure
so it looks like maybe an over exposed negative and under exposed print.
if the camera is new to you and hasnt' had a clean/adjust/lubricate ( CLA )
recently, it might be worth the $ to send i to a shop to make sure the shutter
is firing at the right speed &c .. sometimes older cameras shutters' speeds are a little off
so you think the film is being exposed at 1 / 60thS and it is like 1/30thS. a practical
way of seeing how your meter &camera&film&lab works togehter ( i am guessing you aren't
developing and printing the images yourself ) is to bracket a roll or 2 ... expose1 as the meter reads
then 1 exposer of the same subject 1 stop over, and another 1 stop under. have the lab process
the film as they normally would, and when you get your film and prints back see which ones you like the best.
then shoot a whole roll like that .. and adjust your light meter to reflect how you liked to expose your film..
have fun!
john