What's the exposure latitude of Color Neg film?

As forgiving as B&W? I heard you should overexpose it by 1 stop for better saturation? Thanks

Virtually all color film performs best when exposed as indicated by the manufacturer. Most color neg film won't bite you if you overexpose it by one or two stops.

Short answer "it depends"
Medium answer...see koraks above

Longer answer

It depends on the film and on what you're photographing. Most modern films such as Fuji Superia, Kodak Max and Kodak Portra can handle two stops over-exposure quite well and one stop under-exposure. But it will depend on the scene. Highlights might simply render as white if you over-expose on a sunny day, and if you under-expose the shadows may be black. But either way you'll get an image which can be used. Films which are based on products that have been around for a while such as Kodak Color Plus and the Lomography branded colour films may be slightly less forgiving.

What are you planning to do?

“... but it will depend on the scene.”

This is the most important part of the long, medium, and short answers. Make sure you understand if your scene is “normal/typical” or not.

In general, though... they are very forgiving. But if you want saturation buy a film that normally provides saturated color.

I've found over-exposure is much more tolerated than under-exposure. Even carefully metering, I find myself throwing in another 1/2 stop of exposure with negative film just for insurance.

BrianShaw said:

But if you want saturation buy a film that normally provides saturated color.

Click to expand...

And print on a paper that gives high saturation - think Kodak Endura.
In a hybrid workflow, the saturation issue is of course trivial. Doesn't matter what film you use as long as you know your way around scanning & photoshop.

Film stock and exposure comparison - Fuji 400H, Portra 160, Portra 400 & Portra 800 http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/
It's hard to go wrong with modern film stock.

macfred said:

Film stock and exposure comparison - Fuji 400H, Portra 160, Portra 400 & Portra 800 http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/
It's hard to go wrong with modern film stock.

Click to expand...

It's really quite amazing. Though I would like to see the results with darkroom prints and with other scanners. Sometimes I wonder if the magic of overexposure is in the film or if some of it is in the scanner, and to what extent the magic is accessible by mere mortals without lab scanners.

Grim Tuesday said:

... I would like to see the results with darkroom prints ...

Click to expand...

Same here - I guess it's more interesting for those who scan their colour negatives (I do) - I can tell my that my -mediocre- V600 scanning unit gives similar results with overexposed colour film.

Per reports in photo mags, past testing has shown that color negative can tolerate underexposure up to -2EV, and it tolerates overexposure to +3EV. The useful range is -1EV to +2EV... it gets a bit dicey with greater extremes.
It is better to overexpose than underexpose, as the colors in shadows areas can get 'muddy' with underexposure.

chip j said:

As forgiving as B&W? I heard you should overexpose it by 1 stop for better saturation? Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi, my only serious experience has been with the slow speed pro color negative films from Kodak, going back beyond a dozen years (?) ago. And being optically printed. I put some of the details in this post:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/13-stops.135840/#post-1775465

In the portrait tests we did, up through Portra 160 NC, under studio flash and optically printed onto the appropriate pro paper, there was no "color saturation" difference between an on-the-money exposure vs 1 stop over (and 3 to 4 stops over, for that matter). Now, of course the prints had to be individually hand balanced to match in order to compare, and perhaps I should point out that everything was done with very well-controlled processing, and the incident meters used were routinely factory calibrated.

Something to keep in mind is that color films basically have three different color-sensitive layers - one each to reddish, greenish, and bluish light. Under studio flash all three layers get a balanced exposure (the standard daylight-balanced films are very compatible with electronic flash). But... under non-ideal light, this won't happen; each of the three color-sensitive layer has its own speed, so to speak, under that lighting condition. And if any one of the layers is "underexposed" (lacking shadow detail) there can be color problems. And... overexposing a stop or so from the meter reading can help prevent such problems. In other words, if your lighting doesn't meet the 5500K spec (or whatever it is for the specific film) then "overexposing" gives you a safety margin (aka, a good thing to do).

I can't say for sure on any other films. And I have no idea on the quality of the scans you'll get. Personally, for important work, I'd do a preliminary test run with your lab using several exposure brackets (this means, for example, a stop under and 1 or 2 stops over). Then you see how they handle it.

I've heard that "new" Vision 3 Portra (400 and 160 ) are at least a stop better than "old" Vision 2 Portra (800, VC, NC) so it doesn't surprise me that what used to be -1 to +3 is now -1.5 to +4

Amateur color neg films were designed for a lot of "latitude" (sloppiness, lack of metering). Higher performing films, not so. Many color neg films are relatively low contrast with portraiture and skin tones in mind; others, like Ektar need the same care in metering as slide films. Anyone who throws around antique generic advice like overexposing the film below box speed is apparently unfamiliar with how some of these more modern films behave. Overexposing can often ruin color reproduction. It all depends on the specifics. ANY generic answer is therefore inherently wrong. If lighting color balance is significantly out of whack, correctly filter for it. Overexposure can come with a substantial penalty to hue quality which can be difficult or impossible to correct afterwards. Yeah, yeah, I know... Someone's gonna say they can turn lead into gold in Photoshop; but why does their "gold" always look like bubble gum?

DREW WILEY said:

Amateur color neg films were designed for a lot of "latitude" (sloppiness, lack of metering). Higher performing films, not so

Click to expand...

Going to have to disagree here. 'Pro' C41 like Ektar, Portra 160/400, Fuji Pro 160/400h can tolerate overexposure AND crucially underexposure. Portra 400 in particular is amazing for the amount of under exposure it can tolerate.
Consumer C41 can tolerate over exposure as much as the 'Pro' films; but not under exposure. Always best to give consumer C41 a bit more light to avoid possible under exposure

Argue all you want. I'm tired of explaining this stuff over and over. If you want optimal results, take my advice. If you don't give a damn, proceed accordingly. The mere fact you lump Ektar in the same category as Portra or Fuji Pro films shows you don't know what you're talking about. The dye curves are quite dissimilar. But I'm not a "consumer". I'm someone with a roll of RA4 paper behind me that cost a thousand bucks, and I expect my prints to be worthy of it.

koraks said:

Virtually all color film performs best when exposed as indicated by the manufacturer. Most color neg film won't bite you if you overexpose it by one or two stops.

Click to expand...

But there is no real need to over expose by one or two stops since the modern color negative film has such a wide latitude.

One cannot always be sure that a meter, meter calibration, metering technique, apertures or shutter speeds are always performing correctly. Therefore adding a stop of additional exposure to a textbook negative exposure will help insure that you don't err on the side of underexposure, which as we know is not so good; a little overexposure is absolutely harmless. Over the years I occasionally got a slightly thin negative until I began adding a stop and the problem went away. YMMV

I used c-41 for years. In AE. From P&S to EOS 3. I have no idea who came with with one stop something idea. They must have really crappy camera or something else is not OK. Like developer they used or how they or else developed it.

I also shoot C-41, ECN2, E6 and BW by S16. I guess, it is more on the shooter, not on the film side .

Ko.Fe. said:

I used c-41 for years. In AE. From P&S to EOS 3. I have no idea who came with with one stop something idea. They must have really crappy camera or something else is not OK. Like developer they used or how they or else developed it.

I also shoot C-41, ECN2, E6 and BW by S16. I guess, it is more on the shooter, not on the film side .

Click to expand...

Someone whose equipment was out of calibration and too cheap or lazy to have the camera or light meter calibrated. Then they mouthed off to everyone that the film manufacturer does not know $#!+ about ISO and setting box speed.

An ISO 160 color film such as Portra is good from about 50 to 400. It is usable from about 25 to 800.

I shoot a 160 film at 100 and a 400 film at 320.

PE

Try that latitude nonsense with relatively high contrast Ektar. Bellyflop. It has just a little more range than some chrome films like Astia before color problems set it.

Drew, high contrast is not all bad. You just have less of the latitude I described above. And, I have seen Ektar at low contrast in a slight "pull" process that looks pretty nice.

Gold also may have similar problems.

I suggest trying but not giving up!

PE

Hi Ron. I'm getting some of the best color prints of my life from Ektar, bettered only by Portra 160 contact internegs from 8x10 chrome films (masked of course). Exceptional hue accuracy IF it's tightly exposed and color temp balanced. The cyan contamination of blue is still an issue they could improve, but less annoying than the old Ektar 25.

Drew, IMHO, there is a minor flaw in the new Ektar design. But still, it is pretty good. The old Ektar was seriously flawed, again IMHO.

PE

Well, this might sound like heresy, but I just printed an exceptional interneg made on Ektar (not Portra), where I wanted the blue curve to shoulder off into cyan in order to achieve a rich turquoise in the higher values. The original was a full-range 8x10 chrome; so I had to mask the hell out of it, including highlight masking, to squeeze the full range onto the predictable section of Ektar. But doing good internegs from Velvia, now that is tricky! It's not just a contrast issue, but the dyes seem incompatible.