Which exposure is correct?

[Queticon]

This is the second roll of film I have developed and I was using it to check my Sekonic L508 Light Meter.

Lighting 2 Strobes no diffusing material 1:1 lighting ratio
Film Ilford Pan F Plus rated at 50
Shutter Speed 250 for all shots
My meter gave me a reading of f16.5 @250

Frame
5 - apature 32
6 - Apature 22
7 - Apature 16.5
8 - Apature 16
9 - Apature 11
10 - Apature 8

These are scans of the negative and only had unsharp mask and resized. no other corrections were made except by the scanning software.

the rest of the roll was a little blank a gremlin left the slide in.

On another note I used 400ml of solutions this time and as you can see had no band of discolouration. I got a little better at loading the film on the reel all though there was one part that collapsed on one below it and it did not develop that section. Its a good thing it happened on the bad frames.

Please let me know which you think is the correct exposure. I think it is either frame 8 or frame 9 is near the correct exposure. I was focusing close so I was suppose to add a stop for bellows extension.
Thank you
- Dan

 

[panastasia]

I vote for #8 as correct, but #7 looks the best on my CRT (more detail).

 

[JBrunner]

First of all, we would have to assume that the scans represent the characteristics of the negative, and not that you would print them that way, so my comments are largely subjective, and based on the appearance of the scan as a positive representation of the negative, and I am judging which neg I would choose to print, based on what I see as a negative, not that I would print it to look like the scan.

That being the case, I would choose to print neg #5, as it hold the most highlight detail, and as the background needs be dark, it offers the most control in the printing process. It would be easier to print the thinner #5 neg to put the figurine where you want it, and still hold the background down to featureless black, as I would choose to have that value, or as near to it as I could get. That is opposite of what I would usually choose in practice, and my choice reflects the values present in this particular composition.

For a different subject, I might choose a completely different exposure for the same light. There is no generic "correct" exposure in practice, unless you have a generic "correct" subject. (Like a grey card) One needs to consider the subject and intended print to arrive at the "correct-for-your-print" exposure. In the end, you are exposing for the print, not the negative.


FWIW your meter appears to be working fine, and your process is giving you good latitude, and you could probably pull a passable print from any one of these with more or less work, depending on which you chose to print.

I'm looking forward to seeing more of your work.

YMMV.

 

[Queticon]

Yes Jbrunner, I should of worded the title and the post better than trying to pin it down. That was not very bright of me cause I am asking to broad of a question with which is right with all the different variables, especially between scanning and making an actual print. I also liked #5 for making a print, cause that comes closest to what I had invisioned when I set the little budda guy up. Black bg and good detail and highlights on him and the reflection of him.

Thank you for your reply. Im stillgetting the hang of this posting in the forums thing. I am sure my post will become a little less moronic as I get the hang of it.

Dan

 

[JBrunner]

Yes Jbrunner, I should of worded the title and the post better than trying to pin it down. That was not very bright of me cause I am asking to broad of a question with which is right with all the different variables, especially between scanning and making an actual print. I also liked #5 for making a print, cause that comes closest to what I had invisioned when I set the little budda guy up. Black bg and good detail and highlights on him and the reflection of him.

Thank you for your reply. Im stillgetting the hang of this posting in the forums thing. I am sure my post will become a little less moronic as I get the hang of it.

Dan

Dude, don't be so hard on yourself

I hope my post was helpful. If I was judging them as prints, I'd pick #7 figurine with the #5 background.

 

[2F/2F]

"Which exposure is correct."

Unfortunately, we have no way of telling you this from scans.

"This is the second roll of film I have developed and I was using it to check my Sekonic L508 Light Meter."

...but that is pretty new so it should be pretty accurate! I would trust it.

"Lighting 2 Strobes no diffusing material 1:1 lighting ratio"

Just FYI: What you used is electronic flash, not "strobes". Strobes is what they are called when you fire them off like a fool. ...but even then they are really only electronic flash.

"My meter gave me a reading of f16.5 @250"

Another FYI: It gave you a reading of f/16.5, *not* f/16.5 @ '250. Shutter speed is irrelevant when all of the light comes from electronic flash (as long as it is below max synch speed). Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your shutter speed will control your exposure!

"Frame
5 - apature 32
6 - Apature 22
7 - Apature 16.5
8 - Apature 16
9 - Apature 11
10 - Apature 8"

This is PAINFUL to read! It is APERTURE. It's a noun, in English, that means "opening", both in photography and otherwise.

"These are scans of the negative and only had unsharp mask and resized. no other corrections were made except by the scanning software."

Although that sounds like it should work, scans just don't give us the info we need. What would give you what you need to know is the densitometer that is built into your scanning program, and a grey card in the frame.

"the rest of the roll was a little blank a gremlin left the slide in."

I think we have all been there on that one!

"Please let me know which you think is the correct exposure. I think it is either frame 8 or frame 9 is near the correct exposure. I was focusing close so I was suppose to add a stop for bellows extension."

Whoa...good info, but all the way at the end! We could have given you some crazy answer already if we hadn't read that far. Are you sure it was exactly one stop that you had to add? Did you measure with a measurer?

Here is what you can do: Shoot a new test with your grey card. Use diffused-reflected light to make the light as flat as possible. Take your film to a lab and ask them to use their densitometer. If they don't have one....don't ever go to that lab again, because they are hacks...and keep trying "pro" labs until you find one with a densitometer. They can tell you which exposure is good...if you have a known reference value in the frame, such as a grey card. Also, do it focused at infinity. You just need the tone of the card, and you want it with absolutely no extension factor. Bracket in 1/3 stops. TAKE NOTES. Make sure you are using the densitometer for black and white. They should have one for black and white and one for color. Pick the exposure that gives the card a density of 0.6 to 0.7. Look at your notes and figure out what aperture it was shot at. If it is what your meter said, you are good! If not, however many 1/3 stops off you are, in the future, use a film speed that will correct it by that many 1/3 speeds. This is a way to find your EI based on middle grey, which is not the standard used for finding a correct EI, but it will get you good-enough exposures for now and let you know what it is that an incident meter is really telling you, so you can learn to trust it in the future.

 

[Queticon]

Well I have been reading the forums for a few months and getting most things answered from old posts and searches. And yes both your post and panastasia's post were very helpful. I went back and looked and I should of opened up a 1/2 a stop according to the distance chart on the camera, so that would of put me at f16 which is frame 8 and that is how the scene actually looked or close to it.

Now what I should of done was changed my lighting so my bg would of shown up darker, which would of given us exactlly what you like which is figure 7 or 8 and a black bg like in #5.

All things considered these are not works of arts, but test rolls to let me develop film. Since this is only my second roll I have developed myself, I feel I am coming along and getting satisfactory results. Maybe it is time to start taking pictures again.

Thank you for all your help.

-Dan

yes I am a little hard on myself and I try not to bother the

 

[Queticon]

This is PAINFUL to read! It is APERTURE. It's a noun, in English, that means "opening", both in photography and otherwise.

Well that really sucks, atleast I am consistant with mispelling words. I know what aperture is, just had a large brain fart and did not realize my fingers had misspelled it 6 times in a row.

I tried to find one of my grey cards, but I feel I gave it to the guy that bought my old 35mm setups. the densitometer is a very good idea and I do have one in my scanning software. I will have to check a few of the labs that are still open here in town. Thank you for that idea.

 

[2F/2F]

Don't worry, I am not permanently damaged or anything. I was being facetious.

BTW, when using the f stops, you refer to them as such. For instance, f/8, f/11. Not aperture 8 or aperture 11. Aperture refers to the physical opening itself, for instance, 25mm. F stops mean focal length divided by the f number. Therefore, theoretically, f/2.0 on a 50mm lens is a diaphragm aperture of 25mm. F/2.0 will pass the same amount of light on any other lens, but the aperture will not be 25mm. On a 100mm lens it will be a 50mm aperture. On a 200mm lens it will be a 100mm aperture, etc. So you see why fast long lenses have to be so huge, but not necessarily so with shorter fast lenses.

 

[Steve Smith]

This is PAINFUL to read! It is APERTURE. It's a noun, in English, that means "opening", both in photography and otherwise.

Hmmm. Someone just as pedantic as me regarding spelling and grammar!

My vote would be for the first image (No. 5) although No. 6 looks good too.


Steve.

 

[eddym]

You can tell a lot more about negatives my making a proper contact sheet of them, rather than scanning them.

 

[removed account4]

Just FYI: What you used is electronic flash, not "strobes". Strobes is what they are called when you fire them off like a fool. ...but even then they are really only electronic flash.

sorry 2/2F,
i have a feeling you mgiht have been thinking of something else ...

strobe is short for stroboscopic flash.
a device that emits a pulse of light usually used to study the movment of
objects by making them seen still.
in the world of photography a strobe is a type of electronic flash ...

most strobes are small xenon filled cold cathode or neon tube.
when charged with electricity, they emit a pulse of light.

 

[CBG]

Congratulations on getting into processing!

A few ideas...

It's a little hard to be sure I am interpreting your shots correctly, so to get an initial test you can interpret more easily, I would urge you to use a subject that has a complete range of reflectances from white or near white down to deep shadow. I can't tell from something scanned then put up on a web site what you have started with and how it should render. But if you shoot a "still life" with a full range of reflectances, somewhat evenly lit, maybe a teeny bit flatly, it will be rather blatant if it's terribly exposed. If underexposed, you'll be weak in the shadow detail. If overexposed you will find shadows very bright, and highlights blown away.

It is maybe most telling, if you have access to a good E-6 lab, to shoot bracketed slides and see where the good slide comes from. Since the E-6 process is standardized, it takes your newly launched BW processing techniques out of the "variables" column. I'd do the E-6 thing myself to really run a meter through it's paces. The ideal is to have the meter itself be the only variable.

But your question started from the premise that you are doing BW processing as part of the test routine. So, what follows is an attempt to explain what you should do and look for when shooting and processing yourself. Forgive me, for I am going to be boring for a paragraph or so....

First off, consistency is king, where processing is concerned. Consistency is more important that raw accuracy. If you reliably agitate the same every time, and use the same dilution every time ... you can then gradually modify your routine to adjust your results. You are new at processing, so it would be unfair to you to expect perfection right off the bat. But, establish a routine and take notes until you have made processing second utterly nature. By taking notes you make yourself much more aware of what you are doing, and you are also less likely to miss a step or get steps out of order. It immediately makes you more "professional" in attitude, and you will be able to diagnose errors faster, when you have a record of what you did.

Shoot a wide bracket much as you have here, from several stops under, to several stops over. Starting at the least exposed end of the test shots, the first negative that prints up with appropriate shadow detail is a good candidate for your "winner". A workable general rule is that the least exposure that makes a good printable negative is the speed you want to use. Hopefully, printing that frame will show that the highlights are in good shape too.

You are testing not only your meter but your processing too, so bare with me here, since you will need to iron out the amount of development.
Given that you are new to this developing enterprise, you may find that you gradually want more or less development time. More time, all other things made equal by your impeccably consistent processing routine, will yield more contrast, and conversely, less development time will soften the negatives.

If your negatives are consistently flat, consider boosting the developing time a bit. Maybe use increments of 10%. Ditto, if prints are consistently too contrasty, and it's hard to contain shadow and highlight: bring the development down by increments of maybe 10%.... If the highlights can only be rendered by printing the whole thing waaaay down, killing the shadows, you can cut back on developing time.

I'm running out of time, and the readers are probably getting bored so I need to go, but hopefully all this is food for thought.

Best,

C

 

[Ed Sukach]

Don't worry, I am not permanently damaged or anything. I was being facetious.
.

"Fecetious" seem to be more appropriate?

 

[Queticon]

most strobes are small xenon filled cold cathode or neon tube.
when charged with electricity, they emit a pulse of light.

Yes, thats what I was thinking also. I have 4 JTL versalight 300 lights, which I have owned and used for several years. He had me confused on the verbage there for a minute.

It's a little hard to be sure I am interpreting your shots correctly, so to get an initial test you can interpret more easily, I would urge you to use a subject that has a complete range of reflectances from white or near white down to deep shadow. I can't tell from something scanned then put up on a web site what you have started with and how it should render. But if you shoot a "still life" with a full range of reflectances, somewhat evenly lit, maybe a teeny bit flatly, it will be rather blatant if it's terribly exposed. If underexposed, you'll be weak in the shadow detail. If overexposed you will find shadows very bright, and highlights blown away.

The background was dark blue and the figure was actually white. I thought of setting up a still life with more tones, but was not sure if I should. I will try that next time.

It is maybe most telling, if you have access to a good E-6 lab, to shoot bracketed slides and see where the good slide comes from. Since the E-6 process is standardized, it takes your newly launched BW processing techniques out of the "variables" column. I'd do the E-6 thing myself to really run a meter through it's paces. The ideal is to have the meter itself be the only variable.

I will eventually be doing most of my own E-6 processing, since most local E-6 labs have very inconsistant results. I have cried at some of the results I have gotten from them, ruining an entire roll.

First off, consistency is king, where processing is concerned. Consistency is more important that raw accuracy. If you reliably agitate the same every time, and use the same dilution every time ... you can then gradually modify your routine to adjust your results. You are new at processing, so it would be unfair to you to expect perfection right off the bat. But, establish a routine and take notes until you have made processing second utterly nature. By taking notes you make yourself much more aware of what you are doing, and you are also less likely to miss a step or get steps out of order. It immediately makes you more "professional" in attitude, and you will be able to diagnose errors faster, when you have a record of what you did.

I actually have three notebooks. One is for processing, which I keep only notes from processing in. I have nver kept such detailed notes before, so this is actually proving to be a hugh help. I also have a notebook for shooting, which has notes on lighting, film shutter speeds and ect.s while shooting the rolls. I have another that will be used for making prints. I am still trying to find an enlarger. When I find a reasonable priced enlarger I will start printing. All the advice you gave was not boring but very beneficial. Thank you for taking the time to share and help. That goes for everyone that replied.

-Dan

 

[2F/2F]

ergh... Strobe is used incorrectly as a photographic term to mean electronic flash, most often studio flash. A strobe is a light that repeats at constant intervals. Strobe in photographic terms, to apply to electronic flash, is a nickname and a misnomer. The origin of the term is said to come from that fact that once electronic flash came to be used, some shooters developed a very fast style of shooting in studio, which was reminiscent of a strobe...hence "Strobes is what they are called when you fire them off like a fool. ...but even then they are really only electronic flash." Strobes they may be called by most of the photographic community, but strobes they ain't.

 

[Ed Sukach]

A question ...

Was the metering here done in "Incident" or "Reflective" mode?

 

[Queticon]

A question ...

Was the metering here done in "Incident" or "Reflective" mode?

Incident mode.

 

[Queticon]

I want to thank everyone that replied, all your information has helped. I now remember why I never posted to a forum. I will quietly go back to watching and digging my information out from the archives.

-Dan

 

[drpsilver]

08 July 2008

Queticon:

Please do not return to the shadows and not post to APUG. There is a lot to learn here, and not everyone has and "instinct for the jugular" when replying. Do not let a few that "jumped on your case" spoil the whole forum for you. As for your question, I vote for #5, but #6 would work for me also.

To Some Who Replied to Queticon:
You should be more careful as to not "scare off" a person that is new to posting to this forum. Be kind above all.

Regards,
Darwin

 

[Ole]

The question of "correct exposure" is a difficult one, and one which tends to cause heated debates.

My suggestion is that you try to make the best prints of ALL of these that you can possibly manage - then you will most likely discover that there is no "one correct exposure" but that they all give a slightly different tonal scale. Then you can pick the one you like best, and be confident that that was the correct exposure for this subject.

I know from experience that the exposure and processing that gives me the negatives that I prefer to print would have purists verging on tears. In the opposite direction I find nothing as frustrating as trying to make a good print from a negative exposed and developed according to the manual...

 

[Queticon]

I am now beginning to see that there is a direct correlation between developing and actually making a print. I am going to have to get that enlarger very soon. Anyone got an old one collecting dust...lol J/K. I do believe that making the prints myself will give me the answers I was seeking with this post. Thank you Ole for your explination it made everyone else come together and make sense.

 

[haris]

Another FYI: It gave you a reading of f/16.5, *not* f/16.5 @ '250. Shutter speed is irrelevant when all of the light comes from electronic flash (as long as it is below max synch speed). Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your shutter speed will control your exposure!

Hmmmm... Try to expose with 1 or 10 minute shutter speed. Or, to use camera which synchronize flash with all shutter speeds, and to shoot with let say 1/8.000 s or 1/12.000 s shutter speed

Now, seriously, if you use studio flashes and keep yours shutter speeds in range of 1 s to 1/250 s you don't have to worry about shutter speed, and you control your exposure only with aperture opening if flash power is constant, or flash power changing, if keep aperture constant.

Longer than 1 second exposure can make ambient ligt to influence your photographs, and shorter than 1/250 seconds can be too fast for flash to fully light the subject. I have seen lots of older studio flashes which give speed of light about 1/125 s. If you use for example 1/1000 s as camera speed, there is danger that camera shutter will close before flash give all light to subject.

Oh, and if you think there are no cameras which can synchronize with too long or too fast shutter speed, you are wrong. There are.

And whle I am there one tip. Let say you need f32 for your photograph. And you have lower powered flashes which can give to you only light enough for f16. You do next: disconnect flashes from camera, set camera for enough shutter speed to flashes have time to fully recharge 3 times, press shutter button on camera, manually fire flashes once, leave them to fully recharge, fire them second time, recharge, fire third time. If you set camera on Bulb or Time shutter setting, close shutter. Why 3 times? Well 3 stops difference between f16 and f32. If flashes give some power and you need more, just calculate how many stops is difference from flash power and neede power, and fire flashes that many times. My Gossen SixtomatFlash meter make that calculations, so it is not something unknown for photographers.

Regards

 

[2F/2F]

"Hmmmm... Try to expose with 1 or 10 minute shutter speed. Or, to use camera which synchronize flash with all shutter speeds, and to shoot with let say 1/8.000 s or 1/12.000 s shutter speed

This is why I said "when all the light comes from electronic flash".

"Longer than 1 second exposure can make ambient ligt to influence your photographs"

You can't accurately make that statement unless you know the ISO, the aperture, and the EV of the ambient light.

"and shorter than 1/250 seconds can be too fast for flash to fully light the subject."

That statement would apply to class-M flash in every case, but not necessarily electronic flash in every case. Your particular shutter's max synch speed determines the point when flash begins to be cut off. It might be '250 and it might not be.

"I have seen lots of older studio flashes which give speed of light about 1/125 s. If you use for example 1/1000 s as camera speed, there is danger that camera shutter will close before flash give all light to subject."

Any time your shutter speed is faster than the flash's duration, this it definitely true.

"Oh, and if you think there are no cameras which can synchronize with too long or too fast shutter speed, you are wrong. There are."

In commonly available cameras, top synch speed is definitely a major feature to consider. I would say that, effectively, there are no cameras that can synchronize with "too fast" a shutter speed without some compromise, such as reduced effective GN.

 

[Ole]

Haris - from f:16 to f:32 os two stops, so you need four flashes for the same exposure. In reality you would use five flashes after wasting a lot of time and film believing that 2+2=4.