Carmencita - How Exposure Affects Film

Everything they say is correct ... but I wish it was the other way round and film was more happy with underexposure than oerrexposure ! (or equally happy)

In practical use there are times when I would like to be able to expose handheld in low light more easily, and this would be the case more often if I was more of a people photographer rather than landscapes; but I've never felt the need to deliberately overexpose by 4-6 stops.
 
Well Kodak say film is at its best when correctly exposed.....but I'm always amazed when I've cocked up the exposure and the neg shows a faint image and Asda can get a usable picture.
 
Just keep in mind that this is negative film they're talking about. Reversal (slide) film is totally different. For one thing, there's no subsequent print step to correct things; and for another blank film from overexposure is not only possible but easy.

There are good reasons for aiming for the "correct" exposure even with negative films. Those with an historical bent might like to read up on how Kodak initially set about determining film speeds.
 
Carl Hall said:
Saw this on my Facebook news feed this morning and found it really interesting. Will definitely change the way I expose film!

I reckon this is common knowledge to the more seasoned film users, but I think it'll be useful for digital converts like myself :)

http://carmencitafilmlab.com/2015/05/how-exposure-affects-film/
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that these are intermediate results and are not what you'd get back from the lab.

The differences in the final images probably wouldn't be as stark and certainly wouldn't match what you see here.
 
Last edited:
In my experience the article is correct as far as negative film is concerned and you will not go very far wrong if you repeat the mantra as you take your exposure readings, “Expose for the darkest shadows that you want detail to appear in”. This is not necessarily the deepest shadows in the scene but the deepest shadows you want detail to appear in. This is why spot meters are so useful for negative film and the matrix type meters in cameras can lead you astray. I do not subscribe to there being such a thing as a correct exposure as such, because it all depends on what you want from the finished exposure.

If you are shooting reversal film then an incident light reading will usually get you an acceptable slide. Matrix type metering in cameras can be quite good for reversal film. Spot meters in camera can be OK for negative film, a separate handheld spot meter is better.
 
Cannyekerslike said:
In my experience the article is correct as far as negative film is concerned and you will not go very far wrong if you repeat the mantra as you take your exposure readings, “Expose for the darkest shadows that you want detail to appear in”. This is not necessarily the deepest shadows in the scene but the deepest shadows you want detail to appear in. This is why spot meters are so useful for negative film and the matrix type meters in cameras can lead you astray. I do not subscribe to there being such a thing as a correct exposure as such, because it all depends on what you want from the finished exposure.

If you are shooting reversal film then an incident light reading will usually get you an acceptable slide. Matrix type metering in cameras can be quite good for reversal film. Spot meters in camera can be OK for negative film, a separate handheld spot meter is better.
Click to expand...

Well yes but there is a difference in the best\correct exposure for the film used and the exposure you want for you personal results e,g, high key, low key etc...maybe a series of shots of say a Kodak grey card (or green grass which is near Kodak grey card) from under\over exposure would show differences like grain or colour shifts or whatever.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well yes but there is a difference in the best\correct exposure for the film used and the exposure you want for you personal results
Click to expand...

Yes quite correct there is a world of difference between what Kodak etc. suggest as a starting point and the best exposure. The best exposure is the one that will give me the negative I want that will help me produce the finished picture I am looking for. Kodak etc. cannot dictate to a photographer how she/he use the material they sell anymore than a quarry owner can dictate to a sculpture the shape to get out of a bock of stone. They both can give sensible suggestions on the use of their products as a starting point.

Look if following the manufacturers advice give people kind the negatives that make them happy then that would be the way to go for them. In my first post I was giving details of my experience taking photos as they accorded with the points made in the link in the Ops original post, I was not giving a tutorial. I thought that maybe some folks new to film might like to try them, trying to back up the points in the original article and saying that it is the way many experienced photographers work with negatives. I maybe expressed myself not very clearly.

Grey cards are OK for reversal film and digital, in my experience.

I am not going to comment on grain size because the original post was about metering for negatives and I cannot comment on grain size without bringing development of the negative and choice of developer into the discussion and that would produce several terabytes of information.
 
Cannyekerslike said:
Yes quite correct there is a world of difference between what Kodak etc. suggest as a starting point and the best exposure. The best exposure is the one that will give me the negative I want that will help me produce the finished picture I am looking for. Kodak etc. cannot dictate to a photographer how she/he use the material they sell anymore than a quarry owner can dictate to a sculpture the shape to get out of a bock of stone. They both can give sensible suggestions on the use of their products as a starting point.

Look if following the manufacturers advice give people kind the negatives that make them happy then that would be the way to go for them. In my first post I was giving details of my experience taking photos as they accorded with the points made in the link in the Ops original post, I was not giving a tutorial. I thought that maybe some folks new to film might like to try them, trying to back up the points in the original article and saying that it is the way many experienced photographers work with negatives. I maybe expressed myself not very clearly.

Grey cards are OK for reversal film and digital, in my experience.

I am not going to comment on grain size because the original post was about metering for negatives and I cannot comment on grain size without bringing development of the negative and choice of developer into the discussion and that would produce several terabytes of information.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose Kodak make\base their films on sunny 16 as when a film is made\designed it has to be to some sort of basic standard...h'mm and what part of the world is sunny 16 based on, well at a guess would suggest midway in North America.;)
 
"Also clipped highlights are literally impossible on film (straight from the scanner)."

Ok, can someone clarify for me what they think is being said here?
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
"Also clipped highlights are literally impossible on film (straight from the scanner)."

Ok, can someone clarify for me what they think is being said here?
Click to expand...

Well I thought it was a digi ver film remark in that I'm guessing, as I'm not a digi expert, that a digi camera cuts off the highlights but a scanner in theory should be able to scan from white to black...although Asda do clip which is also the normal setting on a home scanner unless you adjust the settings.
 
Woodsy said:
"Also clipped highlights are literally impossible on film (straight from the scanner)."

Ok, can someone clarify for me what they think is being said here?
Click to expand...

I took it to mean that "film will always record a deeper black with extra exposure, without any limit; and by adjusting the scanner exposure you can always retrieve details from the darkest parts". That was my understanding, although (before anyone jumps on me) I don't beleive either statement to be true.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I suppose Kodak make\base their films on sunny 16 as when a film is made\designed it has to be to some sort of basic standard...h'mm and what part of the world is sunny 16 based on, well at a guess would suggest midway in North America.;)
Click to expand...

FIlm speeds are based on the amount of light needed to produce a density a specified amount greater than base plus fog when developed in a specified standard developer for a specified time in a specified way. This can be determined in a darkroom if you have the necessary light source, and is geographically independent. That's the international standard. Kodak first assigned speeds based on practical tests in the Rochester area using daylight.
 
Last edited:
UKFL have a similar comparison on their site. I personally tend to over expose film by a stop then meter for the shadows. I always like the results I get from that :)

I may be wrong here but some film stocks seem to fair better with +1 to +3 stops over, especially the likes of Portra and Pro400H. The lab does seem to make a big difference too however in how it's delivered - quote me if I am wrong here.

Several people I know of send work to either Carmencita (mentioned above via the link) or Richard Photo Lab. Both non UK based.
 
It's annoying for me, as I work with digital and have to remember "under is better than over" and then forget that when I switch to film for fun!
 
It's actually the same rule for both. Except that digital only comes in a positive variant. It's always been "if in doubt, over expose with negative material and underexpose with positive (slide, reversal)". Over, negative; Under, positive. Mathematical precision really as we attempt to achieve a balance :D

Edit to correct switch of "under" and "over".
 
Last edited:
I have read a few things advocating overexposing colour film. Does anyone know if b&w film copes with overexposure as well as colour does?
 
^^^^^^^^

The only thing I have found with B&W,which by the way I am not a great user of,is the more you over expose the more grain you create. Well in my case.
 
Yes I think that is right too. I guess one has to take quite a different approach to b and w then.
 
I've been shooting TriX 400 at 320 and 250 for my OCOLOF, and the current roll is actually set at 400 but still in camera. I've not noticed any additional grain, nor do the negs in any sense look over-exposed.
 
StephenM said:
It's actually the same rule for both. Except that digital only comes in a positive variant. It's always been "if in doubt, over expose with negative material and underexpose with positive (slide, reversal)". Over, negative; Under, positive. Mathematical precision really as we attempt to achieve a balance :D

Edit to correct switch of "under" and "over".
Click to expand...

Edited: I understood what you meant, finally. Long day...
 
Last edited:
Carl Hall said:
Saw this on my Facebook news feed this morning and found it really interesting. Will definitely change the way I expose film!

I reckon this is common knowledge to the more seasoned film users, but I think it'll be useful for digital converts like myself :)

http://carmencitafilmlab.com/2015/05/how-exposure-affects-film/
Click to expand...
If you want to know properly about exposing film read the zone system by Ansal Adams.This article is misleading because it uses the term film.Negative film for prints is toatly different to transparency(slide film) and black and white is different again. I would also say that the term "steps" is used in the article and "stops". What I can tell you is that no way is the photo with +6 under it 6 stops over exposed. It would washed out completely.The article tries to make a simple point the long way round and is misleading. It would be just simpler to say that PRINT film has a greater latitued than digital cameras in particular digital cameras blow out highlights well before PRINT film does. All that is said in the article is based on the development of the film being exaclty the same for every exposure.To say that film has 6 stops of overexposure is utter rubbish go and try it yourself. +6 stops is going from 500th sec at f8 to 500th at f1.4 ! someone is living on another planet.LOL
 
shapeshifter said:
What I can tell you is that no way is the photo with +6 under it 6 stops over exposed. It would washed out completely.
Click to expand...

Errr... No, it wouldn't. :thinking:

shapeshifter said:
To say that film has 6 stops of overexposure is utter rubbish go and try it yourself. +6 stops is going from 500th sec at f8 to 500th at f1.4 ! someone is living on another planet.LOL
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried it, because it sure doesn't sound like it. I'm not saying that it would be the ideal exposure, but you can still get a very useable image with many colour negative films, such as Portra 400 and Fuji 400H, with six stops of overexposure.

Edit:

To back up what I've said, one of these below is two stops overexposed and the other one was accidentally five stops overexposed. Can you identify which one is which?

roll-206-9-of-24-jpg.20480

roll-206-11-of-24-jpg.20481


And below, one of these photographs was overexposed two stops and the other one was mistakenly overexposed seven stops:

roll-145-5-of-12-jpg.20482

roll-145-6-of-12-jpg.20483
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
Errr... No, it wouldn't. :thinking:



Have you ever tried it, because it sure doesn't sound like it. I'm not saying that it would be the ideal exposure, but you can still get a very useable image with many colour negative films, such as Portra 400 and Fuji 400H, with six stops of overexposure.

Edit:

To back up what I've said, one of these below is two stops overexposed and the other one was accidentally five stops overexposed. Can you identify which one is which?

roll-206-9-of-24-jpg.20480

roll-206-11-of-24-jpg.20481


And below, one of these photographs was overexposed two stops and the other one was mistakenly overexposed seven stops:

roll-145-5-of-12-jpg.20482

roll-145-6-of-12-jpg.20483
Click to expand...
I dont think you know what a stop is a stop is double the amount of light 6 stops differens = 32 x the amount of light are you sure you dont mean 1/2 stops the clicks on your lens.If you could quote the settings that would be better.
 
shapeshifter said:
I dont think you know what a stop is a stop is double the amount of light 6 stops differens = 32 x the amount of light are you sure you dont mean 1/2 stops the clicks on your lens.If you could quote the settings that would be better.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. I wasn't previously aware. :banghead:
 
skysh4rk said:
If we're going to be patronising, have you ever used colour negative film?
Click to expand...
Only for fourty years, 126,120,220,135,127,B&W ,Colour slide,positive b&w slide,inrared,colour neg.Processed in darkroom b&w slide,colour slide, colour neg,printed colour,b&w and cibachrome.
 
shapeshifter said:
If you could quote the settings that would be better.
Click to expand...

Here you go in plain English with settings included.

Right, so Fuji recommends f/16, 1/500sec. for bright sunlight at ISO 400 with Fuji 400H (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/pro_400h_datasheet.pdf). These two photographs are from bright and sunny Hong Kong, so would definitely qualify for those bright conditions.

This photo was shot at f/8, 1/500 with ISO 400 film.

roll-145-5-of-12-jpg.20482



This photo was shot at f/2.8, 1/125 with ISO 400 film.

roll-145-6-of-12-jpg.20483


I'll let you count the stops.

 
shapeshifter said:
I dont think you know what a stop is a stop is double the amount of light 6 stops differens = 32 x the amount of light .
Click to expand...

Correct each stop is double thé amount of light ( or half, as thé case mat be) so one stop is double, two stops is 4x. three stops is 8x, four stops is 16x, five stops is 32......so unless i'm mistaken, 6 stops would be 64 times thé amount of light. A considerable amount but negative film can with stand a huge amount of overexposure....colour film in particular. I overexpose all my neg film....usually by a stop or two with no problems.
Occasionally error causes overexposure by 4 or more stops but its very rare that the resulting negative is not usable.
By contrast a couple of stops underexposed can render the image useless with no or very little shadow détail.

Now 6 stops over on digital is a different matter altogether.......
 
Has anyone got a spade handy?

Or maybe a crowbar perhaps? At least something you can get some leverage on...
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
Here you go in plain English with settings included.

Right, so Fuji recommends f/16, 1/500sec. for bright sunlight at ISO 400 with Fuji 400H (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/pro_400h_datasheet.pdf). These two photographs are from bright and sunny Hong Kong, so would definitely qualify for those bright conditions.

This photo was shot at f/8, 1/500 with ISO 400 film.

roll-145-5-of-12-jpg.20482



This photo was shot at f/2.8, 1/125 with ISO 400 film.

roll-145-6-of-12-jpg.20483


I'll let you count the stops.
Click to expand...
First both photos look to expose exactly the same to me and second it is utterly impossible for the second photo to appear like it does with those settings.The first quote of f11 at 500th for iso 400 is about right for full sun.But f2.8 at 125th for iso 400 is wrong.The second photo is nearly exposed the same asthe first!
 
So, wait a minute, first you make a statement about how you disbelieve some article. Ok, fine. Someone then comes along and disagrees with you, and provides evidence. You still disagree and ask for settings. Then, when the settings come and they disagree with your almighty knowledge, you call it "wrong" and "impossible".

Hilarious.
 
Asha said:
Correct each stop is double thé amount of light ( or half, as thé case mat be) so one stop is double, two stops is 4x. three stops is 8x, four stops is 16x, five stops is 32......so unless i'm mistaken, 6 stops would be 64 times thé amount of light. A considerable amount but negative film can with stand a huge amount of overexposure....colour film in particular. I overexpose all my neg film....usually by a stop or two with no problems.
Occasionally error causes overexposure by 4 or more stops but its very rare that the resulting negative is not usable.
By contrast a couple of stops underexposed can render the image useless with no or very little shadow détail.

Now 6 stops over on digital is a different matter altogether.......
Click to expand...
I was counting the first stop as 1 so yes it would be 64 times the amount of light.There is certainly some amazing film around somewhere with that sort of latitude I am amazed that digital ever got off the ground.LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top