Examples of Intentionally Overexposed 400vc and 400H

wilonstott

wilonstott

Wil O.
Local time
11:48 AM
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
453
Location
USA
View My Gallery
"Overexposed" may be the wrong terminology--or not exact rather.
I have seen some examples of fuji 400H that has been shot at 200iso (and in some cases lower). This seems to either render either saturated colors or pastels. In any case, I like the look when it's done right.

For those of you that do it, do you have any advice--"sweet spots" for instance, or lighting situations to look for, and or, avoid.

So show your c-41 shots that are intentionally overexposed, and give some tips about this technique.

Thanks a lot guys.
 
C41 in principle should be shot at half box speed, unless you want to have crappy and grainy shadows. You can probably overexpose a C41 film by 4 stops, and it will still print ok. FWIW, this is Portra 160NC shot at 80

1140589233_e5353a7b9a_b.jpg
 
"C41 in principle should be shot at half box speed"

That's interesting to know. I just got a bunch of new Ektar 100 in so I'll have to try that with a few shots.
 
Pirate said:
"C41 in principle should be shot at half box speed"

That's interesting to know. I just got a bunch of new Ektar 100 in so I'll have to try that with a few shots.
Click to expand...

If memory serves me, I've read somewhere (maybe on Rogers' site ?) that Ektar 100 behaves much like slidefilm; I just got a few rolls but did not try it yet.
Anyway, if it indeed behaves like slidefilm, maybe overexposing is not such a good idea ?

Edit: found the link: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews%20kodak%20ektar%20100.html

He advises against overexposing Ektar 100.

Stefan.
 
gliderbee said:
If memory serves me, I've read somewhere (maybe on Rogers' site ?) that Ektar 100 behaves much like slidefilm; I just got a few rolls but did not try it yet.
Anyway, if it indeed behaves like slidefilm, maybe overexposing is not such a good idea ?

Edit: found the link: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html

He advises against overexposing Ektar 100.

Stefan.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't.

He just says the film gives different saturation at different ISOs.

As mfogiel showed (and Roger said as a general comment too), +1 is the usual thing with color negative film to avoid muddy and grainy shadows. I expose all my color negative for a bit more light than +1 to get deeper color, and I don't get any magenta or any other shift, not even with Ektar.

I meter Ektar100 at 25 (incident) using a warming filter, so that's giving it near +1 1/2. Under direct sun I shoot it at 1/250 f/5.6 1/2.

At box speed Ektar is softer.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Interesting thread, I've never heard about the 1/2 box speed approach. The photos posted thus far look great. I'll try this next time I have some C41 in my Mamiya. How about traditional B&W film? Would it be better to just shoot ISO 200 film instead of ISO 400 at 200?
 
I love the Fuji H. I rate it at 250 and am always satisfied. The fourth layer works best indoors to balance out different light sources. I recently shot Kodak 400 NC indoors with a flash to brighten up faces and found that there was too much of a green cast in the background from the flourescent lights.
 

Attachments

  • 0309649-R1-056-26A.jpg
    0309649-R1-056-26A.jpg
    29.3 KB · Views: 0
400H, exposed at 200:
4390620613_84ac5c2710_z_d.jpg


800z, overexposed by about 2 stops (not by choice; this camera maxes out at 1/250 sec and f/11):

4374393801_b79e4503dc_b_d.jpg
 
pevelg said:
Interesting thread, I've never heard about the 1/2 box speed approach. The photos posted thus far look great. I'll try this next time I have some C41 in my Mamiya. How about traditional B&W film? Would it be better to just shoot ISO 200 film instead of ISO 400 at 200?
Click to expand...

The ISO we should use for any B&W film depends on the contrast we have in the scene we are photographing...

If it's a low contrast scene as on overcast days, box speed is OK (Tri-X at 400, normal development), but if the contrast is high (as on direct sun scenes where we get real dark shadows) we should change a bit the way we expose and develop: we should give the film more light so the zones in shadows don't become too dark, and because of that generous exposure, we must develop for a shorter time to avoid the brightest zones under direct sun become too exposed and without texture: under direct sun we normally expose at +1 and develop for a 20%-30% shorter time (Tri-X at 200, short development).

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
No he doesn't.

He just says the film gives different saturation at different ISOs.
Click to expand...

Hi Juan,

This is why I said Roger comments against overexposing Ektar 100:

"Think of it as the sort of negative film that you can overexpose mercilessly, and it's close enough to a disaster, because those rich and saturated colours turn garish and improbable, with something of a magenta or purple bias."

Maybe my conclusion was too strong, since he also writes: "It's incredibly rewarding if you use it properly, and quite close to a disaster if you don't. Think of it as a negative film with the latitude of slide film, and it's rewarding: depending on exposure, you can choose anything from soft, pastel colours (minimum exposure) to rich, saturated colours."

But I guess Roger will step in 😕 ?

Stefan.
 
Hi gliderbee,

Your best option is doing it for yourself:

Take a sunny scene, meter INCIDENT at 100, shoot N, and then N+1.

Then do the same with a scene without direct sun.

Ask a pro lab for those four prints, and you'll see what you can get from Ektar...

Cheers,

Juan
 
That's what I'll do (try it myself, I mean), but I will develop it myself and scan them myself.
Wouldn't a lab try to "correct" the "wrongly" exposed images ? There aren't that many pro-labs here, although I have a very good relationship with a very good local shop here, that could do the processing and printing manually the way I ask.

Because of this thread, I've just moved the ASA-dial on my Minolta CLE from 200 ASA to 160 A for plain Kodakcolor 200. Will that be enough difference or should I set it to 100 ASA (the pictures are not that important, just for testing) ? Oh, never mind, I'll just make more exposures each time, as you suggest, and keep it at 200 to start with.

Stefan.

Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi gliderbee,
Your best option is doing it for yourself:
Take a sunny scene, meter INCIDENT at 100, shoot N, and then N+1.
Then do the same with a scene without direct sun.
Ask a pro lab for those four prints, and you'll see what you can get from Ektar...
Cheers,
Juan
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
On one camera I have the same 400 film (Kodak 400 VC and Fuji 400H pro) rated at 320 ISO, on the other at 250 ISO (and on that one (MF) I often overexpose by an additional stop for detail).

No problem and both give me good results. Personal expertise, experience, desire of a "look", I guess.
 
Overexpose & commercial machine processing. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
My unscientific method: 400 speed @ 200, 160 films @ +1/3 to +2/3 stops. Ektar 100 @ 80 worked well for me. I will try Ektar @ 64 and decide which "speed" I like best. Reala 100 worked well at 100.

120 160VC @ ASA 125.

Wine+Fest+160VC004-2.jpg


Wine+Fest+160VC005-3.jpg


Wine+Fest+160VC003-1.jpg


More samples:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backroads/montgomery/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom