Examples of Intentionally Overexposed 400vc and 400H

gliderbee said:
1. 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.

2. 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.
Click to expand...

Hi Stefan,

1. It will be OK with your own processing and scanning too... Anyway, for testing C-41 I prefer a lab because they have everything working well (normally...), so I ask them to write down "no corrections" and explain them what I'm looking for on the small prints... More than correcting wrong negatives, I see this as what's the best print the lab can get from both frames (N, N+1) without digitally touching saturation or contrast differently for one of the shots... Another thing you can do after your own printing, as lab prints are so cheap, is give them the negatives and ask them for prints too, to compare them with yours and check if the lab gets the same results... Consider you'll decide how to meter and shoot after those prints, so a second check is a good idea...

2. If you meter reflected light instead of incident, you can't be sure what ISO you're shooting at: if you set your camera at 160, you'll be shooting at 400, 320, 250, 200, 160, 125, 100, 80, 60, etc., depending on the light your scene reflects... Avoid all this unless you use an incident meter, because it will lead you to false conclusions...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Stefan,
If you meter reflected light instead of incident, you can't be sure what ISO you're shooting at: if you set your camera at 160, you'll be shooting at 400, 320, 250, 200, 160, 125, 100, 80, 60, etc., depending on the light your scene reflects... Avoid all this unless you use an incident meter, because it will lead you to false conclusions...
Click to expand...

That's why, with reflective metering, I often point (in the same light as my subject) to grass (if available; that's about 17% gray reflection) or my hand (in that case, +1 stop).

Stefan.
 
gliderbee said:
That's why, with reflective metering, I often point (in the same light as my subject) to grass (if available; that's about 17% gray reflection) or my hand (in that case, +1 stop).

Stefan.
Click to expand...

There are different kinds of grass... They reflect light differently depending on where the sun is and the kind of light... Your hand reflects different light depending on how you place it and the precise angle the light reaches it.

Believe me for real conclusions you'll need incident metering.

If incident meters were not the best way to meter with precision (the only one?) they wouldn't be made, and professional photography and cinematography wouldn't use them... To say it other way: all of us photographers are not a bunch of fools buying incident meters because we just never heard about metering hands or grass... If you don't have one and you care about your photography, you should get one today... Even metering a gray card with camera can give you readings from -1.5 to +1.5 depending on the angles of light and card... It's the real light reaching the scene what matters, not the reflected light.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Dear Juan,

the thread was about adjusting away from the on the box ISO, not, NOT about light metering.

So, do you accept the rated ISO as god-given or do you deviate on purpose? Never mind how you measure light. Please stay on topic.
 
Oh, but I have an incident lightmeter, a Seconic Studio Deluxe, but I do not always have it with me; it's one more thing to carry with me (but I often do).
I know the theory and practice of both reflective and incident lightmeters, rest assured, but it's not because incident lightmetering is theoretically superior, that reflective lightmetering is always wrong; it just asks for more understanding of what's happening to measure correctly.

I know your opinion is diffent (you already talked about it before), but the reflective lightmeter is what it is because in 90% of the usual objects most people take pictures of, it is correct or very nearby. That combined with the latitude of negative film usually is "good enough" for most people.
I do agree that for testing in a proper way, one needs incident lightmetering.

Juan Valdenebro said:
There are different kinds of grass... They reflect light differently depending on where the sun is and the kind of light... Your hand reflects different light depending on how you place it and the precise angle the light reaches it.

Believe me for real conclusions you'll need incident metering.

If incident meters were not the best way to meter with precision (the only one?) they wouldn't be made, and professional photography and cinematography wouldn't use them... To say it other way: all of us photographers are not a bunch of fools buying incident meters because we just never heard about metering hands or grass... If you don't have one and you care about your photography, you should get one today... Even metering a gray card with camera can give you readings from -1.5 to +1.5 depending on the angles of light and card... It's the real light reaching the scene what matters, not the reflected light.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...
 
uhligfd said:
Dear Juan,

the thread was about adjusting away from the on the box ISO, not, NOT about light metering.

So, do you accept the rated ISO as god-given or do you deviate on purpose? Never mind how you measure light. Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Hm, I think what Juan says IS relevant: after all, changing ISO on your camera is in fact "changing" the lightmeter in the camera, in the sense that you make the lightmeter more or less sensible to light (not the film: that stays the same), and the way you meter will surely have an influence on all this.
 
Alright guys. I don't care about light meters. I use an incident the majority of the time. I understand that reflective meters require a bit more understanding on the part of user, and this, in turn, effects exposure. Some discussion of this is relevant--however, it can be almost completely contained in "metering for highlights, or metering for shadows." I really see no further applications beyond this specification, because individuals have a tendency to get into tangential arguments about semantics. Let's not do this.

What I, and hopefully other people following this thread, are interested in are examples of C-41 color that has been intentionally overexposed for aesthetic purposes.

Let's see some examples with brief write-ups about technique.
Light meter tips are welcome, but only as long as they support the main topic.
 
I don't overexpose my C-41 simply because of the increase in contrast/saturation. I shoot the box speed of my 400 speed film, but I also know how my equipment works. People who are overexposing their film may simply be compensating for metering errors, lens transmission, shutter efficiency, and/or shutter accuracy.

So my question is how you would know if someone is overexposing their film, or simply compensating for a systemic problem? Especially, if the difference is only a stop. Simply an individual knowing exposures are better when increasing exposure does not mean much.
 
Last edited:
Finder said:
I don't overexpose my C-41 simply because of the increase in contrast/saturation. I shoot the box speed of my 400 speed film, but I also know how my equipment works. People who are overexposing their film may simply be compensating for metering errors, lens transmission, shutter efficiency, and/or shutter accuracy.

So my question is how you would know if someone is overexposing their film, or simply compensating for a systemic problem? Especially, if the difference is only a stop. Simply an individual knowing exposures are better when increasing exposure does not mean much.
Click to expand...


This is a semantic quandry, and the hypothetical nature of this almost renders the question moot. It's a digression.

Are you asking, 'how do we know if it was really overexposed, or if people simply believe they are overexposing their film?' Is that your question? How can anyone answer that?--especially after the fact.

Here's how you tell--did the individual knowingly shoot at an adujsted speed, and does the end product exhibit the characteristics of slightly overexposed C-41 photographs? If the answer to both is yes, then the answer to the inital question is more than likely yes.

We could better identify, and possibly critique these characteristics if more sample photos were posted.
 
Last edited:
Links to that test appeared long ago and several times here on RFF. Funny but hard to believe... As said long ago (don't remember if here or on other forum) how could a gray card be that light at N? Scanning color negative when there's a bracketing implies deciding -before scanning- which frame will be scanned as normal (hard decision!), and if the same scanning will be applied to all frames or not... That can of course lead to gross under and overexposure... I believe more in trying to get the best out of every frame instead of scanning every frame identically. The same for wet color printing: filtering every frame its own way to see what we can get from every exposure level. Look at my ISO25 image. Does it look like that test's +2? Anyone wanting the best from color negative should take the same shot at N, N+1 and N+2 and give a lab the three frames and ask them for the best possible print from every frame.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Giving color negative more light than box speed is not overexposing... The truth is that manufacturers run a film speed race, so they need to give us exaggerated box speeds... Those given for color negative are a limit where shadows start to get muddy and grainy and colors start to pale... The best rendering any color negative film can give requires way more light than box speed. And this is not just about more saturation, but about the whole image including grain, shadows, clean colors, accurate color temperature, etc... To be more precise about C-41 technology, lots of pro work use to give it way more light than box speed AND push with longer development...

Cheers,

Juan
 
love the results I get shooting portra 400 @ ASA200
3254311039_31fc07b792.jpg

3967321829_624b163b44.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom