Exposure, Contrast and Saturation, 35mm lens

[canonetc]

Hi,

I've been achieving better contrast and saturation in color images, when using an M6 w/35mm f.2 lens, by underexposing any shot by 1/3.

With the M6, the two arrows in the viewfinder glow evenly when the camera indicates a "Good exposure". By adjusting the aperture from say, f11 to f/13 (between f/11 and f/16), my colors get richer, blacks get black, and whites are not washed out but have better detail. I leave the film rated normal.

I get the same results when using my Canonet (which has average-metering).

This may be basic stuff to most, but I'm wondering if anyone has found similar results. Of course, how the film is processed by the lab, and the final print made, is also an condition. Cheers.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Varies with the camera, film, metering technique and personal preference but yes, in the 70s a lot of pros used to set the Photomic heads on our Nikon Fs 1/3 stop fast to 'pop' the colours.

That was for slides, of course. Used to rate priint film at 1/2 the ASA/ISO.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Nikon Bob]

Used the same 1/3 less exposure with slides to pop colours with my FE2 set at -1/3 exposure compensation. With print film I always try to over expose.

Bob

 

[richard_l]

Like Bob, here's what I do to increase color saturation:

Color slide film: -1/3 stop exposure comp.
Color print film: at least +1/3 stop exposure comp.

I thought this was common practice until I saw that some people on this forum use negative exposure compensation for print film. I find it hard to believe. C-41 film is intolerant of underexposure and tends to get muddy if exposed less than the recommended EI.

If someone finds that negative exposure comp. improves the color saturation of C-41 color film, I would suspect that their equipment is drastically overexposing. The shutter speeds may be too slow or the lens diaphragm might be opening a stop or so more than indicated. In this case, "underexposing" would just bring the exposure closer to the normal range for the film, thus improving the image.

 

[stet]

ohhhh. Maybe this is why I got back washed out C-41 prints from my FLCS. I was trying to reshoot some stuff I'd sent to Walgreen's, whcih I was really happy with, and thought it could only get better with going to a "real" place. Then I got everything back, and because conditions and exposure were more or less equal, I thought something was amiss at the good ol' camera shop.

I never looked into it, but someone recently told me that Wal-Mart processes film then digitizes the negs before printing. So I thought if Walgreen's does this, and the FLCS doesn't, maybe that's another reason my colors came out different. But now I'm guessing the real reason was underexposure.

 

[Tin]

It is difficult to evaluate te results of colour negative films when processing is done by different labs, especailly those low end labs. If you go to the same lab that has consistently produced good print for you, then, you'd presumably have a better chance of experimenting with slightly differnt exposure compensation.

But for colour slide film, as well as B/W when you do your own processing, you can experiment. My standard practices are:

Colour slide 100 - set at 125.
B/W 100 - set at 64 (set at 50 for flash exposure)
Colour Neg 100 - normally set at 64. However, may set at 50 for contrasty lighting, and 80 or even 100 for flat lighting. (And of course set at 50 for flash exposure.)

However, these are jsut rules of thumb settings for me. It may differ with different cameras I use. Years ago when I had a Nikon FE and a FM, I used to set one for 125 and the other 160 for colour slide 100. I suspect that it might be due to slightly different calibrations of the exposure meters in those two cameras. Through experience, I just found that those two settings worked well for me on those two cameras.

 

[alice]

yeah, I agree with Richard, this has always been my way of setting exposures.
However, I find the metering of the MP tends to very slightly over exposed compared to my other Fuji and Nikon. So with the MP, I tend to just leave it at the recommended correct exposure.

 

[jaapv]

It all boils down to the old rule: slides-expose for the highlights; negatives- expose for the shadows.

 

[canonetc]

It all boils down to the old rule: slides-expose for the highlights; negatives- expose for the shadows.

Hey Jaapv, this is interesting. Since the M6 is center-weighted, doesn't the CW metering automatically cause the film to "expose for the shadows"?

If so, it would seem in theory that the prints will automatically come out lighter or washed out....it almost seems I need to take, say, 200 ASA and set the camera ASA setting to 225 or 250 ASA....No....? or Yes....?

Why does print film respond differently than slide film? I'm very interested to hear any technical explanation anyone has on that. Cheers!

chris

 

[jaapv]

No, the exposure is dependent on what you point your metering-device, be it the centre of your viewfinder or your meter, at.
The slidefilm will lose irrecoverable detail in the highlights and the negative film will lose details in underexposed shadows. It is basically the same thing, not enough silver crystals activated, as slidefilm will be reversed by an intermittent flash of light or a reversal bath (E-6) during exposure, turning virtual shadows into highlights. So negative film doesn't get enough detail by underexposing the shadows and slidefilm gets not enough detail in the highlights by underexposing them in the reversal process. Digital camera's behave like slide film for another reason, namely the clipping or whitening out of overexposed pixels.

 

[egpj]

After using a handheld meter for so long I just do not like the TTL. The one that is on the MP is very crude (nothing like my R9). It raises the "ART" of taking a well exposed photo to another level. However, working with a light meter is very accurate (as long as you know how to use it).