How do you set 400 ISO color film?

[kshapero]

Do you set it at 400, 320, 250, 200? or something different? I usually leave mine at 320.

 

[kshapero]

I mean: What DO you normally set 400 ISO color film at? Sorry for the misspell.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I find that I get better results giving color negative film a bit of overexposure.

 

[amateriat]

Agreed. I usually go with EI 320.

This, of course, has been a somewhat controversial subject here... 😉


- Barrett

 

[photogdave]

Slide or neg?

 

[amateriat]

Slide or neg?

In my case, at least, obviously neg. 🙂

The OP should've made this clear, of course.


- Barrett

 

[wlewisiii]

I prefer just to keep it at 400 but there are some situations where it can benifit from slight overexposure. I'm more likely to do that with 100 ISO Reala (rate it at 64 or 80) than with any 400 ISO film.

William

 

[amateriat]

I can't remember the last time I shot any colour film ... I think I'm trapped in a black and white world! 😛

I prefer the term "ensconced" in a black-and-white world, Keith. 🙂


- Barrett

 

[snip]

320 for me.

 

[kshapero]

It is my understanding that when one uses the term film they mean negs and one shoots slides they use the term slide. At least that is what my mammy taught me.

 

[Arvay]

Mr. Peterson in his book "Understanding Exposure" gives the following advice:
- +2/3 for neg
- -2/3 for slide and sensor
Once have read, I'm using this with better results.

 

[payasam]

I now use only C-41 and do not tinker with speed ratings. When I used B & W film, I developed it in Promicrol and Microphen, both of which give an increase in speed.

 

[JonasYip]

I generally use 320

 

[btgc]

100, 200, 320, and 400, too. Negative is good when served baked 🙂

 

[projectbluebird]

I usually overexpose my c-41 negatives by a full stop, I like how it saturates the color. Since my favorite is fuji 800NPZ, it makes it easier to use outside during the day.

 

[pvdhaar]

I find that despite careful metering, even when cross checking with digitial, prints from 400 ISO color neg film rated at 400 come back as if they're underexposed. And that's the same across a couple of cameras, so it's not inaccurate shutters/meters that are to blame.

It gets better when shot at 320, and better still at 250. It's as if the labs are rationing the chemicals used for processing & printing..

 

[ijohnnyz]

I usually rate it at 400 but will override and compensate on the fly with my manual cameras. When I'm using an auto everything film slr, I will consider rating 400 film anywhere from 800 to 200 depending on the situation. I don't feel 1/3 of a stop is enough to make a noticeable difference with color negative film.

 

[mh2000]

If my camera actually has an ISO setting I set it to 400 (or let the DX coding do it), but if I am guessing my exposures I tend to increase by 1-stop to cover my errors... except when I am at my handheld minimum...

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I often tend to be cynical and believe the technical people make an ISO320 film, then the marketing people 'sex it up' to ISO400.

 

[Roger Hicks]

With a spot meter: 400.

With through-lens: 250 or 320.

ISO speeds are for the most part remarkably accurate. If anything, manufacturers try to make neg film so that if there are batch-to-batch variations (which are ever smaller nowadays) then the bias is towards being a little faster than the ISO speed -- a small fraction of a stop. This allows for user error and helps to make sure they reach the stated speed. Thus, an ISO 400 film might be 420 but would rarely be 380.

It is true that ISO standards allow +/- 1/3 stop, so ISO 320 could be sold as ISO 400, but it's extremely unlikely nowadays.

Black and white, where the developer makes an enormous difference, is another matter.

Finally, I'd never heard the idea that 'film' automatically implies negative material. Both negs and trannies are film as far as I am concerned, and indeed as far as everyone I've met is concerned.

Cheers,

R.