Forest_rain
Well-known
I've seen an article that said that you can go up to 6 stops or so of overexposure without any damage to the image after it's scanned.
I've been using the "sunny 16" rule, using 100 ISO film setting 1/250th of a second at F11, I think this is correct.
However sometimes in sunlight I want to get a shallow depth of field, can I lower my aperture to F4.5 or F2.8, and use shutter speed 1/300th, or 1/500th, or will the image turn out badly?
I guess I'll see how my pictures turn out, but I'd like some feedback.
Do shadows turn out better defined if the exposure is set correctly, or if a higher F-stop is used? I think I read something about that.
Sorry if this question seems newbie-like, but I'm trying to get a better understanding.
I've been using the "sunny 16" rule, using 100 ISO film setting 1/250th of a second at F11, I think this is correct.
However sometimes in sunlight I want to get a shallow depth of field, can I lower my aperture to F4.5 or F2.8, and use shutter speed 1/300th, or 1/500th, or will the image turn out badly?
I guess I'll see how my pictures turn out, but I'd like some feedback.
Do shadows turn out better defined if the exposure is set correctly, or if a higher F-stop is used? I think I read something about that.
Sorry if this question seems newbie-like, but I'm trying to get a better understanding.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I over expose one stop always, and I made a mistake recently with a 3.5 stop over exposure. I looked normal after a scan and digital editing.
peterm1
Veteran
Are you scanning the negative rather than a print? I presume so of course as this gives best latitude for obvious reasons. Even so, and even with the best scanning software, I would be extremely surprised if you could recover highlights over exposed to the tune of 6 stops. It's an awful lot. I have given up on film and scanning now so there will be others who still scan negatives who will comment more authoritatively.
I do suspect that if someone is referring to 6 stops what they may be getting at is not that you can over expose by 6 stops but rather that a given film might tolerate (say) three stops under to three stops over. i.e. The 6 stops referred to is a reference to the entire range of potential under and over exposure that might be tolerated. Even so this seems a a bit too much to me as usually a color negative film copes with under exposure less well than over exposure. It also depends on how even the lighting is, as well as other factors (fast film seems to have a wider exposure latitude I believe). Moreover I do not know how this is likely to "play out" when using a scanner which itself might not be able to capture the full range of exposure values implied by the above, depending upon the optical characteristics and software capabilities of the equipment used in scanning.
This graph illustrates the point - though it refers to "radiographic film" the principle is the same - there is a range of acceptable exposures below which a film will be under exposed and above which it will be over exposed.
Here's a thought....if you want shallow DOF why not take a neutral density filter with you and use it when you are tempted to shoot wide open. That way you will not over expose so much when you do open up the aperture.
Also here is an article on exposure latitude in print film which may help. http://www.basiccameraphotography.com/film_photography/exposure_latitude.php
I do suspect that if someone is referring to 6 stops what they may be getting at is not that you can over expose by 6 stops but rather that a given film might tolerate (say) three stops under to three stops over. i.e. The 6 stops referred to is a reference to the entire range of potential under and over exposure that might be tolerated. Even so this seems a a bit too much to me as usually a color negative film copes with under exposure less well than over exposure. It also depends on how even the lighting is, as well as other factors (fast film seems to have a wider exposure latitude I believe). Moreover I do not know how this is likely to "play out" when using a scanner which itself might not be able to capture the full range of exposure values implied by the above, depending upon the optical characteristics and software capabilities of the equipment used in scanning.
This graph illustrates the point - though it refers to "radiographic film" the principle is the same - there is a range of acceptable exposures below which a film will be under exposed and above which it will be over exposed.
Here's a thought....if you want shallow DOF why not take a neutral density filter with you and use it when you are tempted to shoot wide open. That way you will not over expose so much when you do open up the aperture.
Also here is an article on exposure latitude in print film which may help. http://www.basiccameraphotography.com/film_photography/exposure_latitude.php
sreed2006
Well-known
Take peterm1's graph to heart. You want most of the subject to fall within the Dynamic Range. In the Under Exposed area, very different shadow areas all have the same color on the negative - there is no differentiation. The same applies to the Over Exposed part of the curve. Object brighter than the upper part of the Dynamic Range will all look the same, even when they are different brightnesses.
My recommendation - spend a few bucks on a test roll of film. Under expose, correctly expose, and over expose known subjects. Get the roll printed. Then you will see what happens, and why getting the correct exposure is worth aiming for.
My recommendation - spend a few bucks on a test roll of film. Under expose, correctly expose, and over expose known subjects. Get the roll printed. Then you will see what happens, and why getting the correct exposure is worth aiming for.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The sunny 16 idea is a bit crude and relies on a lot of fudge and so on, PhotoShop helps but it's really like not using the brakes because you are a panel beater...
Just to make the point, sunny in December and January is nothing like sunny in June and July; there's a difference of a couple of stops. Trouble is, 1, film is fairly tolerant (the DX code will show how much as will the maker's technical notes) and 2, scanning and then repairing in editors can cover a multitude of sins.
If you want to learn about exposure then there's a lot published and one or two clever devices to make it easy for you. Try this website and you'll see a simple device you can print and make:-
http://www.squit.co.uk/photo/exposurecalc.html
and this one is interesting:-
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
In the years just after the war a few clever gadgets were made to simplify it all. They often appear on ebay and so on for pennies. The best is "Johnson Standard Exposure Calculator" which is really a sunny 16 calculator and was based on thousands of measurements of the light and so. You need to know just one thing to use them (after RTFM) but this is my figure based on my experience playing with one. It's "BSI 34°" is ASA or ISO 200 and 31° is 100 ASA/ISO. (Film speeds were standardised several times and that brings it up to date.)
You might also like this:-
https://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen/image/52955921/original
The important point about calculators is that they soon show you how the light varies and you soon get to know what the answer will be and can do away with them and behave like a1940's pro and judge the light just by experience and (optional) sneer at amateurs with exposure meters.
Regards, David
The sunny 16 idea is a bit crude and relies on a lot of fudge and so on, PhotoShop helps but it's really like not using the brakes because you are a panel beater...
Just to make the point, sunny in December and January is nothing like sunny in June and July; there's a difference of a couple of stops. Trouble is, 1, film is fairly tolerant (the DX code will show how much as will the maker's technical notes) and 2, scanning and then repairing in editors can cover a multitude of sins.
If you want to learn about exposure then there's a lot published and one or two clever devices to make it easy for you. Try this website and you'll see a simple device you can print and make:-
http://www.squit.co.uk/photo/exposurecalc.html
and this one is interesting:-
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
In the years just after the war a few clever gadgets were made to simplify it all. They often appear on ebay and so on for pennies. The best is "Johnson Standard Exposure Calculator" which is really a sunny 16 calculator and was based on thousands of measurements of the light and so. You need to know just one thing to use them (after RTFM) but this is my figure based on my experience playing with one. It's "BSI 34°" is ASA or ISO 200 and 31° is 100 ASA/ISO. (Film speeds were standardised several times and that brings it up to date.)
You might also like this:-
https://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen/image/52955921/original
The important point about calculators is that they soon show you how the light varies and you soon get to know what the answer will be and can do away with them and behave like a1940's pro and judge the light just by experience and (optional) sneer at amateurs with exposure meters.
Regards, David
Last edited:
seany65
Well-known
@jsrockit: Sorry to butt in here, I think you'v misread the OP's post. The OP wants to go from f11 to f4.5 or f2.8 but with a correspondingly faster shutter speed. Going from f11 to f4.5 will reduce Depth of Field.
Anyway, I think the Sunny 16 rule says we're supposed to start off with the shutter speed closest to our film speed, eg. for 100 ISO we should set 1/125th and whatever fNo. the light says to use.
Anyway, I think the Sunny 16 rule says we're supposed to start off with the shutter speed closest to our film speed, eg. for 100 ISO we should set 1/125th and whatever fNo. the light says to use.
Swift1
Veteran
This depends very much on the film your using. If you're using slide film, then no I wouldn't recommend doing it.
If you're using C-41 film, then yes. I used to shoot f/2.8 and 1/500 with Ektar in full summer sun if and when I wanted the shallower depth of field.
It isn't optimal and you will get some color shift, but it should work fine.
It appears I did...the fact that it was way too early in the morning to be posting may have threw me off.
chipgreenberg
Well-known
This. Colton beat me to it!
I've been shooting Portra 400 in 120wide open with a top speed of 1/500 and never lose my highlights exposing for shadows. I let the highlights fall where they will.
I've been shooting Portra 400 in 120wide open with a top speed of 1/500 and never lose my highlights exposing for shadows. I let the highlights fall where they will.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Exposure can be a tricky subject.
I’m a simpleton; this is how I think about exposure. I tend to lean on a little bit of over exposure with negative film. And I look at under exposing transparency film as well as digital capture.
I develop my own black and white film. Only use black and white film any more. No color film. I can adjust the film developing to get to what I want. I do still have an analog darkroom where I can achieve what I want with making prints of my negatives. Since I own a few digital cameras, I don’t scan any of my negatives.
Lots of items to consider that make photography interesting!
For me, all color is digital. I capture using camera RAW. I use the histogram on the camera for correct exposure as what I see on the LCD screen on camera doesn’t always give a true indication of the RAW file. I can adjust using Bridge. I don’t do any in house color printing.
I’ll throw this out. I strive making photographs that capture what the scene actually shows. In other words, since the human brain tells our eyes to zero in on the brightest areas of a photograph first, I don’t like to see photographs where it has blown out areas. Like white sky. Or foreground that's OK and the rest blown out.
If you want little depth of field use wide open with the lens.
My recommendation to help you learn and understand, use a digital camera and experiment with it to sort it out in your mind. Run the camera in manual mode and change the shutter speed, change the aperture setting, change the iso. You’ll see what you’re doing immediately. And you don't have film, developing and printing costs while you’re learning and the time lag between taking the photograph and sending the film out to be processed.
It takes time but you’ll get it.
I’m a simpleton; this is how I think about exposure. I tend to lean on a little bit of over exposure with negative film. And I look at under exposing transparency film as well as digital capture.
I develop my own black and white film. Only use black and white film any more. No color film. I can adjust the film developing to get to what I want. I do still have an analog darkroom where I can achieve what I want with making prints of my negatives. Since I own a few digital cameras, I don’t scan any of my negatives.
Lots of items to consider that make photography interesting!
For me, all color is digital. I capture using camera RAW. I use the histogram on the camera for correct exposure as what I see on the LCD screen on camera doesn’t always give a true indication of the RAW file. I can adjust using Bridge. I don’t do any in house color printing.
I’ll throw this out. I strive making photographs that capture what the scene actually shows. In other words, since the human brain tells our eyes to zero in on the brightest areas of a photograph first, I don’t like to see photographs where it has blown out areas. Like white sky. Or foreground that's OK and the rest blown out.
If you want little depth of field use wide open with the lens.
My recommendation to help you learn and understand, use a digital camera and experiment with it to sort it out in your mind. Run the camera in manual mode and change the shutter speed, change the aperture setting, change the iso. You’ll see what you’re doing immediately. And you don't have film, developing and printing costs while you’re learning and the time lag between taking the photograph and sending the film out to be processed.
It takes time but you’ll get it.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I forgot to say in my post above (No 5) that the first website I mentioned will show all the alternatives of shutter speed and aperture that give the same exposure.
In general terms exposure is tricky because subjects are seldom lit perfectly (for photographers) and so you have to think about what you want regardless of how you start getting the exposure figures. And you have to know how far you can push things away from "normal" as it were. It usually ends up being a compromise or else you never go out taking pictures when the sky is bright blue with the sun glaring down and deep shadows...
Let us know how you get on please.
Regards, David
In general terms exposure is tricky because subjects are seldom lit perfectly (for photographers) and so you have to think about what you want regardless of how you start getting the exposure figures. And you have to know how far you can push things away from "normal" as it were. It usually ends up being a compromise or else you never go out taking pictures when the sky is bright blue with the sun glaring down and deep shadows...
Let us know how you get on please.
Regards, David