CiggyTardust
Newbie
Hello all,
I've been using a Canonet QL-17 GIII for a few months now and overall it's been great. But recently a few rolls of Ektar came back totally blown out and overexposed... at least that's what I think? I'm a beginner so I'm not sure what's wrong here but I typically shoot in shutter priority mode. I set the camera to 100 ASA for Ektar and notice that Ektar in particular comes out looking blown out in the highlights. It could be user error, but I suspect it's a light meter problem. I have been using a 1.45 volt Zinc Air battery for the light meter which isn't the exact voltage of the original batteries, so maybe it's throwing off the exposure? Strangely, other films tend to come out significantly better but the exposure is not always spot on. Here are a few photo examples of the Ektar:
The full album shot with Ektar can be seen here.
Interestingly, other films tend to come out better but not perfect. See here for a few other rolls shot with the same camera:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskQCs3nP
https://flic.kr/s/aHskPkERB6
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNQ75oZ
Let me know what you think could be happening... and thanks for your help!
I've been using a Canonet QL-17 GIII for a few months now and overall it's been great. But recently a few rolls of Ektar came back totally blown out and overexposed... at least that's what I think? I'm a beginner so I'm not sure what's wrong here but I typically shoot in shutter priority mode. I set the camera to 100 ASA for Ektar and notice that Ektar in particular comes out looking blown out in the highlights. It could be user error, but I suspect it's a light meter problem. I have been using a 1.45 volt Zinc Air battery for the light meter which isn't the exact voltage of the original batteries, so maybe it's throwing off the exposure? Strangely, other films tend to come out significantly better but the exposure is not always spot on. Here are a few photo examples of the Ektar:
The full album shot with Ektar can be seen here.
Interestingly, other films tend to come out better but not perfect. See here for a few other rolls shot with the same camera:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskQCs3nP
https://flic.kr/s/aHskPkERB6
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNQ75oZ
Let me know what you think could be happening... and thanks for your help!
jrose125
Established
I'm not sure what battery the Canonet takes, but if you aren't using a replacement that has the same voltage, the exposure will 100% be off. If you can't find a battery that will work at the correct voltage for the meter, you now know that the meter reading will be overexposed. Just by quickly glancing at your photos, I would say underexpose your meter reading by one stop and you'll be fine. It will probably still be a little overexposed but you can always correct exposure in post-process if need be.
Speaking from a personal perspective, I usually overexpose colour film by one stop, as it brings at more details in the shadows/highlights and usually results in better colours.
Speaking from a personal perspective, I usually overexpose colour film by one stop, as it brings at more details in the shadows/highlights and usually results in better colours.
Last edited:
johnf04
Well-known
A review of Kodak Ektar
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html
Hatchetman
Well-known
Ektar is less forgiving than other options. You need to nail the exposure just right. Could be aforementioned battery issue. Also if shutter speeds are a little slow would do the same.
Who is doing the scanning?
This could be a scanning issue.
This could be a scanning issue.
sara
Well-known
Apparently today's batteries affect the Canonet'a light meter (i.e., they are too strong for the Canonet). When I had one it was fine, but I think I short a little underexposed. Try doing this.
CiggyTardust
Newbie
So yesterday I finally received the MR9 battery adapter to get a proper voltage (1.4v) and it turns out this makes no difference in the Canonet light meter as compared to the Zinc Air batteries I was using before. That rules out the light meter, maybe.
I have all my film scanned by a photo lab here in southern Taiwan that specializes in film--they are one of the biggest, most utilized film labs on the whole island and I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.
So I went and asked someone at the lab today about this and they told me that this tends to be a common issue with Ektar, as mentioned in the above review, and the solution is to set the ASA to 160 or 200 when shooting it. I will try this in the future and report back if it's any better.
For someone new to processing scans digitally, how do you compensate for the overexposure in Photoshop/Gimp? I tried adjusting the brightness/contrast and got decent results but not perfect.
I have all my film scanned by a photo lab here in southern Taiwan that specializes in film--they are one of the biggest, most utilized film labs on the whole island and I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.
So I went and asked someone at the lab today about this and they told me that this tends to be a common issue with Ektar, as mentioned in the above review, and the solution is to set the ASA to 160 or 200 when shooting it. I will try this in the future and report back if it's any better.
For someone new to processing scans digitally, how do you compensate for the overexposure in Photoshop/Gimp? I tried adjusting the brightness/contrast and got decent results but not perfect.
Ranchu
Veteran
I think you need a scanner. You might try shadow/highlight in photoshop, but I never Thought it was that great. There must be somebody in Taiwan who can scan Ektar decently for you. Maybe try some other places and tell them what you have and what you want. The store you went to gave you a kind of bull**** answer. They basically said,"Well, that's what comes out of the machine, sir or madame." but their advise will work with their machines, I imagine. Scanners are good to have if you're shooting film.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94126
Open the back and fire the camera at a bright white surface or a window while looking through the lens at f4 60th or so. Compare it to another camera set the same. See if the shutters times are somewhat close in both cameras by eyeball.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94126
Open the back and fire the camera at a bright white surface or a window while looking through the lens at f4 60th or so. Compare it to another camera set the same. See if the shutters times are somewhat close in both cameras by eyeball.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Batteries that are higher voltage than the meter is designed for will give you underexposed negatives not overexposed.
The meter will be more "lively" and sensitive to light therefore falsely giving a higher ev.
Chances are if the camera is a problem (rather than the scans being the problem), it's a shutter that is a big slow.
Age is not kind to shutter accuracy.
Blades can become sticky, springs not so springy... etc.
The meter will be more "lively" and sensitive to light therefore falsely giving a higher ev.
Chances are if the camera is a problem (rather than the scans being the problem), it's a shutter that is a big slow.
Age is not kind to shutter accuracy.
Blades can become sticky, springs not so springy... etc.