This roll of Portra was all over the place

[karateisland]

I have a quick question about developing: I shot a 120 roll of Portra 400 over the weekend, and I'm hoping you can offer some advice about whether to push it or not.

I shot part of it outside on a sunny day, on the streets of Boston, metered at 200 ISO in the shade. I think this might have gotten me about two stops of overexposure. (I'm trying the Johnny Patience method of metering.)

Unexpectedly, I ended up in the Boston Public Library while shooting that roll, and fired off four or five frames. Since I was indoors, I was shooting at slower shutter speeds, and--I believe--ISO 400. (It could have been ISO 200. I was enjoying shooting my Rollei so much that I forgot to take notes...)

I am a bit worried that some of the indoor shots might have been underexposed by a stop, and since I don't remember what ISO I was metering at, it's harder for me to remember if I had set myself up with a one stop buffer or not.

So, the crux of the matter: Do you think I should push the film a stop in development to be sure I didn't underexpose the shots indoors (thus pushing the bright outdoor shots another stop beyond exact exposure)? Or, should I develop as is and trust the latitude of the film to handle it?

 

[Greyscale]

It is Portra, which possibly has the best latitude of any color negative film. I would just develop as-is.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I do not understand the value of the Johnny Patience's approach. He rates film at half box speed, thereby overexposing one stop, and then uses an incident meter in the shadows, thereby overexposing another one to three stops, depending on the depth of the shadows. Fortunately, color negative film has wide latitude for overexposure, so he gets something usable, though not optimal. Why do you listen to some random person on the internet instead of following the instructions of both the film and meter manufacturer?

As for your experience, when you say you don't remember what ISO you were shooting indoors, why would you have changed the ISO of your meter when you went inside? You were shooting the same film. If you were using an incident meter and measuring the shadows, you were overexposing regardless of whether you were shooting at ISO 200 or 400, so normal development is indicated.

 

[retinax]

That Johnny Patience method isn't sound. He has only half understood what he's talking about, as evident in the section where he talks about incident domes (seems he's confused about the handling of incident vs. reflected meters), or zones. That's the problem with the internet... Of course you can rely on Portra to handle a lot of overexposure, but then why bother metering? You can guess much more precise exposures than that in daylight going by the so-called sunny 16 rule.
And why would you change the ISO on your meter in the middle of a roll? You may want to deviate from the meter reading often when incident metering for negative film, but better decide that for every individual picture.
I can't say I have much experience with Portra 400, but it's reported to also handle a stop of underexposure well (although if you metered correctly at E.I 400, why would it be underexposed?).

 

[Fixcinater]

Develop as is and work out your own method for metering, not somebody's idea of how it works.

Too much info complicates things...keep it simple. He should have stopped his article after the paragraph where he said you can shoot Portra 400 at anywhere from 25 to 800 with acceptable results when scanning.

Edit after looking closer at his images: Why trust a fellow who posts out of focus images as samples of quality? Those first few landscape/city scape images...gag.

 

[karateisland]

Why do you listen to some random person on the internet instead of following the instructions of both the film and meter manufacturer?

As I understand, it is not unusual for photographers to overexpose color negative intentionally, and many film labs have written pieces describing how much overexposure color film can handle. I've also seen great results from metering Superia 400 at half the box speed.

That's why JP's method made logical sense to me, whether or not it turns out to be a sound approach.

As for your experience, when you say you don't remember what ISO you were shooting indoors, why would you have changed the ISO of your meter when you went inside? You were shooting the same film.

Let me see if I can explain my thought process clearly...

I was overexposing most shots on purpose by metering at 200 and developing at box speed. In situations where this metering method indicated that my shutter speed would be too slow, I would meter at 400 to get back that extra stop of light gathering.

In retrospect, I could have just set the shutter speed or aperture to open up another step... Oof, I'm starting to see how my thought process made this so complex. I definitely overthought this. Lesson learned.

That Johnny Patience method isn't sound. He has only half understood what he's talking about, as evident in the section where he talks about incident domes (seems he's confused about the handling of incident vs. reflected meters), or zones. That's the problem with the internet... Of course you can rely on Portra to handle a lot of overexposure, but then why bother metering? You can guess much more precise exposures than that in daylight going by the so-called sunny 16 rule.
And why would you change the ISO on your meter in the middle of a roll? You may want to deviate from the meter reading often when incident metering for negative film, but better decide that for every individual picture.
I can't say I have much experience with Portra 400, but it's reported to also handle a stop of underexposure well (although if you metered correctly at E.I 400, why would it be underexposed?).

All fair points. I changed the ISO for the reason indicated above. However, you're right, his method doesn't really make sense.

On another point: I was worried the shots would be slightly underexposed because I'm not yet confident in my metering abilities, and I didn't have the discipline to meter for changes in lighting while I moved through the space.

Essentially, I was hoping to find a way to have the best chance for all my photos to be usable. And it sounds like developing as-is is the way to go.

PS--Can anyone recommend a better resource for learning how to meter properly? I want to do this right.

 

[ptpdprinter]

PS--Can anyone recommend a better resource for learning how to meter properly? I want to do this right.

If you are using an incident meter, hold the meter in front of the subject with the dome facing back toward the the camera position to measure the amount of light falling on the subject. Your meter manual covers this. There is no need to give the image three or four extra stops of exposure unless you are going for that washed out look that typifies Johnny's Patience's portfolio. I assume you are scanning, so once you have a properly exposed negative, you can give the print any look you want with your imaging software. If you like the overexposed look, just move the exposure slider to the right until you have what you want. If you are color printing in the darkroom, a properly exposed negative will give you the most flexibility for interpretation.

 

[karateisland]

If you are using an incident meter, hold the meter in front of the subject with the dome facing back toward the the camera position. This is usually covered in the meter manual. What meter model are you using?

I am using a Sekonic 398 (it's old, and I don't have a manual. So instead of looking for a copy of the manual, I just did a bunch of internet reading...)

This method makes sense to me when I can get close to my subject, or when the subject is small and nearby, but I become uncertain when I'm shooting from farther away from my subject, or with more varied light. Maybe simply reading the manual will help. I'll get on that.

 

[stompyq]

I do not understand the value of the Johnny Patience's approach. He rates film at half box speed, thereby overexposing one stop, and then uses an incident meter in the shadows, thereby overexposing another one to three stops, depending on the depth of the shadows. Fortunately, color negative film has wide latitude for overexposure, so he gets something usable, though not optimal. Why do you listen to some random person on the internet instead of following the instructions of both the film and meter manufacturer?

As for your experience, when you say you don't remember what ISO you were shooting indoors, why would you have changed the ISO of your meter when you went inside? You were shooting the same film. If you were using an incident meter and measuring the shadows, you were overexposing regardless of whether you were shooting at ISO 200 or 400, so normal development is indicated.

Because his method is optimized for a purely scanning workflow. Film manufacturers cannot do that and give a generalized set of guidelines. +1 overexposed Portra scanned images are easier to work with than box speed. At least that's my understanding.

To the OP just do regular development

 

[Ronald M]

Lots of bad unsound advice on the net. I assure you the manufacturer instructions will give the best possible results under a variety of conditions.

Daylight film inside requires a cc filter, blue or if fluorescent there are many kinds.
Fooling with color balance when printing is painful and does not yield best results.

The only thing I have found that gives good results is 1/2 box speed and cut normal development time by 20%. Monochrome film only.

Way back when I did something similar with color slide film so it would print on Cibachrome which is/was very contrasty.

I might advise you to buy a tripod rather than screw around with film speeds.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Because his method is optimized for a purely scanning workflow. Film manufacturers cannot do that and give a generalized set of guidelines. +1 overexposed Portra scanned images are easier to work with than box speed. At least that's my understanding.

Johnny Patience has said that in developing his exposure regime he has "worked hours in the darkroom" (imagine that: hours) so he uses the same method for wet printing as for scanning (though I really doubt he does much wet printing, particularly color). Just give everything three or four stops extra exposure and trust that latitude will render images that are usable sounds more like a Hail Mary than a system.

 

[retinax]

If you are using an incident meter, hold the meter in front of the subject with the dome facing back toward the the camera position to measure the amount of light falling on the subject. Your meter manual covers this. There is no need to give the image three or four extra stops of exposure unless you are going for that washed out look that typifies Johnny's Patience's portfolio. I assume you are scanning, so once you have a properly exposed negative, you can give the print any look you want with your imaging software. If you like the overexposed look, just move the exposure slider to the right until you have what you want. If you are color printing in the darkroom, a properly exposed negative will give you the most flexibility.

This, and I dare to add emphasis, although I don't use an incident meter, to the point that an incident meter isn't normally shaded as this Johnny Patience does. If there's sunshine one the subject, let the sun shine on the dome. Buuuut this is usually used for slide film or digital, i.e. metering for the highlights. With negative film, you indeed often need to give more exposure if you don't want the exposed-for-the-highlights look, and metering in the shade can give additional guidance (and can be adequate by itself of course if the main subject is in the shade). I'd suggest using a reflected light meter in addition, a smartphone app will do, to better understand how to interpret the incident reading.
Also, learn the Sunny 16 or 11 rules (http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light Intensity Chart) at least to perform sanity checks of your meter readings, even with some experience it's easy to mess up reading the meter in a hurry.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I am using a Sekonic 398 (it's old, and I don't have a manual. So instead of looking for a copy of the manual, I just did a bunch of internet reading...)

Here is the manual:

https://www.sekonic.com/downloads/l-398a_english.pdf

 

[karateisland]

Hi--thanks for the great advice, all. Turns out that this forum isn't going bad the way some say.

I'd suggest using a reflected light meter in addition, a smartphone app will do, to better understand how to interpret the incident reading.
Also, learn the Sunny 16 or 11 rules.

How do I use a reflected light meter to better understand the incident readings? (And I'm already a big fan of Fred Parker's site, have been using it for my 35mm camera.)

 

[Fixcinater]

You compare the results from them when pointed at different colored objects.

A black car will show one reading on the reflected meter compared to the white building right next to it in the same sunlight (to risk stating the obvious: the white building is reflecting more light than the car). To choose "correct" exposure for either the black car or white building will require some compensation as the meter is thinking that is an 18% gray object in both cases.

An incident held in the same light will show something else (in between) as it is not dependent on the subject and would need it's own interpretation/compensation from indicated brightness...or not, as you may see fit.

 

[retinax]

Hi--thanks for the great advice, all. Turns out that this forum isn't going bad the way some say.



How do I use a reflected light meter to better understand the incident readings? (And I'm already a big fan of Fred Parker's site, have been using it for my 35mm camera.)

In addition to what Fixcinator said, many times in contrasty light, your incident meter will lead you to underexpose by most people's tastes for negative film. Negative film should be exposed for detail in the shadows as latitude in the highlights is wide. You can also expose for highlights if you want that look (more like slide film), but if you scan, you can get the look in post processing and if you have shadow detail, you're free to process differently. So expose for shadows. If you use a reflected meter, spot is best, but any will work if you walk up close to stuff, to meter in the shade in a scene that also has bright sunlight, you may see that things in the shade may need more exposure than if you go by the incident reading in the sun. Shadows that you want texture in should read as needing about two to three stops more exposure than what you give the photo. Perhaps the easiest solution then is indeed to meter incident in the shade and let directly lit highlights fall where they may, that may often work out ok, but shade to sunlit contrast can vary a lot. If you meter the shadows, you can make an informed decision.
Other cases that may require you to deviate from the incident reading are very dark things, like the black cat that you don't want quite as black as the incident reading suggests, as detail in the fur will likely be gone, or very bright things, like snow, although I don't like the look this gives in landscapes mostly, for more abstract pictures it can be nice to give less exposure than incident reading suggests, so that there's more contrast between darker/shaded and glaring snow.
If you practice comparing meter readings a little, you'll get better at estimating correction factors for your incident metering, if that's what you decide to stick with.
Note that we're talking about incident metering for negative film specifically, for slide film or digital, protecting the highlights should usually be prioritized.

 

[karateisland]

This is great advice--thank you!