Using and Understanding ASA 400 Film

[edge100]

These results just scream underexposure (as noted above). You have to remember that metering for negative film and metering for digital require totally different approaches. For negative film, you need to expose for the shadows first and foremost, because the highlights - especially with a film like Portra 400 - have immense latitude, and underexposed shadows look terrible (as you can attest to).

So meter the darkest region where you want detail (the 'emerging shadows' mentioned above), and then stop down 1-2 stops. I generally only stop down by 1 stop from this reading with colour neg film, because I know the highlights will hold, and because I know that even if some of the highlights blow out, that's still preferable to underexposed shadows.

 

[music_healing]

a suggestion

maybe u try to overide the auto exposure from the camera ?
try using a simple free lightmeter application in smartphone
aim the reference to skin tone or grey area..

than shot according to it ..
try lets say 5 shot with the outer lightmeter (or exposure chart)
then try the same 5 shot with the auto exposure from camera

develop like ussual
scan like ussual

hopefully it solve the underexpose probability coming from the metering of camera

 

[StevenJohn]

Posting a digital picture of your negatives will help us determine if they are thin (underexposed).

 

[russelljtdyer]

Developer and Scanner Comparison

Developer and Scanner Comparison

Yes, music_healing, that's what I did. I took a series of photos using a separate meter and set manually the exposure on the camera. I also took two rolls of photos of the same woman and the same settings--writing down all of my settings.

I took one roll to the store that has been developing film for me for the past year--since I started having problems. I tried to take the second roll to the store I used before last summer, but their CD writing machine is broken. So I went to another store that I've used once, but are a little far from my home. However, I know they do a good job. My goal was to see if there's a quality difference between stores.

Below is one photo from each of the two rolls, each from different labs. Both photos were taken with my Zeiss Ikon camera, my Leica Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8 lens, and Kodak Portra 160 film. I had the shutter set to 1/125 of second for both. My Sekonic light meter recommended that I set the aperture to f/8 for both of these shots. I did so for both.

Given the coloring and lightness of the young woman's skin, I should have set differently the lights. They washed out her face a bit. causing overexposure of her face. If you ignore that, though, and just look at her hair on her left side in both photos, you can get a cleaner comparison. I tried not to change anything in Lightroom. I did crop the photos and adjusted the color very slightly in the second photo--it was coming through too yellow. Otherwise, the results are as they were given to me on the CD.

I think the one on the left has the grain and coloring problem I'm trying to resolve. The one on the left came from the lab I've been using for the past year. The one on the right from a new lab. I think the one on the right is much nicer, has better clarity and truer colors.

 

[StevenJohn]

I don't see much grain at the web sized scans, but the difference in scanning color is apparent. To me, I see the left side as being much more true to life. The background grey is too yellow on the right.

 

[russelljtdyer]

Removing the Colors

Removing the Colors

Here are the two photos again, but converted to black and white so that the colors aren't as much of a distraction. Again, her hair on her left side is coarse in the photo on the left, but fine in the photo on the right. Her hair is fine in reality, not coarse.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I prefer the left one, the right looks like you have a softar filter over the lens.
It could be that the left one looks grainy because the right one is blurred.
I had a Fuji Frontier that went out of focus once so minilabs can...

 

[StevenJohn]

I agree. I think you're seeing the diffusion in that example.

 

[SaveKodak]

Portra 400 can be exposed anywhere from iso 50-1600 if you know how to handle it. I expose it usually from 100-200. When going past 400 keep in mind your subject has to be illuminated as all shadow areas will go mushy

I highly recommend the book Film is Not Dead by Jonathan Canlas. He'll set ya straight with some great techniques for shooting many different emulsions..

 

[mfogiel]

There are 2 problems here.
1) You underexpose. With a photo like the one of your office, you should have probably set the Ikon to EI 100 ( not 400).
2) The scans suck - buy yourself a good scanner and scan yourself

Re point 1) next time you shoot colour negative film, try to take 3 exposures of each frame: at nominal speed, 1 stop over (half speed) and 2 stops over (1/4 speed). You will see, that the grain disappears.

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129568

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129568

I think the film is badly developed(old chemicals) You are underexposing. The scans are plain lousy.

Simplify. One get a better lab. Fit fresh battery. A good one.
Not a cheap Chinese one. It must be silver oxide. Ucar,Sony OK.
i don't like Varta and esp Renata, due to build ups..

Shoot a few exposures in ordinary sunlight.Sun behind you!
The exposure ought to be on 400 ISO about 1/400th at f16.
Summer. i rate 400ISO films at 250-ISO. The darker the negative, the less grain.This is color negative only. Try different apertures and place a number/paper with exposures, in each scene . Have scans done and also prints! Compare. Overexposing is better! Finer grain, snappier colors.

Shoot with Digital same scenes and adjust also with lighten or darken. Make comparisons. The Portra should have better shadow detail.. Dynamic range.

Use a friend and do some against the light,prefer in shade, getting halo in hair.I prefer ladies.. Make a few different exposures and compare.You must keep notes. Start with meter reading of close to 1.5 more exposure than standard daylight scene. Use Digital.

Yes testing costs money. Old pros like me did tests all the time before the miracle and wonder of digital.Enjoy!
you got a good camera, modern lenses.

 

[kingsley244]

This is one good educational thread. Gracias to all the contributors.

 

[russelljtdyer]

A Better Lab

A Better Lab

I haven't tried experimenting again. But I have switched to a better lab. Below is a photo I took recently in Sardinia with the Zeiss Ikon film camera. This seems to have the clarity and quality I was getting before I started using the other store last summer.

 

[KoNickon]

I tried to follow the thread here in terms of which picture was taken at which settings, but I can't avoid the conclusion that your ZI is having exposure issues -- seems erratic. As others have said, the very first picture is extremely underexposed, like 2 stops or more. As for the side by side portraits you posted more recently, I'd say the lefthand one is much better -- the righthand one looks overexposed and blown out.

I think scanning can only do so much to correct incorrect exposures, so fundamentally it's a problem with the camera, apparently. Maybe the first step is to better understand (from the manual?) what precisely the metering pattern of the ZI is, and be mindful of that when composing. And is the in-camera meter biased toward underexposure (i.e. optimized for slides)? But also compare the camera's exposure readings with that of a known-reliable handheld meter also. If the meter and the camera are significantly off, then something could be wrong with the camera's meter.

Someone else suggested shooting slide film -- that's a good way to tell directly whether you've got any exposure issues.