Why does film look underexposed even when metered right?

[x-ray]

Looking at your scans you're probably 3-4 stops under exposed.

Delete the phone app, they're terrible. Other than the bad app your biggest problem you don't understand how to use a meter. If you don't understand metering a spot meter will only get you in more trouble. Stop and learn to walk before you try to run.

These aren't easy situations even for even those of us that have decades of experience. First I'd never use a phone app. I'd use a very sensitive meter with a narrow angle of view like my Weston ranger 9 or use a very sensitive broad angle meter and tilt it down some and even use my hand to shield some of the backlight off the meter being careful not to block any part of what the meter is reading. Actually as close as you were an incident meter would possibly work. Third I'd never go into something with an uncoated lens. You're going to get terrible flare when spotlights hit the lens. Next I'd pick HP-5 and use Acufine because it actually increases ISO. Acufine is about the only developer left that increases shadow speed. I like the results better than Delta 3200.

You might not like hand held meters or your meter but depending on the meter and how well you know how to use it it's the only way to get correct exposures in tough situations. The light in the kind of situation is constantly changing so the reading you make will be wrong in 5 seconds. Also "experience" goes a long way when things are tough. Continue going this route and you'll continue getting bad images.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Thank you for the suggestions 🙂 i shoot street, so sunny 16 would be enough, but for concerts like that, I'll consider buying a spot meter. My only meter weston master 2 is broken, but i dont use it anyways

 

[esearing]

Do this simple experiment. Using your phone app go outside and meter your hand in bright sunlight, Record value. It may help to use EV mode rather than fstop/time.

Now go into a light shady area and meter your hand, record value
Go into deep shade, meter hand, record.
Go inside, meter hand record
Go into a dim room, meter hand, record.
repeat at night

When you are done you should be able to see the range of EVs based on your hand alone - so sunny day if your hand meters 14EV and in dim light indoors your hand meters 6EV, you can make a reasonable guess when shooting at the concert. Minus 8 stops from sunny 16 can be a combination of film speed, fstop, and shutter speed. so for 400box speed film, sunny 16 would be 1/400 at f/16. Minus 8 stops would be EI 1600 (2 stops, extend developer) , f2.8 (5 stops), 1/200 shutter (1stops) - any more than this and you are likely needing different film, especially if all those on stage are wearing black you would need a couple of more stops of light on the film.

 

[David Hughes]

Alright thanks 🙂 thought any 400asa rated film would be able to push well

Hi,

In a nutshell, they are all different and have their strong points and their weak points. You have to chose one - that suits you* and your camera - for most of the time and know what's needed for the odd situations.

Regards, David

* And they affect the lens or vice versa (I'm thinking of your Summar query). Knowing all the variations is complicated but using a notebook and writing down everything for each shot pays off. You can stop doing it after about ten years, usually...

 

[Ronald M]

Rob left a a list of things that is correct.

In the end, film is under exposed and shadows are thin no matter what. Special push developers may get more in the shadows.

Exposure controls shadow density, development controls highlight density. Always been that way, always will be.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Film is underdeveloped, try longer times.
Or iPhone application is not accurate. I have to calibrate mine. Once it was calibrated, no difference from light meter. Just more convenient, with IPhone you could place measuring area exactly on what you want to measure and see how we rest is going to be affected.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Why does film look underexposed even when metered right?

Probably because you weren't shooting with an M2.

 

[x-ray]

Your Weston 2 would give incorrect readings unless you convert the weston film speed values to ISO values. Weston film speed is a very old system no longer used.

If you don't understand metering a spot meter will only mess you up more. Forget the spot meter and buy a good general purpose meter. Take the time to learn to use one.

KoFe they're not under developed. They're clearly severely under exposed. Unless you're using a developer like acufine all the development in the world won't bring up the shadows.

If you use your hand to meter from open up one stop from the reading. Meters read the world as 18% reflectance and the palm of your hand unless you're very dark skinned is 36% reflectance. It would cause a 1 stop under exposure unless you compensate.

Buy a couple of books and learn from them. You aren't into the zone system but they'll teach you exposure and development. Get The second or latest edition of Ansel Adams Exposure and the other book the Negative.

Turn off the computer and study until you understand the information. The Internet is full of incorrect information.

 

[BuzzyOne]

You should be bracketing your shots. Pick some pattern to bracket 3 stops for each scene and stick with it. Shoot many rolls of film. Take notes. I would also say just shoot higher speed film and develop normally. You can get fancy with the developing later.

Oh, and get a decent light meter. Sekonic Twinmate L-208 fits in any pocket.

 

[znapper]

My experience is that if you need to push, then use digital.
Film isn't made to work very well for pushing, no matter what people claim they can get out of it, at +2, shadows will have no detail and you will be left with mostly harsh highlights.

Unless you are going for that look.

 

[mdarnton]

Well the obvious thing is the stage is backlit, so the meter is not going to give you the appropriate setting for the performers, whose shaded areas are facing the camera. You'd need two or three more stops of exposure (if even possible) to have gotten them exposed adequately.

This. Really strong backlighting. Metering this without thinking will give you an exposure that's split between making the lights look "normal"--that would be so you could see the bulbs and read the print on them, basically an exposure for taking a photo of the sun--and for the subject you intended. If you want the person exposed correctly, you need to take an exposure reading of ONLY the person, not including the lights.

 

[Rob-F]

My experience is that if you need to push, then use digital.
Film isn't made to work very well for pushing, no matter what people claim they can get out of it, at +2, shadows will have no detail and you will be left with mostly harsh highlights.

That is a little extreme. I wouldn't discourage the O.P. from pushing film, if he wants to. As a matter of fact, Delta 3200 is made for pushing. Its native speed is around 1000. 3200 is the push speed.

To the O.P.: I concur with the suggestion to use Tri-X as a better starting point. And Roger Hicks has said that HP-5 is even better. Good developers for this are: Kodak XTOL; Kodak T-Max; Ilford Microphen or DD-X; and finally, D-76 has a good reputation, over the years, for pushing (though the others are better). Kodak doesn't particularly recommend HC-110 for pushing to the extent you want.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Buy a couple of books and learn from them. You aren't into the zone system but they'll teach you exposure and development. Get The second or latest edition of Ansel Adams Exposure and the other book the Negative.

Turn off the computer and study until you understand the information. The Internet is full of incorrect information.

I guess we were telling Justin this over 500 times meanwhile 😉

 

[Scrambler]

To the other posters - while others have comment on spot METERS my suggestions was "spot type work" - and I suggested metering a hand. I'm spot-meter-free but that doesn't stop me from metering areas not scenes. Takes more leg works or in some cases use of estimations.

Can someone learn - not too hard.

And as for Sunny 16 - sure. Or a suitable app. But all these things are estimations, and the bracketing idea has something in its favour.

The main issue here was that metering failed due to a highly divided lighting - direct spots in frame through to dark shadows. Metering a smaller area (or estimating a smaller area) would give better results, though as the light show changes even with metering there will be failures.

 

[x-ray]

The lighting in a concert situation generally changes constantly. By the time you take a reading the light is different and different again by the time you set your shutter and aperture. I've shot jobs under constantly changing light and it'll drive you crazy. About the only way to deal with rapidly changing light is auto exposure mode but I'm pretty sure the Leica III lacks that feature.

Couple rapid changing light with inexperience and this is what you get.

I've used spot meters since the mid 70's and don't recommend them to people that don't understand reflectance values. If your not able to interpret the values in a scene you're going to get bad exposures. Point a spot meter at a persons white shirt and you'll get a severely under exposed scene. Point it at a dark shirt and you'll get a severely over exposed scene. If you don't open up one stop when you measure the palm of your hand you'll be one stop under exposed. This I why I recommended buying Ansel Adams Exposure book and the Negative.

 

[x-ray]

I forgot to add that if you can walk up to the subject and meter your hand then you can take an in incident reading or use a gray card.

 

[Roger Hicks]

juxusfanatic seem to believe that he can buy cameras and lenses which will solve his unwillingness to think about anything except cameras and lenses. I understand that he is soon going to England (perhaps to KIAD as it was once known) to study something, possibly photography. If indeed he is planning on studying photography, he really needs to concentrate rather more on photography as distinct from cameras and lenses.

I apologize if I have misread his myriad earlier posts but he really does not seem to be willing to sit down with a decent book and study either the art history or the sensitometric basics (of which the Zone System is a poor summary, over-complicated in some ways and oversimplified in others).

Cameras and lenses matter rather less than these two fundamentals.

Cheers,

R.

 

[x-ray]

Roger I completely agree. Reading through the nearly 80 threads he's started in the past few weeks reveals a lack of understanding and experience.

 

[Corran]

Your first problem is you have no idea what you are doing. Your second is that you also don't know how to evaluate a negative or how to scan said negative.

First off there's no such thing as pushing. Your film, developer, and process gives a certain EI (exposure index) to get a good gradation of tones from black to white in normal light. Developing longer just increases the contrast, which in turns makes underexposed negatives have higher values in the midtones and highlights than they would've been otherwise.

Secondly you've scanned the negatives flat and pushed up the shadows into grey. The film simply doesn't have tone there so you get a yucky flat grey grainy mess. Your image actually looks like the attached image.

As others have already said you seem more interested in gear. You should go shoot at least 50 rolls of film and figure out how everything works. Feel free to experiment but mostly you should shoot at box speed with a standard developer and just get some experience. While you're at it, you should read Ansel Adams' "The Negative" which will basically answer any question you could possibly have.

 

[ptpdprinter]

You have mentioned that your father has at least a Leica M6 and lens, and is an active photographer. Have you sought his advice? Nice to have someone right there so you can engage is a conversation with follow-up questions. Children often remark that as they get older they parents become smarter.