Why does film look underexposed even when metered right?
- Thread starter jusxusfanatic
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 4K
x-ray
Veteran
Maddoc, the difference is you've had a lot of experience, shot thousands of rolls and know how to use a meter properly and your camera.
maddoc
... likes film again.
X-ray, thanks. Experience for sure helps a lot but I have also had many ruined shots from concerts because the light is so tricky and changes all the time.
Otherwise I agree that the OP should stick to box speed, get a meter and learn how to use it.
Otherwise I agree that the OP should stick to box speed, get a meter and learn how to use it.
newfilm
Well-known
Oh wow nicely done maddoc! Is that hand held? I could not get that kind of stability without tri/monopod even with delta 3200 (then i was told to pump some iron in gym to get a steady hands) 😱
znapper
Well-known
The light in the latter one is totally different.
What people normally don't get, is that to be able to get usable shots from mainly hard, back-lit concert shots, you need to go to 3200 and 6400, which leaves any film in the dust, delta 3200 or no delta 3200.
From seeing so called pushed-results over many years, the conclusion is that it doesn't work when you really have to, it does work when you already have the light to capture zones -+3. A 400 speed film, rarely gets the "inertia" to see shadow-detail at all if you shoot it as EI 1600.
- You won't get your shadow detail through pushing.
- People who claim they have pushed to this and that and show great results, in reality really hasn't, since the scene already had enough light to produce tones in zone 2-3 at that EI anyway.
By all means, waste shots and waste film on whatever you like, but unless you can document what your metering actually was for a certain shot, it's unfounded and simply one man's claim.
To be a photographer isn't to stick to your guns when you are outgunned, you use the equipment that does the job best and when it comes to high-ISO, you shoot digital, use faster glass or go for the high-contrast, grainy look.
What people normally don't get, is that to be able to get usable shots from mainly hard, back-lit concert shots, you need to go to 3200 and 6400, which leaves any film in the dust, delta 3200 or no delta 3200.
From seeing so called pushed-results over many years, the conclusion is that it doesn't work when you really have to, it does work when you already have the light to capture zones -+3. A 400 speed film, rarely gets the "inertia" to see shadow-detail at all if you shoot it as EI 1600.
- You won't get your shadow detail through pushing.
- People who claim they have pushed to this and that and show great results, in reality really hasn't, since the scene already had enough light to produce tones in zone 2-3 at that EI anyway.
By all means, waste shots and waste film on whatever you like, but unless you can document what your metering actually was for a certain shot, it's unfounded and simply one man's claim.
To be a photographer isn't to stick to your guns when you are outgunned, you use the equipment that does the job best and when it comes to high-ISO, you shoot digital, use faster glass or go for the high-contrast, grainy look.
maddoc
... likes film again.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
OK, I agree with most that has been said about technique but I think the advice in the old joke about asking directions to some where is relevant; the advice was "If I was you I wouldn't start from here".
These concert shots are difficult at the best of times and so I'd suggest learning to use a meter on more straightforward shots; people and place to quote Ilford and so on. Then move on to back lit.
Use digital if you want the result quickly and easily (EXIF) or film and a pencil and paper for the classic approach. Metering isn't one of the black arts, imo, and is easily learnt if taken one simple step at a time.
Regards, David
OK, I agree with most that has been said about technique but I think the advice in the old joke about asking directions to some where is relevant; the advice was "If I was you I wouldn't start from here".
These concert shots are difficult at the best of times and so I'd suggest learning to use a meter on more straightforward shots; people and place to quote Ilford and so on. Then move on to back lit.
Use digital if you want the result quickly and easily (EXIF) or film and a pencil and paper for the classic approach. Metering isn't one of the black arts, imo, and is easily learnt if taken one simple step at a time.
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Odd, then, that so many "usable" shots were taken on film before digital was ever invented, and that quite a few are still being taken on film today.
Cheers,
R.
Austerby
Well-known
Sorry folks but I don't think you're landing your messages in the right way here: the poster is a young guy using classic kit in a very tricky environment and deserves encouragement.
Ok so he may be inexperienced but he is asking questions and clearly wants to learn.
More acknowledgement that the shots were well composed and capture the excitement and energy of the gig would balance the more school-teacher type comments. He was right in the action and let's remember he was using vintage kit here.
He knows the shots aren't as good as they could be and the answers have already been given here, but in between the admonishments.
Ok so he may be inexperienced but he is asking questions and clearly wants to learn.
More acknowledgement that the shots were well composed and capture the excitement and energy of the gig would balance the more school-teacher type comments. He was right in the action and let's remember he was using vintage kit here.
He knows the shots aren't as good as they could be and the answers have already been given here, but in between the admonishments.
znapper
Well-known
Because of good glass and proper/enough light.
Prest_400
Multiformat
That is golden advice, also drawing from the points you are expressing: Sometimes it's better to keep interests as a hobby.
I take good pictures according to my acquitances, and many say that I should be a photographer. Professional, that is.
It is perhaps the tendency to tell people that if they like something or are good at it, they should be dedicated to it. Not always.
I do wonder what could have been for example if I went to a different field instead of the one I chose. Infact, at age 16 people have to choose their path and it isn't easy switching afterwards.
It's something that is hard to be aware while young.
David Hughes
David Hughes
And doing it without the magazines (monthly and weekly) a lot of us had that were exclusively about film and film cameras, with reviews and so on. Newcomers to film, manual cameras and so on need all the help they can get.
Regards, David
mich rassena
Well-known
I think your best bet would be to meter the palm of your hand held up with the back of your hand facing the stage. The amount of light falling on the fronts of the performers isn't going to vary as dramatically as the lights around them. The stage is a very high contrast scenario, and pushing film (adding contrast) isn't going to help the situation. The images you have are just underexposed, you'll have to use a faster film if you can't add light other ways (faster lens, slower shutter speed).
If you have any digital camera, or even a cell phone which lets you adjust exposure compensation, take some pictures with it, look at the photos and find a setting which works. Transfer that setting to your film camera, and adjust settings, for the lens on your film camera.
What I haven't seen mentioned is the advice for lowest shutter speed to use is the inverse of the focal length of the lens (so 50mm lens, 1/50s), so the closer to the stage you can get, the wide of a lens you can use and consequently a lower shutter speed. This is of course balanced by not being so close that the stage blocks the view. In fact, you might try shooting a lens a bit too wide for the scene and crop heavily, this will let you use a slower shutter speed, gaining you half a stop or more, at the cost of resolution. The trade-off might be worth it.
If you have any digital camera, or even a cell phone which lets you adjust exposure compensation, take some pictures with it, look at the photos and find a setting which works. Transfer that setting to your film camera, and adjust settings, for the lens on your film camera.
What I haven't seen mentioned is the advice for lowest shutter speed to use is the inverse of the focal length of the lens (so 50mm lens, 1/50s), so the closer to the stage you can get, the wide of a lens you can use and consequently a lower shutter speed. This is of course balanced by not being so close that the stage blocks the view. In fact, you might try shooting a lens a bit too wide for the scene and crop heavily, this will let you use a slower shutter speed, gaining you half a stop or more, at the cost of resolution. The trade-off might be worth it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
stompyq
Well-known
Use Tri-X with Diafine. You get a speed increase to 1250 with that combo and it looks great
DominikDUK
Well-known
T-Max 400 and Delta 3200 are better suited for pushing than Delta 400, Tri-X is another good choice gritty films can hide some artefacts caused by pushing they also usually give you a raunchier/rougher look that suits concert photography. People made great concert photographs in the 50's and 60's on Tri-X, HP3 etc... saying that film is not really suited for concert photography is crazy imo. Also who cares about shadow detail, concert photography isn't St. Ansel Style landscape photography. Since you use a rangefinder you have a huge advantage over a SLR you can see trough the viewfinder if the light hit the musician when you pushed the shutter. Stage light is bright if it hits a person you can get pretty decent shutter speeds even with E.I. 800 or thereabouts, if the musician is in the shadow well E.I. 10 000 wouldn't be fast enough. Good concert photography is all about timing and less about equipment.
znapper
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Good luck. I claim no special expertise in shooting rock concerts (though I've done it decades ago, and not too badly). I do however claim quite a lot of expertise in looking at pictures of rock concerts from before the digital era, and there are plenty that are stunning. Maybe you're good enough to shoot like that. Maybe I'm not. But to claim that it can't be done, just because you can't do it, is patent nonsense. It has, after all, been done.
Cheers,
R.
Corran
Well-known
That is not true at all. The general rule takes into account magnification, so if you crop down you are just magnifying the image, which therefore puts you back to square one (but with less resolution).
I've shot a lot of concert images, on digital and film, and the primary difference between really good ones and not boils down to lighting at the venue. It doesn't matter how good the photographer is or how good the gear is if there's simply no light being put on the faces of the performers. This is common at seedy bars and such. I've shot a "band" (I use the term loosely...) at a bar with one bare 40w bulb hanging from the ceiling 20ft over their head. It was so dim you could barely see. Shooting T-Max 3200 pushed as hard as it would go still was a crap-shoot. I've also shot at nice facilities and I could use 400-speed film and stop down a little.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Similar threads
