Ektachrome/Elitechrome development for sunlight

I'm not a wedding photographer, but just shot my sister's wedding with

Ektachrome and Elitechrome 200 exposed a third stop faster (260?). All

natural light, in and outside Wayfarer's Chapel (glass church in Palos

Verdes Ca), full 1pm/early afternoon sun with contrasty leaf shadows

mixed in in

some of the shots........ Should I have it developed normal or minus

development? Transparencies will be scanned and processed in

photoshop for Epson 2200 printing......thanks

The question I would have is why use slide film for a wedding? The next question would be why did you feel you needed plus 1/3 stop compensation? Most slide film users opt for 1/3 stop underexposure for richer color and not blowing out highlights. But since you did, I would think you can answer your own question by relying on your own experience with that particular cameraand those particular films. When you have used Ektachrome and Elitechrome before in that camera, have the exposures been right on or biased somehow? Have you used the plus compensation, pulling film processing scheme before? I don't think anyone can really answer your question unless they also have the same camera and have shot extensively using the same films you used. Most wedding photographers use either negative film or digital (not blowing out highlights and computer processing later). With slide film, unless you really know from experience that you didn't blow out the highlights using your exposure technique, it is difficult to know whether the film needs pulling. 1/3 stop is also too small a variable for others to comment on without knowing your particular camera.

 

If you are really unsure, you can have the roll(s) clip processed. Any professional lab can do that for you but you will lose a frame or two from each roll.

 

Also, with contrasty sun/leafy shadows, one would normally use fill flash, which would add to exposure variables. Did you use flash as well?

I re-read your post and see that you didn't use flash. I still would like to know why you overexposed by 1/3 stop, but in general, I would err to processing that won't blow the highlights since you will scan the transparencies. You can then bring up the shadows in Photoshop. If you overexposed because you have had success with this sheme in the past with that camera and film combo, then I would just process normal and work with the shadows on the computer. Also assuming you exposed for the sunlight and not something in between.

Nadine, if you re-read the post, you would realize that he actually underexposed by 1/3 stop (rated at 260 not 200). Still, slide film is very contrasty and coupled with the most contrasty of situations, I also wonder why slide film was used. By underexposing a little, that will help slightly with contrast while at the same time increasing the saturation. Normal development time should be fine. Good luck and let us know how they turn out!

"...it is difficult to know whether the film needs pulling."

 

why would Ray pull it, and under develope an under exposure?

 

Ray, i'm not sure why you went iso 250, but you should push 1/3 now.

Well, my lame excuse for using slide film is that I've been almost

exclusively a black and white street shooter, so I didn't even think

about contrast characteristics of the film. I wanted slides so I

could see them without first having to do scans on everything.

 

Eric, I shot 1/3 stop underexposed for a richer look. I'm thinking

I'll just process normal.

I have no doubt you know what you are doing Ray. I've enjoyed so many of your pics.

 

Next roll, consider using levels in PS to drop your exposure down? Exposing and developing for the optimum slide is the route i go now. Then use PS to achieve the look i'm after with levels/curves/brightness/contrast.

Yep--I sure read that wrong...sorry. If you underexposed by 1/3 stop I would say process normal and lift the shadows in Photoshop. And no, you wouldn't pull the film--I was still thinking overexposure. If you shot many frames in the sunlight situation where you didn't expose for the sunlight/highlights then that may be a different story, but if you didn't keep track of where those frames were, then it would be impractical to change processing for just those. How did you expose the sunlight shots?

That's how I got started!

 

Back in the late 60's I did weddings with slide film. Because printing was very expensive for the folks I did were Law School and Medical School Students. Lots of loans - no money. Now they've got the reverse!

 

Used slide film and always under exposed. I loved it! Got out of wedding stuff because I had to keep up with my friends!

 

Slide film is woinderful! No latitude hence not forgiving. I used Ektachrome X with 64 ASA. Usually captured 72 to 106 slides.

 

It was fun. Want to laugh I could post a few of them.

 

Digital photography is like taking with slide film. Underexpose and not a lot of latitude.

 

Does any of this make sense?

 

I tried thinkin' once but nothin' happened!

A bit off the topic- but I was scanning some of my step dads slides from 1974. I really can't believe how great they look! I don't know who took these pix- but somebody knew how to expose them. I'm buying some E6 to play with today...<div></div>

cute pic, is it ektachrome or kodachrome?

 

Eric, thanks, I know what I'm doing half the time and the other

half hoping to get lucky. ;)

 

Nadine, I just pointed and shot my M7 on autopilot. :)

Now that you mention it- I think it was Kodachrome because I recall thinking that A&I does not process kodachrome anymore...

Thanks for the answer Ray. I don't know how the M7's meter does on autopilot, but probably similar to most TTL type metering, so the sunlight parts probably got exposed correctly. Have you got the film back yet? Just curious, were you thinking minus development to reduce contrast?