Film... overexpose... always.

<p>Yeah , it's true. I shot 8 roll of films within 2weeks. For several times, I shot in average exposure with my light meter but the film negative seem to be little bit dark. Looks fine but not that great. I really sorrow that I didn't overexpose +2 for using color film. It is hard to use but I'm learning more about color film since 2 weeks ago.</p>

<p>Let me ask some questions.<br>

1. I saw someone who set the iso 200 while the film iso is 400. But how am I going to meter the light for iso 400 or 200? </p>

<p>2. On sunny day without any clouds, if you shoot portrait, do you stand your person or model behind the sunlight or face the sunlight?</p>

 

<p>Color and black+white open up one stop, no problem. Portraits are better in open shade, never facing the sun, sun behind the photographer is OK but avoid casting a shadow. Open lens up to eliminate fore and background detail.</p>

<p>who sets ISO 200 for a ISO 400 film tries to overexpose as you were doing. - Your negatives were too dark, not as clear as others and hard to scan, right?<br>

I do not understand why you would like to ovberexpose color 2 stops. Yes there is a rumopr it would become better and hold more details but: You usa a 6x7! that negative should deliver enough details anyhow + you are scanning! - Scanners don't like overexposures. While you can sit in a darkroom and wait for your enlarger to turn hottwer and hotter and finally get some light even through an overexposed neg the density scanners can handle is limited. (Not true for drumscanners.)<br>

If your metering seems off: Try to compare to somebody else's I wouldn't rust tiny digicams (below SLR level) and I would only use fixed aperture zooms of others for reference (i.e. not a 28-80mm f3.5 - 4.5)simply meter a white wall or such with both cameras.<br>

Anyhow your overexposure shouts for setting the ISO on your meter by a factor like 2x = "800" set with 400 loaded, "400" set with 200 loaded.<br>

Issues: do you know if your film gets properly porocessed? - I guess a lab selling C41 service works properly but with BW I wouldn't really trust them and suggest homeprocessing. during your first year or such: shoot a roll process it look at the negatives and figurre out if you should meter, expose or process differently with the next one.<br>

I don't recommend built in meters of elderly cameras. Get a nice handheld meter that allows spotmetering and most important metering the light hitting your subject instead of the one reflected by it too.</p>

<p>Negative films do better with a little overexposure, positive films with a little underexposure. <br>

Often, I get close to the exposure I want, then adjust the aperture up or down, depending on the film in use. Maybe a 1/4 or even 1/2 stop, but not more.<br>

There are some film/developer combinations that work best at an EI different from the film label. </p>

<p>Jochen Schrey/</p>

<p>http://www.bellelumieremagazine.com/overexposing-film/</p>

<p>Photographers did that.</p>

<p>I tried average and normal exposure but the shadow area has no detail and if I want to increase the brightness with photoshop or etc, those dark areas are fill with noisy... </p>

<p>Well, if its a personal taste thing, I have been liking the -1 look of Portra 400, the posted grads here provided by Les also point to -1 as the choice in my view, and he even posted one using Portra 400 also months ago. I just like the snap, and color saturation with a -1 exposure. With Portra 400, the 800 speed is marvelous. It seems like the obvious choice.</p>

<p>Oh OK - misleading OP.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the film negative seem to be little bit dark. Looks fine but not that great.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounded "severely overexposed and impossible to handle" to me. - I thought a negative not providing enough shadow detail would be called "thin".<br>

If yours are thin overexpose, i.e. dial down your ISO and try metering for darker skin tones as described in that blogpost. </p>

<p>When I was getting started, Kodak Tri-X was rated at ASA 200 (before ISO). Within two years the rating went to 250 then to 400. The film itself was unchanged, rather the way it was rated, probably due to a "speed" contest across the industry, which seems to exist to this day, with color negative film as well.</p>

<p>I found that I got better results in the darkroom if I overexposed Tri-X by a stop, which placed the speed back at 200. About the same time, Kodachrome went from ASA 10 to 25. The film was actually improved, but not by a factor of 2.5x. It always worked better underexposed by 1/2 to 1 stop. I metered from my hand instead of an 18% gray card, which did about the same thing. Go figure.</p>

<p>Not overexpose always. Only sometimes. I overexpose very expired film by 1 stop and usually get decent results. You can over expose by 1/2 stops on a manual camera and lens.</p>

<p>Do you have any data for Fuji Pro 400h?</p>

<p>No I mean those pics for over and under exposure</p>

<p>The term "overexposure" is a little slippery, because it depends on what the meter says. For example, if you use a Sekonic, then you may have to "overexpose" because in general those meters (the two I've had) underexpose, possibly as a bias towards slide film. However, some other meters may give a different reading.</p>

<p>Whatever the case, overexposure, even with negative film, can lead to blown highlights. So it really depends on the image in question.</p>

Here's a link to a test up to 10 stops over....

 

http://www.johnnypatience.com/download/johnny_patience_portra_400_0_to_10.jpg