Kodak Ektar 100 question

<p>Greetings,<br>

I shot a few rolls of Kodak Ektar last summer with my Canon FX and FL 50mm 1.8, using a polarizer. Much of my subjects turned out dark, almost black. Any ideas on how I screwed up? I sent the film to North Coast photo for scanning and development. </p><div></div>

<p>Hello Les,<br /> Thanks a lot, I underexposed then. Being Ektar, if I had used more exposure, would the clouds have had as much definition without the polarizer? </p>

<p>Looks to me that your metering may have not been done correctly. Camera doesn't know what you want; therefore, you need to set things up. Having said that, you should know how the meter responds, I mean set to read the average scene....or spot for that matter. If the meter would constantly overexpose or underexpose, then you need to adjust according to your wishes. If your results would still be erratic, then I'd suggest quality external meter. Having a standard is v. important, tho you can always deviate from that depending on a subject or your whims.</p>

<p>Filters, however, bring on their own sets of issues. You can meter through the pola filter (set appropriately)...and also meter the scene w/o the filter, so you can tell how many F-stops of exposure you'd be compromising.....and adjust accordingly.</p>

<p>Also, it helps to know whether you should set the ASA setting to 100, 125 or to 80....in sync with the place you are developing your films. Yes, sometimes there are deviations.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'd suggest you run a test roll (w/o filter), utilizing various subjects, adjusting the exposure to "normal", which would be followed by under/over exposures (say 1.5 F-stops at either direction). This way you'd know where you are on the map. You might want to change the camera meter's battery before you start on this.</p>

<p>By the way, your pola filter was only partially effective....since only the right side of the image turned darker in the sky.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello,<br /> Yes, I use a Sekonic L-358 external meter. I probably misadjusted the exposure for the polarizer after getting the reading.</p>

<p>You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Your exposure is correct for the sky and clouds, but perhaps two stops underexposed for the foreground, which is in a cloud shadow. If you expose for the foreground, the sky will be blown. The best solution for film is to use a 2 stop (or so) graduated density filter. However you may be able to recover detail in Lightroom or Photoshop (preferred, better masking).</p>

<p>Negative film is tolerant of overexposure, but not of underexposure. If you bring up the foreground, it will probably be off color and grainy. At least start with a 16 bit/channel TIFF.</p>

<p>You can also do HDR processing (I use Photomatix). Make two or more scans at different exposure levels, and let software sort out boundaries for the composite. You can also make bracketed exposures in the camera. That gets expensive with film, and is not very tolerant of moving things.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone who has helped out; I have one other photo; I'm guessing it's grossly underexposed - would I be right?</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, I appreciate the wise counsel.</p>

<p>The H-D curves (all three of them) cover 10 zones (stops) and don't even hint at starting to flatten out.</p>

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf</p>

<p>There might be two or more stops still to go. For a scene with both shade and sun, I would expose somewhere in between. Traditionally open shade is about three stops darker than sun, so maybe 1.5 stops more than sun, or 1.5 stops less than shade. Or, to use more of the overexposure latitude, just 1 stop less than shade. </p>

<p>As you are using film, Photoshop may be a four letter word to you, haha, but either of those photos can be helped hugely with some minor adjustments. I see your initial problem as simply you are shooting scenes with extreme exposure differences needed. Photoshop, when used correctly, is just a much easier and more effective solution than what a GOOD darkroom tech would try to do with dodging and burning in development. Here is your first photo, no doubt the same can be done with your second photo. </p>

<p>http://postmyimage.com/img2/466_00duWz_562709784.jpg</p>

<p>Are you scanning the negatives, scanning prints, or using scans of negatives provided by the lab? Keep in mind in both the second and third case you are at the mercy of the lab, who may often err on the side of attractive contrast over useful shadow detail.</p>

<p>Steve P, quite an impressive change in the photo that you worked on. Would you say that I could do something similar in Gimp? Steve C, I just send my film to North Coast Photo, and have them develop the film, do a hi rez scan, and have them send me back the negatives and a DVD. Yes, I'm sure the way the photos look reflects how North Coast thinks they should look. </p>

<p>Chris, your sculpture photo actually looks perfectly exposed -- for the sculpture.</p>

<p>It all depends what you want the final result to look like. I often expose like this, getting proper exposure for the bright side of a day-lit subject, and nice sky+clouds. Knowing that other parts of the background will fall to darkness, I can use that to selectively emphasize or demphasize things.</p>

<p>If that approach does not appeal, then I would fall back on the old advice of exposing for the shadows on negative film.</p>

<p>Chris, Sure, GIMP will do pretty much all that Photoshop will. It is "supposed" to be the same as far as user interface, but I have found that to not be true at all. I had GIMP downloaded and found it so confusing to use that I trashed it. That could be because I have used Photoshop for over 10 years. </p>

<p>This is a little more about the lab than the exposure. I've used North Coast for quite some time without any issues, for development only, the scanning that I've had them do for me has been a mixed bag. I've used Chrome in dowtown SD, for years, before they quit development and went to strictly digital. I've gotten some decent results from them also, but again it can be a mixed bag. One thing that I've done is to make sure not to have ANY scanning service alter the scan in any way, just a straight, clean scan, no adjustments. I'd rather do all my own post. It doesn't take much, to do a little work in LR or PS. I agree with an above comment about using a ND grad, use 'em all the time, they can help you acquire fine results, also, a little over on the exposure is always better than under. Try this next time, meter a clear north sky, and green grass, that should get you very close to proper exposure for that type scene.<br>

Have fun!</p>