Jump to content

Help!!!!


scarletfield

Recommended Posts

94AEFD83-156C-42B3-B9D1-224530794A09.thumb.jpeg.138cd723f2fe4a3b9b965f4e0017cb9b.jpeg F0BD7192-FF3A-4F7C-A559-B747ED7D4DDC.thumb.jpeg.63918c851bff95e448f9994b2c82bcf2.jpeg B7A3A3C5-9ED3-426F-B7C9-69B75C910CD0.thumb.jpeg.756f62d869644efe64069aec1e0ae891.jpeg F1EDBAC3-C978-4548-9E7B-066487343CFA.thumb.jpeg.2c431004243808142a83f6f4612bdbf5.jpeg Hello, I am a beginner to photography and have a Minolta x-700.

My first roll of film I shot was fantastic (the top 2 images) and I was very pleased with it - it was ISO 400 but I set it to 800 to underexpose, and I also set exposure at -1. (I shoot on P mode so the rest it done automatically for me). I was very pleased with these results.

The next roll of film I shot (the bottom 2 images) I used all the same methods, but they came out looking overexposed and faded.

Will this be the different films I was using? Or something I did?

I would be so so so grateful for any help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being new to a hobby naturally suggests initially taking a proven path to suggest before experimenting with alternatives. Use the manufacturer's suggested ISO before deviating so that you can see what generally expected results will be. As you gain experience with varying conditions you will be much better prepared to make adjustments.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting with negative (reversal) film involves a two-stage exposure process: once when you expose the negative, then again to project the film onto prints (or alternatively when you scan the film). I'm assuming this was shot with negative film and given to a print shop (which may or may not have provided you with scans), and that's what came back washed out? I've seen that happen. I'm assuming you didn't do your own printing (which is a faff, in colour).

 

The problem is that the production of the print/scan is a subjective process. Expecting that people will have underexposed the image accidentally, the thing controlling the exposure of the prints (whether that's an automated heuristic or an actual person) will be overexposing the result, bringing it back to the washed-out muddy version. Presumably this didn't happen for your first prints, presumably because it was a different print shop? You won't have this problem if you shoot slide (positive) film, because there's no secondary exposure - what you put on the film is what you get, and the E6 colour slide process is relatively standardised. However, slide film is sometimes not very tolerant to incorrect exposure, so be wary when you can't fix it afterwards! The good news is that your negatives are probably fine - if you get them re-scanned or new prints made, you should be able to get the exposure you intended.

 

Note that telling the camera your film is ISO800 when it's ISO400 will make the meter underexpose everything by one stop. If you're setting a further exposure compensation of -1 stop, you're at a total of -2 stops of exposure. You could probably pick one way or the other to do this rather than both, but up to you!

 

For your interest (and I hope you don't mind), here's a quick tweak of your last image in an image editing package (GIMP, because I had it to hand and it's free). All I did was adjust the curves to blacken the darker tones, and add a slight contrast curve to the rest. Can I confirm this is what you were attending to achieve? Note that the dark regions are quite grainy (as in your original) because the film isn't getting all that much light to work with; darkening it helps a bit. A longer exposure and slower film might well give you a bit more leeway.

 

pnetalex.thumb.jpeg.15422a38880e5bf2775c8ecb74cf8649.jpeg

 

(Incidentally, I know that pub.)

 

I hope that helps!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that you set ISO 800 instead of 400 and then set the exposure compensation to -1 thus underexpose your film 2 stops. You're lucky that you have the pictures. I wonder why you did that? I hope you feel it's fair to answer the question as you asked and had answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are all severely underexposed. The last two especially, because not only have you (incorrectly) set your exposure two stops too low, but the bright skies caused your meter to further underexpose. Shoot a roll at the rated speed (ISO 400) for this film, and I think you'll find the results much better. With color negative film, many of us tend to OVER expose--I shoot Kodak Portra 400 at 200, for example. You may have misunderstood some instructions you read?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scarletfield's question suggests that the first two images were satisfactory - that is, they are deliberately intended to be low-key and underexposed, because that was the desired look. I actually think that's fine (as an artistic decision) for the first two images.

 

The problem is the latter two, which were shot in the same style but which have had their exposure raised - probably in the printing process of this is reversal film. That's certainly where I've seen the behaviour. Normally it's a primitive attempt to compensate for an accidentally under-exposed negative (or one which was underexposed because the necessary shutter speed and appetite didn't allow enough light, since you can't explicitly "change ISO" like on a digital camera). On this occasion the negative was intended to be two stops under-exposed, so the exposure boost made to the print reversed the photographer's decision and left mush. If the print shop thought you were trying to photograph the text on the blackboard, they'd have done the right thing - is more legible in the original than my edit, despite the low contrast.

 

The negatives (which, if processed normally, were controlled by the original exposure) should contain what was intended - getting them printed again with specific instructions not to increase exposure during the print, or saving the negatives, would get the original captures represented properly.

 

At least, that's my take on this, and why I edited one of the photos to be very gloomy. Recovering the detail in the dark areas is harder, and best done with a brighter exposure at time of capture.

 

I'm hoping scarletfield will confirm, though. I may have misunderstood.

 

It's also not a bad idea as a beginner to shoot at default exposure settings and only later start making adjustments for low-key and high-key images - then you know the rest of the process works. If you can edit the image afterwards digitally, you can often create a look better when you've got maximum detail for the scene recorded.

 

I have to point out that you don't really have this problem (certainly not to the same extent) with a digital camera - there's no third party doing your printing for you. (Well, until you send it off to get a poster made and they mess up the colours "artistically", but that's a separate problem.) Welcome to the joys of (reversal) film. Film has merits, but digital does make it easier to experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even if you want the image to be dark I would want to expose for it correctly. It's easy to print or scan them as dark as I want. I often print quite dark and in the area when looking at the print normally it would look black but if you have it backlighted you can see details. Printing it that way the black part gives you the impression of something is there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your time and advice.

 

I am confused as I have read in many places that it is normal to play around with the ISO numbers, in order to under or over expose.

If I were to keep ISO 400 at 400, wouldn’t my photos then be a lot lighter? (I’m trying to achieve the underexposed vintage look).

 

I also don’t understand how with the same settings and same print shop the results are completely different.

 

Do we all agree then that my ISO should be at the correct number and only my exposure at a negative number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expose correctly at the rated ISO and don't use any negative exposure compensation. If anything, negative film responds better to overexposure. Trying to get a certain look by exposing a certain way and then having a lab guess at your intentions is not going to work. You'd need to print your own or have a custom lab print for you.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1a. You are right - it is helpful to play around with ISO numbers. You can get a subtle change or a dramatic change, depending on the film. And this is useful in the real world. For example, the cinematographer who shot The Dark Knight overexposed one scene by five stops. If you looked at that negative by holding it up to a window, you would probably not be able to see through it. This was then brought back down in printing - this is the advantage of negative film over slide film, to put it simply. (Almost all movies shot on film are shot on negative stock, as opposed to reversal stock such as Ektachrome).

 

1b. If you kept your 400 speed film at 400, and metered correctly, your photos wouldn't be necessarily lighter. Negatives must be interpreted by the user. That's the price you pay for so much flexibility. You can set your 400 speed film at ISO 100 if you wanted, and even then you can print it to look dark.

 

2. That is because everyone has a different opinion on how a negative has to be interpreted. Slide film is, to be simplistic, impossible to interpret. If you get your exposure right, then it's its own reference when it comes to scanning and publishing. If you get it wrong, you throw it out and try again later. Without getting into too much detail, you don't get the luxury of agonizing about how to print a slide. ;-)

 

3. Not necessarily. :) There is little point in underexposing negative film unless you actually don't have enough light. In that case, you would expose a roll of 400 speed film at ISO 1600 (for example), and then tell the lab to push it by two stops. That will make it easier to print/scan. Either way, you are still underexposing, so you will get a grainier - but usable - image. Modern emulsions can be underexposed without pushing and still be easy to recover a usable image. For example, Eyes Wide Shut, in its entirety, was shot by pushing the film by two stops (it was ASA 500 film, rated at ASA 2000, and pushed in the lab).

 

FWIW I would not use program mode. That's for mobile phone snapshots. Stick to manual, aperture priority or shutter priority. You're a photographer, not just someone who wants to take memento snapshots. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are completely different because the things you photographed are completely different. Large areas of highlights and shadow in the third and fourth, not so much in the first two. Seriously though, set your ISO to whatever the film is rated, 400, 200 and so on and take out that -1 compensation setting. Shoot some short rolls of each kind of image, the outdoor town images, the indoor shot and so on. Do some different things and see what the meter is telling you. I would put the camera in manual mode for now. You will find still that the camera will have problems with high contrast photos ie. large bright skies and large shadows in the same shot or a white book surrounded by areas with less light. There is no one single correct exposure, you either need to expose for the highlights and lose the shadows or the other way around. You should consider photography, like flying, as a compromise, a gain somewhere causes a loss somewhere else. It takes practice but when you figure it out you'll wonder what was so hard about it. You can get a huge amount of help here.

 

Rick H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume scarletfield might have been trying to avoid blowing out the sky in the negative. Negatives do have a limited dynamic range, and it's possible that a "normal" exposure (capturing the foreground normally) would simply have recorded the skies as white. Even if the intent wasn't to produce a low-key image, it's potentially reasonable to do this. Negative film (sorry, I got my terminology mixed up and kept calling this "reversal film" incorrectly), as others have implied, tends to handle overexposure relatively well (light areas of the negative turn dark, and you need quite a lot before they fully saturate); on the other hand, if you under-expose, the grains don't really "get started". The opposite is true of slide film: once an area is at maximum brightness, you've lost that detail, whereas you have a chance of pulling detail out of the shadows (in a scan). Digital behaves more like slide film, in that once the sensor is recording white, you can't pull any detail back - whereas there's often something recorded in shadows.

 

I also don’t understand how with the same settings and same print shop the results are completely different.

 

When making the print, the print shop makes its own exposure of your negative. The exposure settings for the print are not fixed - either a person or a meter in the print machine decided that your film needed more exposure to produce a correct print, causing the shadows to be brightened. Your first images, if a little low-key, had enough brightness in them to avoid confusing the meter. I'd guess that's not true of the latter two shots - particularly since there's a dark area right in the centre of the frame, exactly where a centre-weighted meter would be looking.

 

Do we all agree then that my ISO should be at the correct number and only my exposure at a negative number?

 

I agree that it makes no difference whether you're underexposing the film by telling the camera's meter that the film is faster than it really is, or dialling in exposure compensation manually. On some cameras the "exposure compensation" is physically the same dial as that where you set the film ISO. Assuming you actually wanted a dark image with detail in the sky, the problem isn't with what you captured, it's with the printing process. If you get the negative scanned, you can process the result yourself; if you print it yourself in a dark room, you can also fix it. A standard print shop with no knowledge of your intent happened to get it wrong in this case.

 

That is because everyone has a different opinion on how a negative has to be interpreted. Slide film is, to be simplistic, impossible to interpret. If you get your exposure right, then it's its own reference when it comes to scanning and publishing. If you get it wrong, you throw it out and try again later. Without getting into too much detail, you don't get the luxury of agonizing about how to print a slide.

 

Kharim is correct - slide film (assuming it's processed normally) does not go through an "interpretation" process by the print shop - at least in generating the slide (you can always edit the result digitally or make a print from a slide, but let's ignore that for now). With negative film, you can make easy choices of how to print the film, lightening or darkening it, or adjusting areas of it during the print process. With slide film, the slide is what you captured. This does mean you can't "rescue" a slide (at least, in the default process of getting an image out of it) in the way that you could rescue a print - if you'd wanted to have detail in the road signs in your last image, for example, you can recover them in a print (which is what the print shop tried to do), whereas they'd simply be dark in a slide. On the other hand, if you get the exposure right at the time of capture, that's what you'll get in the slide, and the print shop won't have a chance to mess it up (unless they're doing something non-standard in the development process).

 

As BeBu says:

 

I think even if you want the image to be dark I would want to expose for it correctly. It's easy to print or scan them as dark as I want.

 

That's really the question - how "easy" is it to control the print or scan? If you just hand it to a shop and come back later, you probably don't have any control (especially if you didn't ask). If you're doing your own darkroom work, you have a lot of control.

 

If you're making your own prints or can tell your print shop what you want, negative film gives you more flexibility. If you're outsourcing and have no control over what happens, slide film has the advantage that what you shot is what you'll get (for better or for worse): if you have no control other than the in-camera exposure, it's helpful to ensure you have at least that much control. I've tended to shoot slides more, partly for this reason. That said, slide films often have less dynamic range (I believe), so if you're trying to capture bright skies and dark foregrounds, they may not be your friend even if you have the best exposure settings. To be fair, I'm mostly a digital shooter, so others will be giving much better advice on the specific behaviour of films than me.

 

The Ansel Adams books on The Negative and The Print are quite interesting reads on the subject, although they do rather assume you're doing your own thing in a darkroom and making an exhibition-sized print. These days many would get a scan of the negative and process it digitally.

 

FWIW I would not use program mode. That's for mobile phone snapshots. Stick to manual, aperture priority or shutter priority. You're a photographer, not just someone who wants to take memento snapshots.

 

I think that's going a bit far. I don't agree with a well-known photographic blogger/opinionist who claims that "P" stands for "professional", but there's a "P" setting on pro cameras for a reason. That is:

  • Manual mode: You set the aperture and shutter manually. The camera tells you whether your exposure settings agree with the meter (usually adjusted by your exposure compensation settings).
  • Aperture priority: You set the aperture (to the available range) and the camera sets the shutter speed (as best it can) according to the meter, adjusted by your exposure compensation settings.
  • Shutter priority: You set the shutter (to the available range) and the camera sets the aperture (as best it can) according to the meter, adjusted by your exposure compensation settings.
  • Program mode: The camera picks a relationship between aperture and priority according to your exposure compensation settings, and you "shift" to choose which of the options sharing that relationship fits your needs.

If you want specific control over depth of field and want the camera to control the shutter for you, pick aperture priority. You may find the camera can't get the exposure correct because the shutter speed it would need is not available.

 

If you want specific control over shutter speed (to freeze or induce motion blur or camera shake), pick shutter priority. You may find the camera can't get the exposure correct because the aperture it would need is not available.

 

If you want to control both but are prepared for the exposure to be incorrect if the lighting changes, pick manual mode. You're in control, but you'll be slower than the camera at allowing for a subject moving into or out of light, or if clouds shift.

 

If you want the exposure correct no matter what, and only want to influence depth of field and motion as a secondary factor, use program, and don't be ashamed. It's a safer option under highly varying lighting conditions, and it has its place.

 

They're only controlling the same pair of parameters (with respect to a third). How you choose to control that is up to you:

 

Exposure.jpg.6bb3ad707fd33a3c08aded0de9751b74.jpg

 

The situation is even more complicated in digital, where dynamically changing the ISO for each shot is also an option. Camera manufacturers generally don't have this interface perfect yet.

Edited by Andrew Garrard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, it's been politely pointed out to me that I have my terminology mixed up. "Reversal film" refers to positive film, as typically used to generate a slide, not negative film as I'd been claiming. I told you I usually shot digital! Apologies for any confusion. (My description of the properties of negative vs slide film is, I believe, correct.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused as I have read in many places that it is normal to play around with the ISO numbers, in order to under or over expose.

 

No idea where you read it, but for beginner purposes, I think it's pretty useless advice. I'd start with the book Understanding Exposure, or if you prefer website tutorials, on this very site the same author wrote short introductions on the same topic. The book is a more complete reference though.

Once you fully understand the concepts in that book, and understand well how the metering in your camera works, start thinking about deliberately underexposing and overexposing. Odds are, you won't use ISO anymore to achieve that, but rather shoot fully manual mode. Getting a particular look is much easier once you understand the basics behind it; instead of following a recipe, you can reason for yourself what it takes.

 

In my view, one of the key mistakes is thinking that the meter in your camera is always spot on. It can be, but it also may not - it's worth understanding what kind of light conditions might confuse it, and how to act upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still assuming that the OP was underexposing deliberately, intending to produce an underexposed (or low-key) final result, if only to darken the sky. Which would have worked if it weren't for the somewhat arbitrary nature of the process of printing from a negative (if you don't have control over it or the ability to make requests of the person doing the printing). Within a small range I'd assume this would quite possibly work anyway - I don't know whether the average automated printing machine meters every negative from scratch, or whether there's a "whoops, that one looks like it needs rescuing" mode.

 

There are cameras for which "changing ISO" is the only way to make the meter apply exposure compensation. It doesn't appear that the X-700 is one of them (you set the ISO with a secondary mode on the shutter speed dial); I'm guessing this was a miscommunication. It doesn't really matter (so long as the shooter isn't confused), and you could use a "fake ISO" to dial in a correction for a meter which consistently over- or under-exposes, but if you just want to make a given image darker, the dedicated exposure compensation seems more logical. The X-700's meter appears to be fairly even across the frame rather than being significantly centre-weighted, which might affect some choices with a very bright sky.

 

Having looked at the user guide, I now realise that the X-700 doesn't appear to have a program shift (its Program mode is just "pick one value and live with it") - and the default is shifted to higher shutter speeds. In which case, Karim has a point - P mode gives you less control over creativity than it does on a modern camera!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points.

1. The Minolta X700 does have the exposure compensation function and can be used to alter exposure when you are in A or P mode. I personally never use it but I think it should be used to compensate for a single shot.

2. If you want to always over or under expose your film then I would use the ISO setting to do that. For example I use Portra 160 at ISO 100 and I set the ISO for 100 instead of setting the EC to +2/3.

3. Negative film should be exposed in the manner that it would capture the most details of the scene and not because you want the final print or scan to look dark or bright. In case the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the film then you either have to sacrifice the shadow or the highlight. The final print or scan is then made to look the way you like that is to show more of the shadow or highlight details.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a digital camera to learn the basics with. Film is a dreadful (and expensive) medium to learn on.

 

There's nothing you can do with film* that can't be learned or done with even a quite basic digital camera, and vice versa. Especially if you're going to just use P mode.

 

*Except become reasonably proficient at chemical process control.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The responses so far are all very interesting and helpful, especially for those who have a fair amount of experience, not so for a beginner.

 

May I make the following suggestions?

 

Problem 1 - Your film speed is ISO 400 but you told the camera that it was ISO 800. You then told the camera to increase the film ISO speed to 1600. So the camera created the image on that basis. In some light, ISO 1600 light if you like, it will work OK other times, non ISO 1600 light it will not. As a beginner do what everyone else does and stick to the film speed of the film in the camera at least until you get some more experience and you feel comfortable with "pushing" (increasing) film speed or "pulling" (decreasing) film speed for particular effects.

 

Problem 2 - When you had the film processed the machine at the processors thought it was working with ISO 400 film. On the film canister it will have "ISO 400" or "DIN 27" both of which mean the same thing just different ways of measuring film speed. In addition, you may have noticed some odd markings which are small squares which again tells the processing machine "this is ISO 400 film". The processor created the images on the basis of what you told them via the film canister. Again, as above this will work sometimes and not on other occasions.

 

May I suggest, turning OFF P mode and work with manual especially if you are using negative film which is very forgiving much more so than transparency (positive) film . Make notes of each shot taken and then compare them to the results. This will teach you the relationship between f stop and aperture speed Always tell the processors what film settings you used if anything other than the standard rating of the film bearing in mind as above that the film canister always indicates the film speed.

 

You should also note that "negative (reversal) film" is in fact wrong as stated above by one of the respondents. Negative film is always printed on paper or scanned. When negative film is processed it comes out with a distinct orange caste which makes it, at best, difficult to see detail hence a further process of printing as a positive image on paper or scanning for processing further is required. "reversal film" comes out of the processor in a form that you actually hold it up to the light and see clearly detail, colour, shadows etc. Although I consider reversal film, sometimes referred to as transparency, to be superior I would not advise its use for a beginner. Start with film and learn by your mistakes which is exactly what I, and millions of other photographers have done.

 

After 30 years of photography I, and many others, have images galore which turned out as your second two images we all learn from our mistakes. Don't be put off keep going we have all been there.

 

www.frankfitz.com will show you some examples of my images most of which used to be reversal film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, apologies (again) for the terminology confusion about reversal film. Since I so rarely shoot print film, I made the mistake of thinking of a negative as "reversed"; sorry about that, I should have checked. I believe the statements about its behaviour were otherwise correct, though!

 

Re. the problems - my understanding is that the film will have been developed as for ISO 400, which will result in an image that's darker than for normal metering (that is, the negative is lighter), since effectively it was deliberately underexposed compared with what the meter said (and possibly well exposed for the highlit sky). As others said, you may not want to do this with negative film in many cases because it's likely better to capture the shadows properly and print darker. However, if the print was made with the exposure typical for a correctly-exposed film, I believe the camera exposure settings WOULD have resulted in darker prints. I believe the issue is that the prints were underexposed (or corrected digitally) to "correct" for the underexposure in the negatives.

 

Scarletfield claims to be deliberately trying to produce low key images. That can be achieved with a conventionally-exposed negative either by editing digitally or taking nicely to whoever's doing to printing (if it's not entirely automated and being run by someone who was told what button to press). Getting the exposure right in a slide is less forgiving, but does directly correspond to the settings you use in the camera (if it's processed normally), taking the "getting the print shop to do something unexpected" step out of the process, should that prove to be difficult.

 

It's certainly possible to learn with film, and generations of photographer's have done so. But when learning settings, there's a lot to be said for having immediate feedback, having the settings you used recorded in the EXIF, and not having the print shop "reinterpret" everything for you. Film is a fun medium and trends to train you not to waste money on unnecessary shots, but it's neither easier nor cheaper these days. That mean anyone shouldn't do it, just that you need to know it's making life a little harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Scarletfield exposed the first shot normally the scan would still look the same but better. It will not look any brighter. If the processor simply scans the negative on automatic it would have about the same brightness but with more details and contrast. If the negative is to be printed or scan with a fixed exposure you wouldn't be happy with the results because very slight changes in the original exposure will make the result quite different. Variations in film batch and the age of the film make it impossible to print or scan without some form of compensation for each roll. Today most negatives are scanned before making prints so it's all in the scanning. Back when I was making prints using a fully automatic optical printing machine, the machine would measure the color and density and adjust the exposure and filtration automatically. The operator had the ability to put in some compensation if he/she wanted. The compensation settings were available for both color and exposure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Scarletfield exposed the first shot normally the scan would still look the same but better. It will not look any brighter.

 

Well, yes. Of course, Scarletfield doesn't want it to look the same - the intent was to scan it in the way a more highly exposed image would be scanned, without trying to recover shadow detail. I'm not sure I see the problem with the camera exposure settings (with this output intent) - if it was better to "expose normally according to the meter" in these circumstances, it would also be better to overexpose deliberately when trying to create the brighter print (by the same "get more shadow details and rely on highlight headroom" argument).

 

Sometimes that may be true, analogously with the digital "expose to the right" approach for preserving highlights. But if you're within the dynamic range of the film, I don't see the problem with exposing as you intend to print. If you're worried, use the zone system and spot meter.

 

Variations in film batch and the age of the film make it impossible to print or scan without some form of compensation for each roll.

 

That surprises me unpleasantly. I can believe some variation, but slide film doesn't have this (surely the processing itself isn't dynamically tweaked?) I'd expect the print/scan to be adjusted to try to get the best exposure out of the image and "idiot proof" the process (many customers would have underexposed the image accidentally), but for film adjustments to be relatively minor within a film stock (although I certainly believe film stocks vary). But print film isn't my area, so I'll admit some confusion.

 

I'm sure the scanner operator (or, possibly, person doing an optical print) can adjust appropriately. My concern was that the operator in a supermarket "while you wait" print booth might not have been trained in the basics of doing so. I may be doing them a disservice by worrying. A decent scan can certainly be adjusted digitally (just as I tweaked the JPEG). My argument was that asking the operator to intervene is purely a feature of the negative film printing process, not slide or digital, so switching medium would be a way to avoid it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if in the first photo the OP need details in the snow then perhaps try not to over exposed it by more 3 stops but having more exposure would be much better. If the emphasis is the face of the person then I would to the minimum giving normal exposure to the dark side of the face. The bright nose would be well within the dynamic of the film. The print and then be print just as dark without problem. The print will have more contrast.

If I were to lock the printing machine to the same exposure and filtration perhaps to that I used to print the reference negative perfectly and print your negative that way you wouldn't be happy at all. Color balancing and exposure is the most difficult thing when printing color negative. Same thing with scanning. If you put your scanner on manual mode and adjust the color balance and exposure to make a perfect scan of a negative you use as standard and use the exact same settings to scan other negatives the results are quite bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defer to your expertise, BeBu, since you've run a print machine and the nearest I've done is scan elderly slides that needed some digital recovery. But that means I have questions too.

 

I understand that negative films may not all have the same density, tone response or colour balance (that these may be optimised for capturing detail rather than consistency between stocks). Still, I'm surprised that it's necessary to do more than adjust for the particular film type, just because if slide film were this inconsistent it would be unusable. (Slide films have different "looks", Provia looks different to Velvia, but only to the extent of a choice of artistic rendering.) Should it really be necessary to expose a colour chart at the start of every roll?

 

I've had underexposed shots come back to me in a similarly washed-out manner to Scarletfield's. My difference was often that I'd used the wrong exposure settings so the print needed brightening to show anything, whereas Scarletfield actually wanted a dark print. I have to assume print shops default to assuming the customer messed up the exposure like me, and simply needed telling that the exposure choice was deliberate.

 

I would expect that deliberately exposing a negative to maximise the captured detail in the desired zones to be a more "advanced technique" than merely metering for the desired print. As such, I don't see why "expose for the default metering of the scene" (where the meter is typically a fairly crude instrument anyway) is good advice when the intent is to print deliberately at a different intensity.

 

I'd still hope the negatives contain the desired detail, and that they can just be re-scanned with darker settings, or (with enough bit depth) adjusted digitally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...