Exposure

Most young people of today are living MTV, dna altered, lives. I believe it is termed "Instant Gratification "

Exactly what our grandparents said about us being the TV generation. Sadly, every older generation figures out a way in which the new generation won’t be as good as them ... and it usually turns out to be nothing more than a meme.

The Bobby Soxer generation is now also known as The Greatest Generation. Don’t count the current generation out before the game is through.

Like many here I grew up on film and tried to learn the lessons of exposure from the film I collected the following week from the lab. I was excited to have my first camera (Pentax ME Super 1981) and didn't realise back then that the lab was trying to give me the best results it could. I believed that what I shot was what I got.

I would recommend a student to get a digital camera with a manual option and the ability to shoot raw and use that to learn about exposure. Analyse the histogram; change parameters and see what impact it has on the histogram and the resulting image. Definitely get a film camera if you can afford it, you don't have to spend a lot and have fun shooting some film too. I would not suggest the only camera you should use is a film camera if you are trying to learn.

I am not a professional and have never earned a living from a camera so my input has as much value as you wish to assign it.

Whatever you do, enjoy it.

Like many here I grew up on film and tried to learn the lessons of exposure from the film I collected the following week from the lab. I was excited to have my first camera (Pentax ME Super 1981) and didn't realise back then that the lab was trying to give me the best results it could. I believed that what I shot was what I got.

 

(snip)

I was doing my own darkroom work from just about the beginning.

Before a family vacation when I was nine, my dad bought some rolls of 120 film to use

with a TLR he already had. He mostly switched to 35mm slides after I was born, so

it was from before that. He also bought me a Yankee II tank and from a Goodwill

store, a contact printer and safelight.

Yes, as someone noted, labs (usually by machine) will adjust the exposure on printing, which might

hide exposure errors on the film. From the days of simple cameras, this was part of what allowed

people to get good pictures at all. It is also the reason for the large exposure latitude of color

negative films.

My first enlarger was a Christmas present that year, and I mostly switched to 35mm after that.

Looking at the negatives, you soon learn what it good and what isn't. And when you try to

print them, what exposure is needed for printing. After not so long, I would buy 100 foot

rolls from Freestyle for $5, so my film costs weren't all that high.

And today, if you are really interested in film, you should do at least some of your

own film darkroom work, with black and white film. You could also use XP2,

and have a nearby C-41 lab process it. If you aren't up to a printing darkroom,

you can scan and print from the scans. Note that C-41 negatives are harder

to judge exposure from than other black and white films.

Slide film will force you to do better on exposure, as it has very little latitude.

You will learn faster, but film and processing costs more.

Going around with a digital camera set on P, or a film camera on P,

won't teach how to judge and meter exposure much at all. It will slowly

teach you the cases meters get wrong, but matrix metering gets them

right often enough.

Using a camera, digital or film, with a manual meter mode will help you

learn exposure, though if you follow the meter every time, without thinking

about what it says, not much faster than in P. It does give you a chance

to think about the exposure, and adjust a little. If most of the frame is

in shadow, but enough is in sun to fool the meter, you know to increase

the exposure a stop or two. With a spot or center weighted meter,

you learn to point in different directions, and compare the meter readings.

In my experience (and talking to a beginner), exposure is largely irrelevant. Learn to appreciate when under/over exposed, or flawed, shots please you and go with that. It’s far cheaper and more practical to do that with digital

That’s certainly a valid approach to courting the camera, and many start a lifelong love affair exactly that way. My concern with it is that it won’t reveal what would have been in the picture had the exposure been different - so a novice following that course will never know the full potential to craft an image.

The beauty of digital for learning is that you can bracket every shot for any parameter(s) and see the difference that parameter makes at no marginal cost per shot. Even better, every image is tagged with its recipe and whatever other info you need to characterize it including lighting conditions, time of day, etc. Then you can filter and sort the image files to compare each change and learn how each change affects everything in an image. And you can see the similarities, differences, and limitations of doing in post what didn’t get done pre-shot, e.g changing exposure. Even a minor change in EV affects critical factors like color value and shadow detail, and a lot of this change is so subtle that the potential to improve the image is not obvious unless you know what can be done.

I started on a 120 roll camera in about 1950. My first “good” camera was a ratty 15 year old Leica IIIc when I was in high school. A host of 35mm SLRs followed. I did all my own processing until 2000, when I bought a 3MP Toshiba PDR M70 and discovered I could live with digital. And I value the relationship between the photographer and his or her emulsion. But I don’t miss having to keep a diary of all shots so I knew what I’d done to get what I got. I don’t miss figuring out how many frames I could afford to expose, or how many rolls I needed to buy to get through a vacation. And I really don’t miss looking at the best print I could make of an image and discovering what I could have done and should have known to make it a bit better.

I encouraged our sons to take this approach and they both learned well. But I also encouraged them to go out and have fun with their cameras, abandoning all but the urge to shoot what they saw. That balance between learning and enjoying is critical to developing photographers (pun unintended and recognized after the fact!) and I strongly suggest it.

b. I was excited to have my first camera (Pentax ME Super 1981) and didn't realise back then that the lab was trying to give me the best results it could. I believed that what I shot was what I got.

I think that's missed a lot even today when folks new to film drop their exposed C-41 off at the lab and get back a stack of prints(just like what I started off doing back when film was on the decline, but almost every grocery store, pharmacy, and Wal-Mart still had a minilab tucked into it for their "1 hour photo").

Not too long ago, I was at my okay-ish local lab(to pick up a couple of rolls of E-6) and someone younger than me came in saying that they weren't happy that their prints were "too dark". The person at the counter offered a reprint, but also wondered if there was something wrong with the person's camera. I asked to see the negatives, and to my eye they ranged from normal density to a bit high(overexposed). Regardless, I'm sure the person was able to get prints to their liking, but when someone else prints your film you're at their mercy as to what they(or, more likely, the computer) thinks looks "correct."

Slides REALLY make you appreciate correct exposure, or at least correct to your eye. So does printing in the darkroom or even scanning, where you have to deal with squeezing as much detail as you can out of a thin negative or trying to print through a thick negative.

Hope Brizzybunny don't get overwhelmed with this thread! :D

--

"Film exposure" is not "digital exposure". Of course the topic is the same, but obviously procedures are quite different.

IMHO, the term "exposure" on film necessarily implies film development as a part of it, as soon as any variation during processing affect the output, let's call it, "base image".

So a concerned student cannot avoid this negative/positive, development-time/density processing knowledge.

On digital it is performed differently, since that instant feedback allows you to know the output (or "base image") in the very same moment of the take.

Come on, is a true beginner likely to capture anything memorable (especially if they are busy thinking about what knobs to turn :) )

Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and one will type the Gettysburg Address.

I understand your point - but beginners with good eyes and instinct capture some memorable images. And beginners who see even a bit of what they like in an image they’ve made (even accidentally) are often motivated to learn how to make it better. My kids are perfect examples - at 8, one son started shooting with one of my SLRs at a race while I was on the track driving. He got some amazing pans plus great portraits of people in the pits.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

didn't realise back then that the lab was trying to give me the best results it could. I believed that what I shot was what I got.

I think that's missed a lot even today when folks new to film drop their exposed C-41 off at the lab and get back a stack of prints(just like what I started off doing back when film was on the decline

I did realize that quite early on and it was THE main reason for me to abandon color negative film altogether and exclusively shoot slide film - I wanted to be in charge of the results.

"Film exposure" is not "digital exposure". Of course the topic is the same, but obviously procedures are quite different. IMHO, the term "exposure" on film necessarily implies film development as a part of it, as soon as any variation during processing affect the output, let's call it, "base image".

I disagree, "development" is very much part of the exposure process in digital - at least when you are shooting RAW. For me, shooting JPEG is equivalent to slide film - you better get it right in camera as there are very limited options to make adjustments later. Shooting RAW is like negative film - development is required in either case and adjustments are a lot easier to do on the computer than they are in the darkroom. The "optimum" RAW exposure may not look much on the camera's back screen but will allow to get the best results later on the computer.

The OP mentioned that he was starting a first class on photography this semester and asked for tips on exposure. He didn't mention what camera he might be using on the course (DSLR/Mirrorless/cellphone/film). He has not yet responded to the initial comments. In the meantime, we've all been talking amongst ourselves, mainly about exposure for film cameras. Most of this thread may not in any way be relevant to the OP.

It's been more than 30 years since I took any photos with a film camera. In those days, I knew nothing about photography (except that I'd read somewhere that an ISO 400 film was better for indoor/low-light photos than an ISO 100 film. But I couldn't have explained why. Still, somehow, all of my 'automatically shot ' outdoor and indoor scenes

(on compact and SLR) came out OK, even without a light-meter.

So I wonder why 'film camera exposure' is seen as a greater 'challenge', requiring more expertise and experience than 'digital camera exposure'. My personal experience is the exact opposite. I've found that it's much easier to blow out highlights and/or create murky (noisy) shadows when shooting digital than I ever remember when shooting film. I've since read that film - as a photographic medium - is more 'forgiving' of over- and under exposure. The corollary is that digital sensors are less 'forgiving' and require much more precise exposure control - both when shooting and in PP - than film photography.

It is not my intention to kick off a culture war' between PN-members. I simply point out that the 'film photography' responses do not necessarily answer the OP' question.

Mike

(snip)

 

So I wonder why 'film camera exposure' is seen as a greater 'challenge', requiring more expertise and experience than 'digital camera exposure'. My personal experience is the exact opposite. I've found that it's much easier to blow out highlights and/or create murky (noisy) shadows when shooting digital than I ever remember when shooting film. I've since read that film - as a photographic medium - is more 'forgiving' of over- and under exposure. The corollary is that digital sensors are less 'forgiving' and require much more precise exposure control - both when shooting and in PP - than film photography.

 

(snip)

Film and digital are different, and blown highlights are one case.

Some of the claims are not that digital is easier, but that it is easier (and cheaper) to learn.

Negative film, especially color negative film, has a large exposure latitude, while

reversal films (both color and black and white) have much less latitude.

While it is noted that you get instant feedback with digital, it isn't so easy to judge

exposure from a little LCD display.

Digital has sharp cutoffs on both ends, where film is more gradual.

But also, most digital cameras have better meters than many film cameras.

I've since read that film - as a photographic medium - is more 'forgiving' of over- and under exposure. The corollary is that digital sensors are less 'forgiving' and require much more precise exposure control - both when shooting and in PP - than film photography.

I don't think it's possible to generalize entirely to "emulsion vs chip". Some films are quite forgiving of exposure and others are quite critical of it. In general, higher speed means more flexibility for film, while higher ISO for digital just means more noise. Most emulsion tolerates somewhere around -1 to +3 stops and many have 5+ stop tolerance for error, and most digital sensors allow little more than one stop over before detail is simply not there. In my experience, most negative film has more exposure latitude than most positive film and B&W is far more tolerant of exposure error than color. But that's not universally true.

As has been mentioned, shooting RAW and going lower on the EV scale yields a fairly malleable digital image with more info in the dark than many believe. The bottom line is that there's a lot of data in a RAW image, and it often takes me as much time and effort to go from RAW to a finished print or digital display as it did to turn a negative into a print.

There's extra latitude in the flexibility of processing film vs digital images. I shot Tri-X most of the time from about 1960 to well into the '80s, and I routinely pushed it 2 to 3 stops for night and indoor shooting. Ilford HP5+ is even more forgiving and does very well even when exposed and processed at 3200+. For color, Portra has some exposure latitude, and Fuji's Provia slide film is a bit more forgiving than most. My go-to color film for decades was high speed (160) Ektachrome, which captured and displayed overexposure in vivid (and sometimes embarrassing) glory. I also fell in love with Cibachrome when it first came out. It was intolerant of error and I finally let a local lab do my large prints. But the color and contrast were spectacular in the right (i.e. perfectly exposed and elegantly composed) images.

Digital sensors also vary in their tolerance to exposure variance. CCD and CMOS sensors have different characteristics, with the best CCD still edging out the best CMOS cameras for dynamic range (unless I've missed recent advances that have changed this). But even with the same designs, some digital cameras have wider DR than others, e.g. the Fuji S3 had much better tolerance for overexposure than my Nikon D200 had. The latter clipped highlights like an early transistor amplifier clipped audio peaks - harshly and noticeably. That was the first camera I ever bought that I simply didn't like - it always wanted to be in charge, and I never found a way to make it do what I wanted it to do. OTOH, my Sony 6500 and my original RX100 are both more forgiving of my errors than the D200 or any other digital camera I ever had.

So it's true that film is, in general, more tolerant of exposure variance than digital sensors. But poorly chosen film and poorly chosen digital cameras can both surprise and upset the unwary who believe in generalizations.

In my experience with film, it is relatively easy to blow highlights or to get no detail in the shadows. E.g., think on a contrasty beach scene. We need to deviate the reading of a meter and modify the standard development time to keep both extremes under control. And we cannot check success until we have the film fully processed at hand.

This is the reason I say here that under the "film exposure" title the photographer needs to consider the exposure as a whole process.

A digital camera of course help to understand value distribution, but not a lot more. Wider aperture, longer time or higher ISO equal brighter image, or viceversa. That's all. What you see on the screen, histogram or highlight warning is what you get.

He didn't mention what camera he might be using on the course (DSLR/Mirrorless/cellphone/film)... In the meantime, we've all been talking amongst ourselves, mainly about exposure for film cameras. Most of this thread may not in any way be relevant to the OP..

... do you think it's better to have a photograph over or under exposed for any certain type of effect?

I now wonder if this Black&White forum (I believe part of the formerly Film&Processing forum) is extrictly related to B&W film, or just to any kind of B&W photography.

I see the title don`t specify it, although most threads here are referred to traditional "film" photography.

If so, it could be a good idea to specify it on the forum`s title.

Although maybe the OP is thinking on other effects (say, "high key" or "low key", pushing or pulling film, etc.), the answer is the same, if we talk about under or overexposure, most times we must take processing into account.

Those skills, Cowboy, are the things that allow us to....... blah, blah blah.

What? No insulting response to all the other supporters of using digital as a learning tool q.g?

Let's not make this personal, eh!?

"... development" is very much part of the exposure process in digital - at least when you are shooting RAW...

Right. Well, these are different systems, don't know if perfectly comparable... Personally I like to think on the "base image" (that is, the developed negative or the in-camera digital file), and then darkroom or edition (that is wet printing or digital edition, where you get the "real" image either on paper -you cannot get it other way-, or in the computer`s screen, respectively).

"The negative is the score; the print is the performance." - Ansel Adams.

Who, incidentally, trained as a concert pianist. Possibly linked to his obsession with pegging visual tones onto a 'scale'.

While the above quote was penned while there was nothing else available than film, it might equally apply to RAW digital capture. The cross-platform DNG format isn't called a digital negative for no reason. In fact it's possible to pull a much wider range of tones out of a moderate ISO RAW file than from almost any film negative.

I have two Vogtlander exposure meters, on silver one black

OK. So you've spent about 400 quid more than necessary on a couple of very basic light meters. Is that something to boast about?

"The negative is the score; the print is the performance." - Ansel Adams.

Who, incidentally, trained as a concert pianist. Possibly linked to his obsession with pegging visual tones onto a 'scale'.

 

While the above quote was penned while there was nothing else available than film, it might equally apply to RAW digital capture. The cross-platform DNG format isn't called a digital negative for no reason. In fact it's possible to pull a much wider range of tones out of a moderate ISO RAW file than from almost any film negative.

I wonder why he has 11 zones in his system. He didn't pick 7 or 12 like music scales.

What? No insulting response to all the other supporters of using digital as a learning tool q.g?

 

Let's not make this personal, eh!?

How many supporters, do you assume, can be found for your opinion that people shouldn't waste their time learning skills needed to create something other people may look at, because those other people will not see those skills looking at that something?

That is so wrong it is beyond comedy.

And it is in no perceivable way about a digital v. film thing.

Just nonsense.

Is it personal to point out that what one person says is nonsense?

"The negative is the score; the print is the performance." - Ansel Adams.

Who, incidentally, trained as a concert pianist. Possibly linked to his obsession with pegging visual tones onto a 'scale'.

 

While the above quote was penned while there was nothing else available than film, it might equally apply to RAW digital capture. The cross-platform DNG format isn't called a digital negative for no reason. In fact it's possible to pull a much wider range of tones out of a moderate ISO RAW file than from almost any film negative.

You're saying that digital can capture detail in a much wider dynamic range.

Why refer to Adams for that?

OK. So you've spent about 400 quid more than necessary on a couple of very basic light meters. Is that something to boast about?

Why is that something to get personal about? If someone's happy to have those and are equally happy to tell us?

I wonder why he has 11 zones in his system. He didn't pick 7 or 12 like music scales.

Because he wasn't doing music?

"I wonder why he has 11 zones in his system. He didn't pick 7 or 12 like music scales."

Because each zone is a film stop. Start with an exposure of a gray card zone 5. Open up one stop and it is zone 6. Open up another stop and it is zone 7. When you get to zone 10 it is pure white and opening up any more will not make whiter than white. Close down one stop and it is zone 4. Close down 4 stops and it is zone 1, pure black. Closing down more will still be pure black. So, you can only go from zone 1 (pure black) to zone 10 (pure white) with most films.

Because each zone is a film stop.

Except it isn't.

Adams insisted that Zone V was 18 % reflectance - he states this several times in his trilogy of books. And yet describes ZoneVIII as 'white with some detail'.

Simple sensitometry and maths show that 3 stops (8x) more than 18% reflectance brings us to an impossible 144% reflectance; that's into the realm of detail-less specular reflections.

So going by Adams written descriptions of the Zones, there's only 2.5 stops between Zone V and Zone VIII. And this falls in line with every meter calibrated to 18% reflectance - quickly verifiable by using a digital camera. An exposure of an evenly lit surface given 3 stops more exposure than the meter recommendation will induce overexposure 'blinkies'. Whereas 2.5 stops more than the meter reading won't.

You're saying that digital can capture detail in a much wider dynamic range.

Why refer to Adams for that?

Where, in this thread did I say that?

Stop simply making stuff up that I never said, or misrepresenting what I wrote in a distorted fashion.

Because hardly anything that you attribute to me was ever written here.

It's you that's making a clown of yourself through these personal outbursts.

Except it isn't.

Adams insisted that Zone V was 18 % reflectance - he states this several times in his trilogy of books. And yet describes ZoneVIII as 'white with some detail'.

 

Simple sensitometry and maths show that 3 stops (8x) more than 18% reflectance brings us to an impossible 144% reflectance; that's into the realm of detail-less specular reflections.

 

So going by Adams written descriptions of the Zones, there's only 2.5 stops between Zone V and Zone VIII. And this falls in line with every meter calibrated to 18% reflectance - quickly verifiable by using a digital camera. An exposure of an evenly lit surface given 3 stops more exposure than the meter recommendation will induce overexposure 'blinkies'. Whereas 2.5 stops more than the meter reading won't.

 

Where, in this thread did I say that?

 

Stop simply making stuff up that I never said, or misrepresenting what I wrote in a distorted fashion.

Because hardly anything that you attribute to me was ever written here.

 

It's you that's making a clown of yourself through these personal outbursts.

"In fact it's [etc]."

Again, why is it personal to say something about what a person says?

You do not. You comment on the people who share things (such as having meters).

Tiresome, both the nonsense you post and your behavior.