Shooting Film at Box Speed

OK we touched on this subject in my “Low ISO Film” thread and I started to stray from that subject into the realm of film at “box speed”, and decided to just make a new thread about it.

 

SO: back to box speed and shooting film at the number. I understand that box speed is whatever ISO is “on the box” of film, be it 25, 50, 100,160, 400 or higher. It seems, however, that there’s plenty of latitude both up and down the scale with film. A pro photographer friend tells me he always reduces whatever number is on the box by half. His theory (citing Ansel Adams) is something like: expose for the highlights and develop for the low lights?

 

I’ve a long way to go to fully understand metering. Taking my buddy’s advice into account, I will meter at a reduced setting, and I’ve mostly been shooting at reduced ISO numbers -but maybe not by half. The one time I did shoot according to an “accurate” metering (indoors with plenty of ambient natural light) my shots were underexposed.

 

Now, when I say “metering”, let me be clear that I’ll take a general meter reading of whatever available light there is whether outdoors or in. I’m not metering in various places near the subject, then around the general area, and combining meter readings to create the perfect camera setting according to some formula.

 

I’m pretty sure I mentioned, in my “low ISO” thread, that I bought a couple rolls of Ilford Pan F Plus rated at ISO 50.

 

i shot one of them already and am sitting on the other one for a minute.

 

the other day when I was shooting this iso 50 film, I was using my new-to-me Bessa R3m which has in-camera metering. Looking at the readings, I sort of thought I should shooting at a slight “minus” reading. I called Wade and asked him and he said something along the lines of “I always overexpose” .

 

so perhaps I have this whole thing backwards?

Proper metering is a learned technique, as is deciding what ISO to use for a film, as development, type of developer, agitation, temperature and time also play important factors. plays. So don't try to dumb it down. If you want consistent results you have to establish what works best for you...so it is best, IMHO, to stick with one film and one developer until you nail it. Then you can experiment with other metering and exposure techniques. I usually begin with the camera itself...how accurate are the shutter speeds from their stated values? I tested all my film bodies and didn't concern myself if everything was within +/- 10% of stated values. I noted where there were anomalies, usually at 1/1000 to adjust exposure accordingly. Then I would take a sacrificial roll using box ISO and bracket shots using my usual metering technique (incident readings) +2, +1, 0, -2, -1. I would then develop according to my pre established routine. Examination of the resulting negatives told me what ISO worked best for me and my equipment & techniques. Everybody does it differently, but that is the basis for my last 50 years of shooting.

I think the idea you are looking for is: "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights". You seem to have it backwards. In other words, give enough exposure to get shadow detail and develop enough to get the highlights you want. Of course this is with black and white film.

Box Speed:

 

Film manufacturers and their employees spend countless hours formulating, making, and testing. Now add to this mix, a max effort maintaining unswervingly, a quality control effort. The published “box speed” is what it is, ( i.e. their best recommendation).

 

Should you deviate from box speed? Photography is both an art and a science. Your method, your subject, your equipment, your darkroom technique comes into play. Shutters use a clockwork escape; they have their inaccuracies. Lens apertures, as engraved on the lens barrel, are likely off 1/3 of a stop for normal shooting, however, these errors escalates when the equipment is tasked to do close-up work.

 

Light meters have their idiosyncrasies. They are good for ± 1/3 f-stop.

 

As to the axiom, it’s actually “Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights”. This truism predates Ansel Adams by perhaps 100 years.

 

Translating this axiom – If our desire is a beautiful image that displays the full scale available with this film, plus a contrast that pleases us, we must work to get the exposure correct. Additionally, as in the case for Mr. Adams, he processed his own film and printed his own negatives, and pre-visualized the finished picture.

 

 

Now he adjusted exposure and developing specifications, plus he chose print papers for the task. Now he exposed and developed this paper to acquire a final image that matched his pre-visualization - all a tall order.

 

Now the experienced Mr. Adams understood, after years of testing and experimentation, he needed to lengthen or shorten developing time to gain the image in his mind’s eye (contrast control via developing time). If the need was to increase the film’s contrast, then the stuff must be in the soup longer. If true, then shoot below box speed to allow this extra time.

 

Conversely, if the film’s contrast needs some reduction, then under-develop to obtain. This calls for shooting above box speed to meet this goal.

 

What I am saying, it is a complicated path with a steep learning curve. Do set goals - Do study – Do experiment – I am jealous – I wish I were in your shoes – I am 81 – too late to begin again.

In slide film and even more in digital, however, if you blow (overexpose) the highlights they are unrecoverable. So expose for the highlights and process or post process to bring out the shadow detail, as a rule. [joke post about it at

 

The Ozone System: Photoshop Shadow/Highlight]

 

When I went back to my slide files for digitizing them, I was astonished at how much apparently black shadow could be brought up to reveal, in so many cases, why I had taken the image in the first place (the eye having a broader effective range than film). This is even true for Kodachrome I and later.

 

Modern negative films, especially C/N, have such broad latitude that a meter is hardly necessary if you internalize sunny-16.

 

One of my favorite films nowadays is the chromogenic (C41) B&W Ilford XP2 that can pretty much be exposed at any ISO on the same roll without processing compensation.

Edited October 25, 2019 by JDMvW

In slide film and even more in digital, however, if you blow (overexpose) the highlights they are unrecoverable. So expose for the highlights and process or post process to bring out the shadow detail, as a rule. [joke post about it at

 

The Ozone System: Photoshop Shadow/Highlight]

 

When I went back to my slide files for digitizing them, I was astonished at how much apparently black shadow could be brought up to reveal, in so many cases, why I had taken the image in the first place (the eye having a broader effective range than film). This is even true for Kodachrome I and later.

 

Modern negative films, especially C/N, have such broad latitude that a meter is hardly necessary if you internalize sunny-16.

 

One of my favorite films nowadays is the chromogenic (C41) Ilford XP2 that can pretty much be exposed at any ISO on the same roll without processing compensation.

@ JDMvW -- A tip of the hat from Alan Marcus --- Well Spoken!

I’ve a long way to go to fully understand metering.

In that case, stop wasting your time using film.

 

A digital camera that allows fully manual control over ISO, shutter speed and aperture, will teach you more about exposure and metering in 10 minutes than a month of using film.

 

Trying to learn the techniques of photography with film is like learning to juggle with water. Or with balls that defy gravity and stay up in the air for a random period of time.

 

How many great painters would there be, if they had to stick their hands into a black bag to paint a canvas that they weren't allowed to see until days after they'd finished painting?

I am jealous – I wish I were in your shoes – I am 81 – too late to begin again.

Indeed! And another good reason to take advantage of what hard-won technology has given us - the digital camera.

 

When film was all we had, it was a long, hard apprenticeship to get technique right. Now there's absolutely no excuse for enduring that long-winded process, or for wasting Earth's resources to hone what should be utterly simple skills like understanding light and exposure.

 

Film just gets in the way of making the images in your head a reality. It doesn't help, and certainly has no 'magic' to add to them. It was alright (just) when we had no other means to that end. But now we do, and it's far superior as both a learning tool and in almost every other way.

 

Unlike Marcus, I'm not jealous if you turn your back on the superb learning medium that digital photography offers; only to deliberately hamper yourself by using film.

 

I am jealous of newcomers to the craft that embrace digital and bypass those years that using film wasted for me.

Edited October 27, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

@ rodeo-joe -- Just so you know -- I am 81 and retired - I embraced digital technology almost at its inception. I put it to good use plus I intertwined conventional and digital, designing light measuring devices, print engines, and the like. Digital is in, film falls by the wayside. Photo science like all sciences builds on the foundations of the past. The future of imaging is in good hands.

Joe,

I hear you man. Clearly, I'm shooting digital images. I mean, how is one to avoid it- and indeed why would one want to? I'm all inclusive- I shoot anything and everything. Film, digital (m 4/3) and phone- you can see all that in my image posts, all day every day. I'm no purist and that's for sure.

BUT I am going ground-up on this. I am beginning, not again but for the 1st time. To me, the beginning starts with film in a manual camera. I'm riding the wave and enjoying the renaissance on film and film cameras. You may condemn or condone, and it's all the same to me.

That said, I do sincerely appreciate your input and expertise.

 

Too bad you feel so strongly that any of your efforts in the realm of photography were "wasted". I'm an "all-roads-lead-to-here" person; ie: whatever one did to arrive at where one is now is/was invaluable, and another road might have led elsewhere. Well that's my way of looking at life.

ps, I also have tube amps & vintage stereo equipment, and I ride old(ish) motorcycles. None of which, outdated as they may be, are a waste of my time.

 

As always, your mileage may vary.

 

 

Mr Marcus,

Thanks so much for your depth of insight and your knowledge, and your willingness to share both.

 

Thanks also to everyone for taking the time to respond.

Really appreciate it!

Edited October 27, 2019 by Ricochetrider

Too bad you feel so strongly that any of your efforts in the realm of photography were "wasted".

I'm saying that film wastes time during the learning process and gaining of skills, such as appreciation of lighting, composition, tonality etc. There's nothing like seeing the actual result of pushing the button immediately. Plus being able to experiment cost free.

 

So what I'm suggesting is that you use digital as a learning tool and, if you must, transfer those skills to film later. Because there is absolutely no fundamental difference in the way that digital and film cameras work. They both use a shutter and aperture to control length and intensity of exposure, and both offer control over the sensitivity of the capture medium. Skills are totally transferrable between the two. Except that digital allows much faster, easier and cheaper learning.

 

There's nothing you can do with film that you can't do digitally, and the fact that film has inexplicably become 'cool' (and will doubtless become passe once again) makes it no better than it was 50 years ago.

I shoot Velvia 50 medium format film, landscapes mainly on a tripod. This is not negative film but rather positive transparency slide film. While I use a hand held meter, I still bracket my shots. There are two advantages for me. If I was slightly off with my original meter measurement settings, bracketing will usually catch the picture. Also, sometimes seeing all three results of the same scene after processing shows that the first measurement was off slightly. So by seeing the other two variations, I can better realize my mistake and hopefully do a better job the next time. Under and over exposing sometime actually works as it may change the mood of a photograph. So there advantages that way too. Of cause, with positive film that I shoot, you can see the exposure results immediately in the film. With negatives, you have to scan or print contacts. Also, positive film like Velvia can get blown out quickly on the highlights. Negative film gives a lot of latitude so bracketing may or may not be overkill. I'll let other chime in on that.

 

I bracket +1 and -1 which probably is too much for positive transparency film. But it seem to work for me. It's also easier because my camera shutter stops are in one stop increments. I'd have to turn the aperture 1/2 stop to get half stop bracketing changing the depth of field DOF. Good luck.

I've only recently (in the last few years) learned very much about metering. Still have lots to learn. But I never would have bothered if it weren't for my interest in film. I also take better digital pictures as a result.

 

Digital cameras are something I've used to help me learn. And especially for long exposures I'll often take a few samples with a digital camera to make sure that what I get on film will turn out. But there are some things that you can't really use a digital camera to help you with, - like how processing times or agitation affect what you get on a negative or even the impact of using one developer vs another.

 

Film will have its up and downs in popularity. Hopefully it will remain popular enough to keep film and chemicals on the market.

I use box speed for some films and not for others. I look at the characteristic curves published by the film manufacturer to decide which speed I am going to use.

Except for Kodachrome 64, which I always shot at ISO 80, I shoot everything at the film's box speed. Works great for me.

Except for Kodachrome 64, which I always shot at ISO 80, I shoot everything at the film's box speed. Works great for me.

 

My processing skills aren't sophisticated enough that I play around with development times much. So I generally shoot at box speed with a few exceptions. One is when I'm using expired film, - I may shoot it at a slower ISO depending how expired it is. Also if I'm using a filter on a camera that doesn't meter through the lens.

 

Otherwise I shoot at box speed but I may choose an exposure different from what the built-in meter suggests based on how the subject is lit and how the camera meters.

If you don't know better reasons, use box speed, and recommended developers and times.

 

I started in darkroom photography when I was 9, and learned about Diafine from my grandfather

when I was 10. At the time, I didn't understand much of the details, but believed what I was told.

 

Diafine recommends higher EI values for most films, though not a much higher with modern

films than the ones 50 years ago. But Diafine does work well at the suggeted EI values,

and is still being sold. (Maybe not by the same manufacturer, though.)

 

Otherwise, with manual set cameras, I tend to round up (larger aperture) so a little

more exposure for negative films. I don't set a different value on the ISO setting, though.

Unfortunately, the idea of shooting with a digital camera to learn metering does not help you with exposing film...except for maybe E6. Shooting with digital gear will not teach you how C41 or conventional b&w film will react...especially with different developers, agitation techniques, etc. If you want to learn how to meter with film, you need to shoot film.

Unfortunately, the idea of shooting with a digital camera to learn metering does not help you with exposing film...except for maybe E6.

(snip)

If you want to learn how to meter with film, you need to shoot film.

 

Well, you will learn a few things, but yes not all of them.

 

Many now with either digital or film will set the camera on P, and let it figure

the exposure. That doesn't teach much at all.

 

If you use aperture or shutter priority, then you learn some about metering,

how light is light, and how dark is dark. With a spot meter, you can point

to different spots and learn how much difference there is in the exposure.

 

To me, the most amazing thing about metering is that averaging meters

work as well as they do. But then, take a spot meter and point to different

parts of the subject, and find out that it doesn't change all that much.

 

I keep Auto ISO off on my digital cameras, so I have to think just a little

about the lighting situation, then use P and watch what it does.

 

I suspect, though, that you mostly learn from metering mistakes.

 

The complication in metering is that they human visual system is

good at adapting to different lighting, so we have a hard time understanding

how much difference there is between inside a dark church and outside

at the beach. Go around with a digital camera in manual mode, and

you will start to learn that.

 

(I believe many actual photography classes now require a digital

camera with a manual mode.)

 

After you learn about metering digital, then you can go out and

learn metering film, with a smaller start-up cost.

 

As I might have said too many times by now, when I was young,

about 50 years ago, I bought 100 foot rolls from Freestyle.

 

That kept costs low enough to learn though mistakes.

They do use digital cameras in manual mode for my daughter's photography class. She gets a little frustrated because the cameras are older and she gets better pictures on her phone without having to worry about shutter speed or aperture. ;)

 

What digital can help you with is when meters get fooled. Backlighting is one example. You'll know right away and have to compensate... or just move.

 

They also spend a lot of time on post processing in her photography class. So sometimes even backlight images that look bad straight from the camera can be fixed.

 

As far as film goes, I've been very surprised at what can occasionally be coaxed out of negative that's on the thin side.

 

(snip)

 

As far as film goes, I've been very surprised at what can occasionally be coaxed out of negative that's on the thin side.

 

Especially from color negatives. The orange mask makes it harder to see how thin

a negative actually is, but the low gamma makes them look thin even when they

aren't.

 

Even though I have used a DSLR for some years now, I am not so sure how well you

can check exposure from the little LCD screen on the back. (Not counting using

the histogram, which I might know how to do, but rarely do.)

 

Well, I was last year doing night photography at Butchart gardens (B.C, Canada), where the

gardens are lit with a variety of lights. This is more challenging than many lighting situations,

getting both the direct and indirect lighting to come out right. Then I had a film camera, which

I would sometimes use a similar exposure to get a similar shot.

Unfortunately, the idea of shooting with a digital camera to learn metering does not help you with exposing film...except for maybe E6. Shooting with digital gear will not teach you how C41 or conventional b&w film will react...especially with different developers, agitation techniques, etc. If you want to learn how to meter with film, you need to shoot film.

You have a lot of different processing with B&W film but not with C41. When I run a processing lab my C41 results won't vary the negative density by 0.05 density. 0.05 is the limit considered acceptable process. Most of the time the variation is less.

You have a lot of different processing with B&W film but not with C41. When I run a processing lab my C41 results won't vary the negative density by 0.05 density. 0.05 is the limit considered acceptable process. Most of the time the variation is less.

Pushing by 1 or 2 stops with C41 changes density by more than 0.05. Rating a 400 speed film at 200, or 100 changes density by more than 0.05. Overexposing by two stops increases density a fair bit, reduces apparent grain, and lowers acutance. A lot can be changed with C41 film

Pushing by 1 or 2 stops with C41 changes density by more than 0.05. Rating a 400 speed film at 200, or 100 changes density by more than 0.05. Overexposing by two stops increases density a fair bit, reduces apparent grain, and lowers acutance. A lot can be changed with C41 film

 

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/e4051_Portra_160.pdf

 

With gamma of about 0.5, log10(2)*0.5 is about 0.15,

so one stop exposure should change density about 0.15

 

The G and B curves shown are not leveling off at the top, so they might still

have a ways to go. The R curve looks. little less straight, so I don't know what

it does next.

Pushing by 1 or 2 stops with C41 changes density by more than 0.05. Rating a 400 speed film at 200, or 100 changes density by more than 0.05. Overexposing by two stops increases density a fair bit, reduces apparent grain, and lowers acutance. A lot can be changed with C41 film

You shouldn't push C41. Neither push E6. The only kind of processing you should vary is B&W. I do no offer push processing of C41 in my lab.

You shouldn't push C41. Neither push E6. The only kind of processing you should vary is B&W. I do no offer push processing of C41 in my lab.

 

Quite the opposite. E6 is easy to push...C41 a little less so. All the pro labs I deal with offer it. But to say "you shouldn't" is simply silly. It can be done and the results work.

 

Ektar 100 pushed 3 stops...with excellent results

 

Jonathan Canlas Photography: Kodak Ektar rated at 800 and pushed 3 stops

Edited November 10, 2019 by Dave Luttmann