Film speed ratings - B&W exposure

[julien_boudreau]

<p>To be quite frank, I've had a lot of problems metering, while others seem to just point and shoot. I must not be understanding this at all. I get metering - I've read the Negative, I understand the zone, I know that CW averages the tonal range to 18% grey - but in practice my images are HEAVILY overexposed.</p>

<p>My last role was in a bright sunny day, but still - the two people I was shooting with (both using F100 and matrix) have perfectly exposed negatives, and we developed in the same tank.</p>

<p>What I'm looking for is some sort of ; THIS IS HOW YOU METER. A definite way to meter properly. It seems not to be an issue for most people, but for me, and I don't know why, it is. At first I thought it was the equipment, but I've had it professionally tested. I know where it stands.</p>

<p>Am I pointing at the wrong things? I tried just pointing at the landscape approach - heavily overexposed. I tried finding a mid gray tone, metering, recomposing - again, over exposed. I wish to know how it is that others just point, set shutter speed, and voila - good exposure. There has to be a "secret" to CW metering.</p>

<p>And for what it's worth, I always had perfect exposure using my D90.</p>

<p>J</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Did you keep a record of your exposure settings? Did you compare your meter reading and exposure settings to the others you were shooting with? <br>

Bracket a set of scenes -2 stop from meter; -1 stop from meter; metered; +1 stop over metered; +2 stops over metered with the camera set to box speed. Choose a shadow scene, a bright sun lit scene, and a mixture scene. Read the meter from the composed shot position. IE meter reads 1/500 @ f11 shoot 1/500 f22, 1/500 f16, 1/500 f11, 1/500 f8, 1/500 f5.6. You can also use 1/1000 f16, 1/1000 f11, 1/500 f11, 1/250 f11, 1/250 f8 or 1/125 f11.</p>

<p>Your camera may have been working correctly when tested but not working correctly now. If the bracketed set shows the same exposure position in each scene to be the correct exposure then compensate that amount with that camera/lens combo. If the bracketed set shows a different exposure in each set to be correct the camera is working inconsistently.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Several years ago I had a Nikon FA. It has an electronic controlled shutter. The camera uses a 3V cell or 2 1.5V cells. The 3V cell would read good on a battery check but fail under camera use causing incorrect shutter speeds.</p>

<p>The FM2n only uses the battery for the meter. I am not familiar with the battery in the FE2.<br>

Try new batteries in both cameras.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Both cameras have new batteries and were tested 2 weeks ago.<br>

Here's an example;<br>

I'm looking at a lighthouse on a rocky landscape. It's a very bright day. Brighter, on average, than 18% gray as there are not a lot of shadows or dark values in the scene. Now, theoretically, if I point my meter in this general direction, the image should be darker, or averaged to 18% gray, which is darker than what the scene really was. So the white lighthouse should be 18% gray, approximately.</p>

<p>My results? Everything white, a bit of mid gray details. Just very very bright. Granted my HP5+ was rated at 200, but that's just one stop (considering that my FM2n underexposes by 1/2 a stop, this is almost negligible). My images look to be almost 3 stops, or Zone 8, above what they should be.</p>

<p>Same thing happening if I metered off the weathered pavement, which was very close to 18% gray (friend had a gray card with him, we compared). Resulting image? A lot of blown out highlights.</p>

<p>J</p>

 

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>What is the exposure compensation control on both cameras set to?<br>

With exposure compensation set to 0, the batteries near new from fresh stock not sitting on the store shelf for months, set the meter(s) to box speed and bracket 2 stops under to 2 stops over in 1 stop increments and process normal. </p>

[scott_norville]

<p>Some specifics might help. What were your exposures? What were you trying to get? What does the camera tell you in "A" mode (I forget if the FE2 has "P", mine was stolen 15 years ago)?<br>

If your camera is even faintly accurate you should get something printable, even if not to zone standards, in <br />"auto" (A actually means aperture priority) or with matching needle/LED. I have a feeling you are using the zone idea to arrive at incorrect overexposures, however, like if you are setting the exposure for the lighthouse with no thought of the really bright sky behind it.<br>

A good self check is "sunny 16": not just a beginners rule, but a rule of thumb to keep your equipment from leading you off course. If it's a sunny day and you think your camera is telling you f16 at 1/15 for your iso 200 film (even metering in the shade!) you should reconsider that something in the chain is off.<br>

Does anyone you shoot with have a handheld meter? A spot meter is ideal for zone photography, of course, but that is what you are trying to emulate with a 35mm.<br>

Also, "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" is difficult with 35mm unless you do the whole roll the same. A better idea for small format (or rollfilm anyway) is "expose for the shadows, compensate for the highlights". Here's a thread from LFP that gives a good, short review (on the first page): http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=56334</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Julien, after reading (and re-reading) this thread several times during the past week I have a few questions:</p>

<ul>

<li>How did you determine your meters are erroneous? I see the following statements:</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>"I know that my camera underexposes 1/2 a stop - I had it tested..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"My main issue right now is equipment; My FM2n underexposes by 1/2 stop, and my FE2 overexposes by a full stop..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's rather unusual for any of Nikon's better cameras to have significant errors in metering, let alone two, so I'm curious about how the metering was tested and whether you verified the conclusions yourself using some other standard references and methodology. I have four Nikons, the oldest being almost 30 years old and the newest being 5 years old and all are within 1/2 EV of being accurate using standard references. I'd consider a 1/2 EV deviation acceptable for most b&w roll film use. If I was shooting sheet film in large format, then, sure, I'd be more fussy about calibrations for everything. But for roll film, nah... that way lies madness.</p>

<p>I ask because in most cases when a beginning or intermediate photographer believes his/her equipment is faulty it turns out the problem is with the user having insufficient information or relying on flawed assumptions. This is particularly common among folks who are new to b&w film and darkroom use.</p>

<p>For example, you also mentioned:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"(I was metering perfectly fine with my D90 and other digital)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Without knowing more about how you use those digital captures, that assumption may or may not be relevant to your experience with b&w film and film cameras. Without more specific information we don't know whether you're basing that conclusion on how the digital cameras deliver out-of-the-camera JPEGs, on your skills in processing raw files, etc.</p>

<p>Another example that indicates you may be working from flawed assumptions:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"My results? Everything white, a bit of mid gray details. Just very very bright. Granted my HP5+ was rated at 200, but that's just one stop (considering that my FM2n underexposes by 1/2 a stop, this is almost negligible). My images look to be almost 3 stops, or Zone 8, above what they should be."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How are you evaluating this? By examining the negatives? The prints? Scans from the negatives? A densitometer?</p>

<p>At this point I'm wondering whether you're operating from too many flawed assumptions: assumptions that your camera meters are inaccurate; assumptions that your metering technique is appropriate for the scenes you've described; assumptions regarding exposure, processing, evaluating negatives and choosing appropriate techniques for printing.</p>

<p>I'd suggest eliminating certain variables. First, let's discard the assumption that your camera meters are faulty. Instead, use a standard reference guideline. Try using <a href="http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm"><strong>Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer</strong></a>, which is nothing more complicated that the Sunny 16 guideline filled out to include virtually every possible exposure scenario. Compare what your two camera meters suggest with the instances from those tables.</p>

<p>For example, the diffused window light near my desk (through white venetian blinds) is typically EV 11-12 at midday. I've used this light for test photos many times. I just now checked it using four different meters: Minolta Auto Meter IIIF, Pentax Spotmeter V, Nikon FM2N and Nikon D2H. All metered within 1/2 stop of the others. This 1/2 stop difference is almost insignificant for ISO 400 b&w film when developed to the average CI that's most useful for typical roll film use. (And it's barely significant for most digital photography since raw files offer very good flexibility for adjusting most photos that are within 1/2 EV of the optimal exposure.) That 1/2 stop difference can be attributed to the usual variables and are in no way indicative of a flaw inherent to the meters or cameras themselves. Those variables include:</p>

<ul>

<li>Metering pattern. I used both the spot and averaging patterns on my D2H to simulate as closely as possible the Pentax Spotmeter pattern and FM2N averaging pattern.</li>

<li>Focal length. The Pentax Spotmeter V uses a moderate telephoto. I approximated this with an 85mm Nikkor on the FM2N and 50-70mm selections from a zoom on my D2H.</li>

<li>Angle of meter relative to the reflective surface. This is crucial with reflective surfaces that can vary several stops, which is typical not only of most overall scenes but also of smaller surfaces including foliage, white walls, gray pavement, brown earth or other surfaces that appear (deceptively) uniform in reflectance.</li>

</ul>

<p>And speaking of "surfaces that appear (deceptively) uniform in reflectance" (to quote myself), I noted your comments here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"My images look to be almost 3 stops, or Zone 8, above what they should be.<br>

Same thing happening if I metered off the weathered pavement, which was very close to 18% gray (friend had a gray card with him, we compared). Resulting image? A lot of blown out highlights."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even with more than 30 years experience using b&w film and in the darkroom, I'd hesitate to rely on my eye to estimate with any accuracy how much is "almost 3 stops", or Zone 8, or whether weathered pavement actually equals 18% gray.</p>

<p>As an example, I'll attach one of the more familiar optical illusion tests that demonstrates how fallible the human eye can be. Copy the graphic into a photo editing program and use the dropper tool to check squares A and B.</p>

<p>To sum up, there's a good reason why, for typical roll film use, it's not at all a bad idea to start out with the data suggested by the manufacturers of film and developers for exposure and processing guidelines. When these directions are followed you'll get results that will print well most of the time (assuming you also trust the manufacturers suggestions regarding darkroom printing and processing techniques).</p>

<p>If you follow those techniques and still see significantly different results, then you might begin to explore whether other factors are spoiling your results. But at the moment, it appears to me that you're making assumptions about possible flaws (camera meter accuracy, metering techniques, exposure indices and development) without having first exhausted the standard practices. Introducing too many variables will drive you nuts.</p>

<p>Also, the concept of "blown highlights" doesn't apply to b&w film photography in the same way it does to color slides and digital captures. With the latter, blown highlights literally means there is no highlight detail to recover. With b&w negatives it's the opposite. Highlights may be too dense to print conveniently but can be rescued. The closest equivalent with b&w film photography is non-existent shadow detail, which cannot be recovered in printing (or scanning) if it doesn't exist on the negative.</p>

<p>And until you're more experienced with the b&w darkroom it's difficult to know for certain whether highlights are not recoverable. But having watched common mistakes among folks who are new to the craft, the most common errors including underexposure and overdevelopment. Rookies tend to assume that negatives should appear "snappy" with very distinct blacks and whites. This is another illusion, since excessively contrasty negatives can be a nightmare to enlarge or scan.</p><div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>Thing is the way I see it there is too much over thinking here. The "kids" who just shot away got good results.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Here are some assumptions, and please tell me if this is where I'm wrong;</p>

<p>1. I'm aiming for relatively good exposures, +- 1EV - usable negatives<br>

2. Box speeds and chemical amounts/temperatures/times are described correctly on the product literature<br>

3. If I'm in a street, evenly lit, not in the shade or in a bright area - all is relatively evenly lit - and I point my meter at pavement, adjust exposure, it should render the pavement realtively (there's that term again) near 18% gray, provided, in my case (FM2n and FE2) that the pavement filled the viewfinder of my camera.</p>

<p>4. Most people using manual cameras simply point towards the scene, adjust exposure to read "good" (need centered, matching needles, LED circle, etc.), and shoot - from this they obtain reasonably exposed negatives.</p>

<p>I did shoot a few rolls of film and C41 at the start of the summer - they all turned out fine. I also developed a roll at home using Rodinal - again, it was fine. It is entirely possible that the information provided by the school is not correct. Most people shoot TriX there, and I'm using HP5+. Although the chart does include HP5+, it's possible that something is off;</p>

<p>Dilution; 1+2<br>

Temperature; 21C<br>

Time; 14min<br>

Agitation; 5 inversions every 30 seconds (I was very gentle here)</p>

<p>We were told to rate our film 200 ISO to over expose by 1 stop - a common practice at the school with the intent of getting good shadow detail. This being said, we're also told to develop as if we were rated 400.</p>

<p>Anyways, all the other contact sheets and negatives were properly exposed, and most of them simply point, adjust needle, and shoot - no sunny 16, no meters, no gray cards - simple. I know this can be done, as most people do it! It's just not working for me and I don't know why.</p>

<p>Again, thanks for the time...</p>

<p>J</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Well I bought a gray card, and tomorrow buying an incident light meter (Sekonic 338?) Ironically, I tested my FM2n's meter against one tonight and they metered the same.</p>

<p>J</p>

[scott_norville]

<p>Got any you can show us?</p>

<p>What are you trying to accomplish with the gray card?</p>

<p>Hold it in the sun and meter it--that is your setting for zone V: middle setting, <em>usually average</em> for a given <em>average</em> scene, and the reason almost all camera's built-in meter is calibrated to <em>average</em> at that. The latitude for most B&W films will give you a degree of detail withing 3 stops above and below that under most conditions.</p>

<p>I would recommend spending more of your early time working on your "eye". Take pictures, look at them, think about composition and then take more pictures. The camera is a tool--use it. What is best about your two Nikons is that they both allow you to see the camera's suggestion and use it, or not. The only time you won't want the camera to tell you what is zone V is when you don't have it centered on midtones--you'll know (or soon will, if you take pictures and look and them and repeat). A shortcoming today is that most people trying to learn chemical photography are starting with the hard stuff--not the dozens of rolls that most students got to shoot in yearbook and newspapers.</p>

<p>For your particular issues, try developing your film by itself--even if the times seem similar, there may be other unpublished issues or interactions mixing Tri-x and HP5. Also, your times seem somewhat long--look here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=Xtol&mdc=Search</p>

<p>(I'll tell another secret...I don't think AA used the zone system when he used his Leica, and he modified it with his 'blad...)</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>1. What is your native language? I think something is getting lost in translation.<br>

2. Why do you need another meter? Just want one?<br>

3. Neither Xtol ( <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf</a> ) nor HP5+ ( <a href="http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20106281054152313.pdf">http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20106281054152313.pdf</a> ) show a time for Xtol 1:2. The Massive Developing Chart ( <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=Xtol&mdc=Search">http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=Xtol&mdc=Search</a> ) does. All times are for 20⁰C not 21⁰C. If we take the time for HP5+ at EI100-200 @ 20⁰C in Xtol 1:2 from the MDC of 12.75 minutes (12 minutes 45 seconds) and apply it to the temperature compensation chart on the Ilford tech sheet we get 12 minutes @ 21⁰C; taking Xtol @ 1:2 for EI 400 @ 20⁰C time of 15.5 minutes (15 minutes 30 seconds) and apply that to the temperature compensation chart we get approximately 14 minutes the time you developed for. If you exposed at EI200 then you overdeveloped 16.7%, enough to explain why you got such higher tones than you expected if you printed at paper black for the film base + fog. If you simply applied some other exposure time such as what your buddy used after he/she step tableted their exposures then your reference is way off.</p>

<p><strong>Paper Black</strong>: (the reference for evaluating any negative)<br>

Unexposed film developed, fixed, dried, put in the film carrier of the enlarger, grain focused, step tablet print at f8 or f11, process the print, find the point at which the paper gets no blacker=print time starting point for that film/paper/enlarger/enlarger lens at that f stop. </p>

<p>Any other print time is erroneous and will cause misinterpretation of results.</p>

<p>Washington State Apples, Georgia Peaches, Florida Oranges, Chile Plums or Strawberries and Italy Grapes are not directly comparable nor do they taste the same. Taking someones taste for one and applying it to one of the others will rob you of at least one or more delights.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>I know how to take pictures, and have had success with C41, colour film, and digital. This is a new issue. 14 minutes seems like the right time, but as you mentioned, it would over develop since my film was rated at 200, and 14 minutes is for a 400 rated film - this was the intent of the instructor, to overdevelop by one stop.</p>

<p>We made a few contact sheets, looking for paper black, or when the sprockets and paper black are almost the same. We did print time brackets to find this.</p>

<p>All other contact sheets from other students were overexposed by a little bit, as was expected since their film was rated to 200 and developed for 400. Again, this was the intention.</p>

<p>My rolls, 5 of them, developed in 3 separate sessions, were all extremely overexposed.</p>

<p>It's hard to develop your eye any more when you look at a contact sheet and it's a white wash. Nothing is getting lost in translation; I'm english. Furthermore, I've had success with photography before. This is a specific issue, and a perplexing one to say the least. I know how to use a meter, have used spot, matrix, center weighed, average (canon). Most people, including a few friends of mine, simply point their FM2n at the scene, adjust the exposure (little LED reads 0), and shoot. From this, they obtain usable negatives, within a stop of proper exposure.</p>

<p>I'm doing something wrong and I'm trying to find out if it's my development, or my metering technique. I was mostly using weathered pavement, and/or pointing at the scene - which is the norm for most people, I've talked to many photographers who use this technique (or metering off their hand), and get reasonably accurate negatives. This is not rocket science, but there's something I'm missing along the way. Again, I've had success before.</p>

<p>J</p>

[scott_norville]

<p>Definitely sounds like your development then. Use the Massive Development Chart and try developing your film alone, by HP5 rates. Although otherwise almost identical to Tri-X, Ilford films usually require (or are requested) shorter developing times.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>So much has been said that I'm getting a bit lost in the dialogue. I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I've come to some conclusions;</p>

<p>1. I don't think it's my metering technique. Even if it's not perfect, it would still result in reasonably well exposed negatives.<br>

2. I shot some rolls of C41 this summer, and colour. They were always reasonably well exposed - some of them perfectly exposed.<br>

3. I developed two rolls at home using Rodinal - they came out great.<br>

4. There must be something in my development process that is not correct. Although I follow all the time and temp charts correctly, something is off. Perhaps the thermometers at the school are not accurate? Maybe HP5+ is more sensitive to Xtol than TriX? The instructor also thinks they are overdevelopped - but it remains a mistery for both of us as I'm following the correct procedure according to the massive dev. chart;</p>

<p>Xtol with HP5+<br>

Dilution 1+2<br>

Temperature 20C<br>

Time 14min<br>

Intermittant agitation (5 gentle inversion every 30 seconds)<br>

I pour out developer at 13.5 min, Stop goes in at 14 min<br>

Fix for 5<br>

Innitial rinse<br>

Hypoclear 2 min<br>

Wash+flow<br>

Dry</p>

<p>J</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>1/2 a stop between 100 and 200 is 150</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it would be 141 (100 x square root of 2).</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Correct Steve I was off a little there. oy</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Did you shoot color with the FM2N that turned out correct?<br>

yes=cut development by 25% or rate HP5+ at EI400 but not both at the same time and see what results you get. </p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Yes, I shot colour - all was good. I shot C41 - all was good. I metered off my hand, pavement, or Sunny 16. In fact, some times I just pointed towards the scene and adjusted my shutter speed to get a correct exposure; if it was very bright I'd open it up, very dark close it down one stop. Exposures were usually correct, even with colour.</p>

<p>The intent of the instructor is for us to get negatives that are 1 stop over exposed. Mine are white wash. I'm going to look into the development. Right now I'm following what the charts say. It worked for all the TriX in the class, but the time/temp/dilution for HP5+ is clearly causing me a headache.</p>

<p>J</p>

[jason_ganz]

<p>Julien,<br>

I'm shooting right now with T-Max 100 in my photo class with my F3HP / MD-4 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, and its meter has been lights-out. Your FM2N is no slouch either, so the fact that you've been following directions in terms of exposure and developing lead me to wonder the following.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Did you follow instructions on agitation / shaking</li>

<li>Did you mix your own chemicals (ensuring they're fresh)</li>

<li>Did you put through the camera a test roll and develop it to make sure what you have is usable?</li>

<li>A Radio Shack Battery Tester is about as reliable as swiss cheese in stopping bullets... did you get fresh batteries for the camera? Sometimes that can be the problem... not enough battery juice to move the meter about.</li>

</ul>

<p>You stated you're getting whitewashed negatives, and thus blackout contact sheets. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that either the developer you're using is exhausted, so it's not finishing the reaction that will bring out the latent image, thus the hypo clean (ie: fixer remover) is just removing EVERYTHING.... or your meter is massively off. I second the notion to do a test roll JUST with exposure variance. Go out on a sunny day with your Tri-X 400, and follow sunny 16 rule. (ie: 400 film on a bright sunny day = 1/500 second). Take a shot at 2 stops underexposed, 1 stop underexposed, normal, 1 stop overexposed, 2 stops overexposed. If ANY of them return an image after your normal print technique, then you know how far off you are. If after 2 stops over-exposed you're still getting whiteout, AND you have made FRESH chemicals.... then it may be time for your camera to get adjusted a bit.</p>

<p>NB: have both cameras adjusted by someone reliable (maybe Nikon will do it), so that this way they're both accurate to the same degree and you have a steady control to work from. It'd be a shame if both cameras weren't used to their full ability.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p> </p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Sorry, I meant very dark negs, whit wash contact sheets/prints. I've shot many rolls of C41 and colour on the FM2n this summer. They were perfect.</p>

<p>I think this is a developer / film / time chart problem.</p>

<p>J</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>My tests going back a a few years were that the film speed is right on at 400 assuming a GBar of .50, however I didn't like it and stopped using it because it was very grainy and not very sharp compared to its predecessor and certainly not up to TX or TMY.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>