Advice on negative scans/exposure

[william_wright3]

<p>Hi there,<br>

I am an enthusiastic newcomer to shooting 35mm film with some previous experience shooting digital, and have been doing some test experimentation using film and digital cams with basic on camera flash set ups to try and gain an understanding of how to meter correctly for each, and also how film latitude works.<br>

However, the results I am getting on my 35mm so far have been fairly fruitless. Shooting with a single flash against a white wall, and metering for one step over exposure on the flash and anticpating a 'high key' look , the scans I am getting back seem to my eye to be either at 0 or -1.<br>

As an example (test shot with a ringflash at +1) and scanned by a lab with a good reputation:<br>

<img src="https://40.media.tumblr.com/95007dae5cfc5be1f44ddf088865da13/tumblr_o43a5czAhU1qdsei8o1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1272" height="1908" /></p>

<p>Whereas I was anticipating something a little more like this (exposure of same scan set to +1 in lightroom with a slight contrast boost)<br>

<img src="https://40.media.tumblr.com/d7358b417faa34159129ddceb4b04649/tumblr_o43a5s5aDC1qdsei8o1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1272" height="1908" /></p>

<p>When I enquired about how I might be able to acheive something a little closer to the second image the lab advised using 'more flash', however on subsequent text with flash set at levels which would nuke a digital sensor and produce a pure white image only I still got similar results back, albeit with streaks across the scan - see below.<br>

<img src="https://41.media.tumblr.com/1039488aba52e3808ff27a35b29d886f/tumblr_o43ak2plsh1ugadpho1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="853" /><br>

Unfortunately all of this means I am, at this early stage, very much unaware of how to get my intended results, and if the fault is with the metering/lighting or the scanning. Having tried a variety of camera set ups/lenses and samey exposure results from settings that would produce vastly different effects on digital cams I am getting quite frustrated with it all but dont want to give up just yet - I do realise portra film which I use has a wide exposure latitude, but something still seems amiss.<br>

Would it be common practice for a lab to reduce exposure to 0 regardless of how the photo is shot, and then is it just up to me to edit in post to how I want? Or is there a better way of getting a scan of the exposure as shot so I can tell when I am genuinely under/over exposing an image and learn to meter properly?</p>

 

[AJG]

<p>If you're working with a one hour lab or the equivalent at the low end of the cost spectrum, then the scanning process can be largely automated, which means you're usually depending on a machine to know what you want. Portra is a fairly low contrast film, and color negative film generally is much more tolerant of over exposure than most digital sensors are. So I'm not surprised that you're not getting the high key results that you're looking for straight from the scans. When I shot color film this was a frequent frustration, which I got around by working with custom printers for color so that I could get what I wanted. It wasn't cheap, but the results were worth it. You might think about having your film developed only and buying a film scanner, but most photographers that scan film still wind up doing a fair amount in Photoshop or other editing programs.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>In order to know if you're exposing the film the way you want, you need to look at the film, not a scan. All scanners will impart some level of "fixing" to the image. A lab will likely be trying to get the best result biased towards what the average customer wants - which is likely not what you want. I can watch the preview change as I select slightly different areas of the neg strip with mine. If the scans you get have sufficient size and have detail in both highlights and shadows, then just do the tweaking in editing. Just like with digital, there's nearly always some fixing that you'll need/want to do once it's in the computer. Your other option is to get a scanner yourself. And then you'll find out that it's not quite that easy. But you'll have control over it.</p>

[william_wright3]

<p>Thanks both for the advice - definitely confirms what I've been thinking - that either scanning the negatives myself or printing might be a better (if more complex) way of achieving the results I'm looking for. I guess it might also be worth looking into film with a little less latitude than Portra too.<br>

There is some disappointment in the sense that I feel I am unable to get the exposure right at source like I'm able to with digital, but I guess the payoff is I do have a general preference for the colour film provides compared to that provided by my 5dII.</p>

 

[wblynch]

<p>The first photo posted looks closer to perfect to me. All the detail is there. No wash outs or burn outs. I would think you could close your aperture 1 stop on the camera to improve that exposure.<br>

But there is all the detail you need in there to make your adjustments in Photoshop after the scan.</p>

 

[Bill C]

Hi, the films I'm most familiar with are professional color neg films. These will not take on a strange look with moderate overexposure, even

up to 3 or 4 stops overexposed. (lf this DOES happen, it's almost certainly a scanning artifacts.)

 

I've been involved in a handful of manufacturer trade trials when such films were first introduced. We ran studio exposure tests on a variety

of subjects with extended exposure sequences. We made "optical prints" (essentially a lens projects the negative onto light-sensitve paper),

color correcting the results to match as closely as possible. Results: the final prints, from normal exposure up to about 3 or 4 f-stops

overexposed cannot be distinguished from each other. So you should not expect to get significant changes by doing so.

 

If you have a poorly-behaved amateur film, results might get flaky, but probably not what you're looking for.

 

I agree with Bethe, if you want a high-key look, do it with editing of a scan. It is not an inherent characteristic of a color neg film.

[william_wright3]

<p>Thanks Bill (Lynch) yes that's definitely an advantage of the scans coming in at that exposure level, there's enough detail on each end to be able to do what I want with it in post.<br>

<br /> Bill C - thanks for that insight, that's definitely consistent with what I had heard - I guess the frustration that leaves me with is working out what kind of power lights i should be looking to use. I've found it hard to distinguish between the presence of a flash with a gn of 7 and one of 70 with the scans I've been getting, which leaves me wondering if the flash exposure is ultimately defined in post rather than the settings you shoot with, and that therefore metering etc doesn't really matter that much for this kind of photography.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Yes both flash intensity as well as metering matter. But until you can make a determination from the negatives themselves, not somebody's scan, you are just shooting craps. Using a film with wide latitude doesn't make it particularly easy. If you really want to know the effects of metering and flash for long term reference, do a reference series of shots on slide film rather than color negative film...the reduced latitude will definitely help you zero in on the proper lighting and exposure. Having said that, most of the results you seek can be achieved in post processing without paying much attention to the details.</p>

[Bill C]

William, I'm basically saying that you can't get what you probably consider a high-key by moderately overexposing a well-behaved color neg

film. The film has so much exposure latitude that properly made prints will all look the same. If you've seen blown-out looking prints, they

were probably badly (IMO) printed. To be fair, if the customer wants a washed-out looking head shot, and the lab produces same, then it's

hard to say that they printed it badly, so who can say?

 

If you were using b&w film, you can probably find film/developer combinations that will give the results you want because they don't have

to have what we call "straight-line response" like color films do.

 

You might want to start a new thread here, asking for post-processing help to get that look. I'd guess that some of the folks here have it

down, or perhaps know of some Photoshop plugin, or the like.

[william_wright3]

<p>Thanks for the advice Bill, definitely explains why I am getting the results I'm getting. Am still relatively new to film so was not aware of the differences in possibilities with B&W film until now - it's certainly something I will give a try.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity/for own reference I have been looking at the work of photographers who have a 'high key' style (or at least one with a lot of visible flash) using portra film, and came across Juergen Teller, who shoots Portra 400 using a flash with a GN of 20 (Contax TLA 200 on top of a G2), which is a lot less powerful than some I have experimented with. <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwiX1Y7G2cPLAhWElQ4KHXYyBCkQFggyMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmagazine.com%2Ffashion%2F2005%2F06%2Fgisele-juergen-teller-june-2005-photoshoot-ss%2Fphotos%2F&usg=AFQjCNF6TikVGRrNJlGQjD1YGGkiDC2N4Q&sig2=wdm9ub--ESLcL_uQ8VAPsQ">Example shoot here</a>.</p>

<p>My understanding is his film work is all derived from darkroom prints rather than photoshop - would this style be best defined by the sort of badly printed images (objectively speaking of course!) you are referring to, if the effect is not otherwise possible due to the latitude of the film?<br>

Thanks again everyone for all the useful input.</p>

<p> </p>

[Bill C]

Hi, I've been looking through some of the photos you linked. One of the first things I noticed are the curiously desaturated skin tones. You

just can't get Portra film to do that with normal processing. Nor does the strength of color go away with darkroom printing unless you print

very light. But if you print that light, details in white clothing would also disappear.since that isn't always happening, I'd say that the obvious

thing is that the saturation is being removed digitally.

 

Keep in mind that I don't do this sort of work, and am largely guessing, but I don't see any graceful way of doing things otherwise. My

money says they're probably not darkroom prints, but rather digitally edited. (They can still be printed onto light-sensitive paper with special

printing machines where colored lasers "write" a scanning image onto the paper.) I might be wrong, but if someone told me they're

darkroom prints, I'd ask, what made the color go away?,

[william_wright3]

<p>Thanks Bill, again a very useful insight into how far images from the film are likely being manipulated to get these sort of results.</p>

[kirk_strauchler]

<p>As said earlier, you can't really tell what's going on with a negative from a scan. You have to look at the negative. For me, looking at a color negative and making determinations from it are really difficult, as my brain can't convert the negative colors to positive. </p>

<p>If you're trying to dial in your exposure to get a high key look, you may want to go to reversal film (aka slides). It will give you a positive image without any manipulation from a scanner or other digital process. My guess is that you're pretty close to where you want to be with the negatives, but the scanner is messing it up.</p>

<p>Scanners are stupid, and scanners at retail labs are really stupid. Good chance that the scanner is applying all sorts of changes when it scans your negatives to bring the negatives closer to 'correct exposure', which is what Joe Consumer would typically want. In your case, you need an unaltered scan, which most likely require you to scan it yourself. </p>

<p>While Porta can't desaturate itself, it can be overexposed, which is pretty much what high key imagery is. With traditional printing (ie, wet printing with an enlarger), you can burn and dodge areas to your liking, much like you can do in photoshop, so you can lighten skin tones, and maintain detail in other areas like white shirts, etc. </p>

<p>I breifly took your first image into PS6, and did some really fast, minor tweaks to exposure and levels, and easily got a decent high key image. </p>

<p>But I really think the problem in your case is the lab's scanner's settings.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If you want your image lighter you have to scan it yourself. The first image looks perfect to me and I believe to most people and I know it's not to your liking. The negative has even more dynamic range than your RAW file and it has tolerance toward overexposure. So if you give someone your RAW file and unless the highlight blown out and can be fixed most people would convert to JPEG like the first picture. If you want to really blow out the highlight (which is not needed if you scan it yourself) then you have to overexpose your negative about 3.5 to 4 stops. </p>

[wblynch]

<p>Well the film engineers work really hard to make the film so it won't blow out the highlights. That's what gives it the latitude everyone talks about.</p>

<p>The C-41 process is set for 3:15 minutes at 102*F. You can overdevelop the film by either raising the temperature or extending the time. People call it pushing the film.</p>

<p>Anyway doing that would add more development in the highlight areas and also increases contrast. My suggestion is you shouldn't do it that way since later on you may have a different artistic goal and want to revisit those negatives.</p>

<p>Best to get a good negative and then add your artistic expression in post processing or in the darkroom. JMO</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>High key does not mean overexposing the picture. High key is a look where you have primarily light tones in most of the photo. An example would be a caucasion person with blond hair in a white shirt against a white background. Or maybe an off-white sweater sitting in a white wicker chair. There are lots of combinations. Regardless of whether you are shooting high key or low key or something in between, you need to get the flash off the camera and preferably use a modifier such as an umbrella or softbox to soften the light.<br /><br />High key doesn't necessarily involve flash (or hot lights). You can shoot high key outdoors with natural light, or indoors with window light. Imagine a person in light colored clothing in a sunroom bathed by light from windows all around.<br /><br />When printing/scanning, you don't want the light tones to be "corrected" to a middle gray. But printing is primarily the end stage of a high key photo, not how you create high key from something that isn't.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>So consider the first image. If the lab operator has no specific instruction from the client I think he/she did a good jog rendering the image as such regardless of the exposure. </p>