Shooting Film at Box Speed

[BeBu Lamar]

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

 

Do you gain anything except speed by pushing? You have a lot to lose.

[glen_h]

Black and white films normally have different development times, often (not always)

with faster films needing more time. The ISO speed determination allows varying the

time for optimal speed.

 

Both C41 and E6 fix the time, independent on the actual film speed.

 

This leaves the possibility of designing a film needing a longer time than

the usual time, and which provides an actual higher ISO value with

a longer time. I believe that there are some films designed this way,

and other higher speed films might still work better with push times.

[Dave Luttmann]

Do you gain anything except speed by pushing? You have a lot to lose.

 

Speed is an important factor...especially when needed. C41 film like E6 will have, depending upon the number of stops pushed, more grain, increased contrast and saturation as well as slight color shifts. In other words, a valuable tool for those wanting a particular look. I often rate Ektar 100 at 400 and push 1.5 stops. The increase in grain is moderate, and the extra contrast is nice. Portrait 400 rated at 3200 and pushed 2 stops has a nice look as well.

 

Like I said, saying "you shouldn't" doesn't make any sense.

[BeBu Lamar]

Speed is an important factor...especially when needed. C41 film like E6 will have, depending upon the number of stops pushed, more grain, increased contrast and saturation as well as slight color shifts. In other words, a valuable tool for those wanting a particular look. I often rate Ektar 100 at 400 and push 1.5 stops. The increase in grain is moderate, and the extra contrast is nice. Portrait 400 rated at 3200 and pushed 2 stops has a nice look as well.

 

Like I said, saying "you shouldn't" doesn't make any sense.

I don't need speed for film. If I need speed I shoot digital.

[john_tran14]

You talk about "box speed" which is just a recommendation (as Marcus also said) from the manufacturer (the people who made the film). Then you asked your friend for another recommendation, and the people here also gave other recommendations. Some of us suggest using digital because a digital camera can "SET" the ISO (film speed). The way I see when a digital camera sets the ISO, that is also (merely) a "film speed" recommendation (from the camera manufacturer, like Canon/Nikon/Sony/...). My suggestion is that you should listen to yourself, based on your own judgement, experience, and preference. A digital camera has the advantage of free and immediate feedback on a small screen. But remember that again is (merely) a recommendation (on how the result should be processed); i.e you could process your RAW files differently and get different results.

[glen_h]

You talk about "box speed" which is just a recommendation (as Marcus also said) from the manufacturer (the people who made the film). Then you asked your friend for another recommendation, and the people here also gave other recommendations. Some of us suggest using digital because a digital camera can "SET" the ISO (film speed). The way I see when a digital camera sets the ISO, that is also (merely) a "film speed" recommendation (from the camera manufacturer, like Canon/Nikon/Sony/...). My suggestion is that you should listen to yourself, based on your own judgement, experience, and preference. A digital camera has the advantage of free and immediate feedback on a small screen. But remember that again is (merely) a recommendation (on how the result should be processed); i.e you could process your RAW files differently and get different results.

 

There are some differences between film speed and digital speed.

 

Most films have a smooth transition at each end of the characteristic curve, such that

things get worse slowly as you increase or decrease exposure out of the main part

of the curve. You can overexpose Tri-X three or four or five stops, and it gets harder to

print, but you can usually get something useful out. You can change things a little bit,

but not as much as you might like, with development changes.

 

For digital, when you hit the top of the ADC, it abruptly saturates. There is a sharp corner on

the graph, not a smooth transition. Similarly on the bottom end. Any information past those

corners is completely gone.

 

The smooth transitions for film are mostly due to the physics of grain formation, but

also convenient in the early days without light meters and simpler cameras.

 

There are, as far as I know, no digital cameras without built-in light meters, though they might

have manual control such that you can ignore the meter.

 

In the early days of light meters, we had ones that average over the whole scene.

It would be nice to instead average the logarithm of the light intensity, but the usual

light sensitive devices don't do that. Even so, averaging meters mostly work well,

as the distributions of light and dark are reasonably predictable. Later spot meters

allowed for more accurate metering. The transitions at the end of the curve

for film allow for unexpected bright or dark regions in the scene.

 

Matrix metering on most digital cameras allows an approximation to the

average log intensity measurement, for more accurate results.

 

So, yes, go around with a digital camera in manual mode, with an external

averaging meter, or even with no meter, take some pictures, and examine

them for highlight and shadow detail. This will help you learn, but not

completely understand, how to expose film.

[JDMvW]

Pushing color SLIDE film (that is, E-6) was not only possible, but even Kodak sold special envelopes to pay the additional cost.

 

For Color Negative (C41), you can usually just expose more or less in printing, so that pushing or pulling film development was/is moot.

[glen_h]

Pushing color SLIDE film (that is, E-6) was not only possible, but even Kodak sold special envelopes to pay the additional cost.

 

For Color Negative (C41), you can usually just expose more or less in printing, so that pushing or pulling film development was/is moot.

 

I think I once had an ESP-1, the name of the special envelope that you put your film in, and

then inside the regular Kodak mailer.

 

Most E6 films push well, especially higher speed films. With black and white films, it is usual

(there are some exceptions) for higher speed films to develop longer, but E6 is the same for all.

 

There was an Ektachrome P800/1600 that is 400 with normal developing, but is actually designed

to be pushed to 800 or 1600.

 

There are push times for C41. C41 films have a lot of overexposure latitude, but not so much for

underexposure. Even more, in many dark available light scenes, the meter can be fooled, or the

user stretched the meter reading. (If I am hand holding, and the meter is between 1/8 and 1/15,

I might go for 1/15.) If you need it, and can do it, push is probably worth doing.

[bobbudding]

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

 

You've convinced me that using a higher ISO C41 film makes more sense than push processing. The examples that you showed have distorted colors. Likely because of varying changes in contrast between the color layers of the film. And, yes, I have a color calibrated monitor that displays the full Adobe RGB 1998 gamut.

[SCL]

Almost any film works well with Sunny 16...the key is your ability to effectively see and discriminate between the various light intensities. IMHO that takes practice, practice and more practice. I used a meter for years before I nailed Sunny 16, but I always made a Sunny 16 guess before metering, and then examined the negative or transparency to validate the actual and estimated exposure. P2 just has a lot of latitude.

[JDMvW]

IS that why that film works so well with sunny 16?

Well, even ordinary color negative C41 film has plenty of latitude for Sunny 16, but XP2 is extraordinary.

[glen_h]

My favorite C41 film might be Portra 160:

 

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

 

XP2 super (is there a non-super version):

 

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1909/product/703/XP2

 

from the curves, both cover about 3 logs, or 10 stops, of intensity,

and 1.5 units of density, so gamma of about 0.5. The curves for XP2 seem

a little curvier where the straight region should be. Also, the XP2 curve

seems to be flattening out at the top, where Portra 160 seems to have no

change in slope yet. Maybe another half log to go?

 

XP2 does have the advantage of no mask, so easier to print on traditional

black and white paper.

 

Portra 160 costs a little more, though for 135-36 they are very close.

 

I think I wouldn't choose between them based on exposure latitude.

 

But maybe Portra 160 is not an ordinary C41 film.

[hjoseph7]

it's not just the film that might have a little latitude its the meter on your camera. "Notice I say a little because a lot of latitude and the manufacturer would be out of business". When I was shooting film I would check my meter by taking a couple of pictures of index cards at different aperture/iso readings to see if the meter was working properly or close to properly.

[glen_h]

Hmmm. I even have an 18% gray card, so I will try that for meter checking.

[rodeo_joe1]

Ansel Adams seems never to have noticed a half-stop discrepancy between the verbal description of his Zones, and the measured sensitometric reflectance value. So much for accurate metering!

[ben_hutcherson]

XP2 super (is there a non-super version)

 

I think I have a 50 ft. roll of non-Super in the freezer. I know I have SOMETHING that's not the current product... it's near the 50 ft. roll of FP4(not FP4+)

 

I'll pull it out later and check.

[glen_h]

At least they change the name, unlike Kodak which keeps changing films but keeping the name.

[AlanKlein]

Ansel Adams seems never to have noticed a half-stop discrepancy between the verbal description of his Zones, and the measured sensitometric reflectance value. So much for accurate metering!

I find a 1/2 to 1 stop difference when reading a gray card with a reflectance meter and an incidence reading both from the same meter. Am I nuts?

[Bill C]

I find a 1/2 to 1 stop difference when reading a gray card with a reflectance meter and an incidence reading both from the same meter. Am I nuts?

 

You've been around long enough to have probably encountered the question as to whether a reflective meter is "calibrated" for 18% reflectance vs some other value, such as 12%, for example. Although this is not strictly true (per the standards the meters are calibrated against a light source of a certain "strength," not a reflectance), the net result is essentially the same thing as a given reflectivity.

 

The exposure metering standards allow for "fudging" the values somewhat. Both reflective and incident meter readings have their own "constant" built into them (it's part of the exposure formula) that allows the manufacturer to bias them slightly for whatever reason.

 

Anyway, I'd guess that you have a brand of meter that "presumes" a lower reflectivity, such as 12 or 14%. My (fuzzy) recollection of a couple personal meters is that Minoltas matched readings with an 18% gray card, whereas a Gossen did not.

 

If you want to estimate the "aim reflectance" of your meter you could set up a (mostly frontal) light along with a gray card on a moveable stand. Take an incident reading and write it down. Then take a reflected reading. From what you say, they won't match. Then, rotate the gray card away from the light source and take another reading (meter facing head-on at the card). I'm guessing that at some point you will get a reading that matches the incident reading.

 

At this point it should be possible to roughly calculate the "effective reflectance" that your meter expects. The basis of the calculation is that, as the card is tilted away from the light sources, the reflected light becomes weaker; the light source "sees" a narrower profile of the card. For example, say you have a 10" wide card. A mostly frontal light "sees" a 10" wide card. But if you tilt the card enough you can get to a point where the light "sees" only about a 5" width. In this situation the card is collecting only half the light that it did originally. Consequently the card behaves as though it is reflecting only half the light, and half of the 18% reflectivity is 9%. So you would want to find the card tilt angle that matches exposure, then do a similar calculation. I'm not gonna go into more detail, but if you find a matching tilt angle but don't understand how to calculate, just post the angle (perhaps with a sketch) and I'll calculate it for you.

 

Of course it's possible that one of your metering modes is out of calibration for some reason, or a diffuser is dirty, etc. By the way, different "constants" are used for flat vs dome diffusers on the incident meter, so it's possible to get different readings between these modes.

 

Ps, all things considered, it's probably easier to just calculate the "effective reflectivity" from the difference in exposure readings. But if you go through the motions of tilting the card until readings match, I think it may be more obvious. I dunno.

[rodeo_joe1]

Who the heck uses averaging reflectance readings these days anyway?

 

Ever since the invercone and incident dome were invented, average reflectance readings have been redundant.

By the way, different "constants" are used for flat vs dome diffusers on the incident meter

But those are used for different purposes. The dome or invercone is used for a general exposure reading, whereas a flat diffuser is for taking ratio readings between separate light sources. Or for illumination readings in Lux.

[glen_h]

I don't know of cameras with built-in incidence meters.

 

Traditionally they were averaging, but as technology improved, more toward spot.

 

For many subjects, averaging is just fine.

[john_tran14]

So, yes, go around with a digital camera in manual mode, with an external

averaging meter, or even with no meter, take some pictures, and examine

them for highlight and shadow detail. This will help you learn, but not

completely understand, how to expose film.

I have never said to use a digital camera to learn about film. In my previous post, I wanted to emphasize that the ASA on the box of the film roll + the metering system of the camera can only give a suggestion on shutter speed and/or aperture and it would be better if we follow our own judgement and preferences

[glen_h]

There are a lot of things to learn in photography, many of which are independent of

the use of film or digital. Since our eyes are designed to adapt to lighting conditions,

in many situations we aren't very good at judging absolute light levels. We do a little

better at judging other things, such as contrast.

 

And yes, even with a meter, we need to make judgements on the scene, especially in

situations that can fool the meter. Even with the best meter, there might be a bright spot

that isn't an important part of the scene, and we need to meter around it.

 

But in the end, there are differences in the way judgements are made between digital

and film, and photographers need to learn those.

 

It interesting that film (that is, movie) schools are teaching with film cameras.

 

I suspect (not having done it) that a Hollywood movie director needs to know the

differences in the way film and digital respond to scenes, to be able to anticipate

how the results will look on screen. That is, even though the camera operator

will set the actual exposure.

[Ricochetrider]

Hi guys, wow this conversation sure has gone places I’d never guessed it would go. I keep coming back and things get more & more complex! So far there seem to be at least two separate sciences going on: film speed/iso and film at box vs other speeds in negative density, and the science of reading light meters and metering in general. With a sidebar of developing processes.

 

Now I’m sort of getting to have some understanding of the science of photography. I’m loosely learning what seems to work and what doesn’t, well I think so, anyway. It is fair to say I know nothing about metering- although I’ve been using MyLightMeter on my phone with, I think, fair results.

 

That said I have abandoned my friend’s suggestion of shooting at half speed and am almost always metering at box speed now. I’m shooting a couple different cameras- one of which, my Voigtlander R3m rangefinder, has built in metering. It actually seems to mostly work but at times also seems off. And not that it gives a specific reading, it just gives a + or - 1 or 2. So it’s not grandiose in function. I feel like I mostly get better results with the 500cm and MyLightMeter.

 

this, of course, is no doubt made a lot more difficult than it probably needs to be- because I’m shooting films with ISOs that are all over the place. Well not really ALL over... I’ve been shooting Ektar 100, Portra 160, Acros 100, Pan F Plus 50, Rollie’s Superpan 200 and Fuji industrial color 200. And I still have a roll or two of 400 ISO T Max and a few rolls of HP5 (ISO 400)!

 

I like the look of the original Acros 100, but not ready to give it up to the new version.

 

I really like Pan F Plus but have only shot it in 35mm.

 

the Superpan 200 is alright, and probably a bit more forgiving (or flexible?) than the Pan F Plus, being more medium speed... again so far I’ve shot only in 35mm but I have both the Superpan 200 and Pan F Plus 50 in 120 now.

 

But Im still having fun with it all and getting some satisfying results.

 

Thanks to every one of you for CL reuniting your knowledge, experience, and expertise to the conversation.

[AlanKlein]

You've been around long enough to have probably encountered the question as to whether a reflective meter is "calibrated" for 18% reflectance vs some other value, such as 12%, for example. Although this is not strictly true (per the standards the meters are calibrated against a light source of a certain "strength," not a reflectance), the net result is essentially the same thing as a given reflectivity.

 

The exposure metering standards allow for "fudging" the values somewhat. Both reflective and incident meter readings have their own "constant" built into them (it's part of the exposure formula) that allows the manufacturer to bias them slightly for whatever reason.

 

Anyway, I'd guess that you have a brand of meter that "presumes" a lower reflectivity, such as 12 or 14%. My (fuzzy) recollection of a couple personal meters is that Minoltas matched readings with an 18% gray card, whereas a Gossen did not.

 

If you want to estimate the "aim reflectance" of your meter you could set up a (mostly frontal) light along with a gray card on a moveable stand. Take an incident reading and write it down. Then take a reflected reading. From what you say, they won't match. Then, rotate the gray card away from the light source and take another reading (meter facing head-on at the card). I'm guessing that at some point you will get a reading that matches the incident reading.

 

At this point it should be possible to roughly calculate the "effective reflectance" that your meter expects. The basis of the calculation is that, as the card is tilted away from the light sources, the reflected light becomes weaker; the light source "sees" a narrower profile of the card. For example, say you have a 10" wide card. A mostly frontal light "sees" a 10" wide card. But if you tilt the card enough you can get to a point where the light "sees" only about a 5" width. In this situation the card is collecting only half the light that it did originally. Consequently the card behaves as though it is reflecting only half the light, and half of the 18% reflectivity is 9%. So you would want to find the card tilt angle that matches exposure, then do a similar calculation. I'm not gonna go into more detail, but if you find a matching tilt angle but don't understand how to calculate, just post the angle (perhaps with a sketch) and I'll calculate it for you.

 

Of course it's possible that one of your metering modes is out of calibration for some reason, or a diffuser is dirty, etc. By the way, different "constants" are used for flat vs dome diffusers on the incident meter, so it's possible to get different readings between these modes.

 

Ps, all things considered, it's probably easier to just calculate the "effective reflectivity" from the difference in exposure readings. But if you go through the motions of tilting the card until readings match, I think it may be more obvious. I dunno.

Bill, I guess my question comes down to which of the two is the correct reading?