mike_chalmers

<p>Hi guys,</p> <p>I shoot medium format, 99% of the time on Portra. I've shot some B&W in the past but never had as good results as converting the portra in post.<br> My workflow is shooting > lab processes film (they know how I like and do a great job) > I scan myself with as much dynamic range as possible > I colour in Photoshop and do B&W conversion at this stage.<br> If I know I'm intending on black and white, I shoot with this in mind and use light differently but shoot it in colour.<br> I still have some TRI-X that's been in my bag for a while but I'm never inclined to use it - I always think I'll get better (and more flexible) results from Portra. <br> So, my question is - is there any advantage to shooting straight B&W and under what circumstances? I shoot ~portraits 99% of the time.<br> Totally happy to be shown my ignorance on this topic as I'm sure there's something I'm missing - and would love to put the TRI-X to work!</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks folks, interesting to hear the different thoughts.<br> I'm using an Epson V550 & portra film.</p> <p>After some research on your ideas, I'm not sure anything has convinced me that there's a method better than using the ColorChecker so might pop for one. I've been having pretty good results, but wanted to know if there was a more precise way of getting accurate colouring.<br> I work in the fashion / portraiture, so skin is a big consideration and outdoor shoots which need colour consistency through one story can be shot under a range of colour temperatures, depending on the weather and the shoot. <br> Thanks again everyone who shared.</p> <p>MC</p>

<p>I'm finally getting pretty good color in my scans, but it got me thinking if anyone has a foolproof way of getting close to perfect results..</p> <p>Here's my workflow: shoot c41 medium format > get processed at pro lab > scan in myself with epson scan with the highest bits and a large dpi (with all settings reset, bringing me close to a raw tiff) > color correct in CaptureOne > process out and final retouching in photoshop.</p> <p>I find Capture gives me the best results which I can quickly apply or test on other images in the set.</p> <p>Basically I'm thinking a grey card - but how close will this get me? Is something like the Xrite ColorChecker Passport a good investment? Is this going to get me the most accurate results possible - or is there another way?</p> <p>Any tips or thoughts would be greatly appreciated! </p> <p>MC</p>

<p>@ Les Sarile<br /> No - I wasn't using Portra or 1/2 box speed. Was mostly using Gold or Fuji Superia - cheaper and more available to me at the time. <br /> I'm confident I could shoot these films better now and will maybe revisit. I was tending to replicate my exposure settings that I was using on digital, but I was watching for blown highlights, not aware that this would make for bad film photos. I would have been better relying on in-camera metering all of the time.<br> I was shooting mostly on Canon 35mm - T70s, a couple of different mid-range EOS too. Scanning with Epsom V500 Perfection.</p> <p>@ Glen Herrmannsfeldt</p> <p>Yeah that's interesting and what I was trying to do manually yesterday. My issue was lack of available light as my camera has a reputation for slight blur so you have to double the (and inverse) the focal length to guarantee no shake when handheld and my aperture was already wide open, so would be concerned the shutter would go to a danger area with exposure comp. Luckily the faster iso film supply I ordered has arrived.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses guys - I'm not sure I was very clear with my questions, but appreciate everyone's input and I'm going to take some pictures to test with different lighting conditions and settings today and see what results are best for the film type with skin.</p> <p>@Lee Sarile</p> <p>As I've not shot with this camera yet, I've not had disappointing results. I know that Portra is the film is want to use from its characteristics and will be doing a grade and retouch in post (something I do in my line of work with fashion photographers, but generally all digital). </p> <p>@James Dainis</p> <p>Thanks, this is essentially what my thinking was. I'm basically trying to work out if I should open up one stop (/meter at half box speed) if I want to get the richest, deepest skin tones possible. Because of the latitude range, a lot of people have said to do this, but I was wondering if others had specific experience. I'll test both ways and maybe bracket further (although my my film supply is limited today).</p> <p>@Barry Fisher</p> <p>Yeah, thanks - This was my plan for all shots and I'm gonna be noting everything down so I can reflect on it after. </p> <p>@glen herrmannsfeldt </p> <p>Yeah as mentioned I'm using incident light metering so it should be okay, but that's an interesting point about the gamma gamma compensation.</p>

<p>Oh Stephen I just realised you assumed I was using the camera/reflective meter, but I'm talking about incident (handheld digital) meter.</p>

<p>That's interesting Bill! Thanks for your input - I might try that during my tests.</p> <p>I'm basically just looking to plan out the shots I'm going to take during the tests and document it all and then get the processed film back and work out what works. Doing 2x studio rolls, 2x daylight (before and during golden hour), probably split that between direct, side and back-lighting too. <br> I've only got 10 shots per roll so want to plan properly. I've got an idea what will work best, but would love to hear others experiences / examples in case I'm wrong! </p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Hi Stephen, </p> <p>Thank you for responding. As mentioned, I'm going to be shooting Portra - i.e. colour negative. <br> And no, nothing to complex to keep in mind. I am very familiar with metering and the things you are suggesting and, as mentioned, I do plan to bracket and run different tests. <br> What I'm really looking for are photographers experiences shooting at box speed, and perhaps over and under - as well as metering different areas of shadow or light on skin or in the shadows/grey card to achieve the richest, deepest colours on the skin, with the most detail.<br> To me, the link I sent does not have blown highlights as I can still see detail in practically all highlights. Maybe you mean the very small areas on the clothing but overall I think they're underexposed compared to what a normal "correct" exposure would look like. It also looks like you might just be referring to the first image on the page, so here's another one that might serve as a better example: http://wearesodroee.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/anna-ewers-by-alasdair-mclellan-for-vogue-uk-september-2015-9.jpg?w=1480&h=1968</p>

<p>I have finally got a medium format camera again after selling my Hasselblad to make ends meet - and while I've become much more experienced in photography, it's mostly digital and any film I've shot has relied on in-camera metering (with mostly good but often underexposed results).<br /> I'd like to learn how to meter for the results I want. As I'm likely to be mostly shooting portraits and people, I'm concerned with getting the skin perfect. <br /> So I've read and understand the 'expose for the shadows' rule but what if it's direct sunlight and I want the face to be exposed with rich tones and allow the shadows to fall to black? <br /> Or, if I want consistency in skin exposure and always aim to keep it with as much detail and deepest/richest colours possible, should I be metering directly in front of the face?<br /> I'm going to do some tests tomorrow but would appreciate any advice as my film supply is limited.<br /> I'm gonna shoot Portra and set iso to 1/2 box speed btw. Although maybe I will try some at box speed as well, to see if I prefer the results.</p> <p>Here's a shoot that shows good skin, rich colours and dark shadows - not a perfect example of my goals but should illustrate my point: http://wearesodroee.com/2015/08/06/no-debutante/</p> <p>Thanks in advance for any input, I really appreciate the people of these forums.</p> <p>Mike</p>