Excellent article on metering for film (focus on Portra)

[Winedemonium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Johnny Patience

[CalArts 99]

It's kind of interesting that some people seem to be wanting to learn proper technique when only using film. As if it doesn't matter with digital (it does! ) The article lumps 'film' into one category (color negative) and doesn't differentiate between reversal film (which has exposure requirements similar to digital capture.) Although he does indeed mention he's specifically using negative film despite the title: "Metering for Film."

 

It would be beneficial for any potential image maker to learn these sorts of basics whether using digital or film. (e.g., in our department all students are required to start with film before going on to digital, or whatever they want to end up using to produce their work. Even without requiring film, they would still have to understand the fundamentals and the processes of exposing any light sensitive medium. It's something that they need to accomplish and to get a handle on early. Being fully capable and comfortable with technique and materials then helps them to concentrate more freely on the aesthetic/intellectual side of image making which is arguably the most difficult part of photography )

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Most of the concerns I hear from photographers who mainly shoot digital are based on the experience that one stop of exposure changes your results drastically. That’s different with film and therefore exposure is in general much easier with a little bit of practice.

 

It is just the other way around. On film the impact of exposure and development is crucial, on digital there is considerably more leeway in postprocessing.

[CalArts 99]

 

It is just the other way around. On film the impact of exposure and development is crucial, on digital there is considerably more leeway in postprocessing.

 

I assume he was just generalizing with the old "blow out the highlight" mantra that comes with digital and with reversal film, whereas with negative film it's the old "expose for the shadows" mantra. I think he was just trying to reassure new users of negative film that there is 'leeway' (and to be sure there is with digital too, providing the highlights aren't completely lost.) And especially in the case of using color negative film and standardized C-41 lab processing.

[philipus]

Good points. On the leeway bits that Jaap mention, though, I feel that film is very flexible in post. I'm sure this can be tested, and likely has, but I certainly don't feel limited by using film.

 

I would just add that I believe Mr Patience has a bit of an agenda. Not that I mind - I love film - but it may explain the one-sidedness of the piece.

 

As an aside, I am wondering how he manages to find economy in having all his film processed by a lab in California when he's based in Ireland

[jaapv]

In both cases one needs to strive for optimal exposure. I have no idea what correct exposure is, though. I do not think there is a basic difference between film and digital in this respect.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but optimal exposure for the image you want, the good old pre-visualisation idea of knowing what the print will look like when you set the aperture and shutter speed. But really, post processing with film offers far more options than digital to rescue a fluffed exposure, by using the choice of developers and times, as long as you can recognised that heart sinking moment when you realise it was a fluffed exposure in the first place!

 

Steve

[IkarusJohn]

As a relatively conservative user of film (in other words a bit sloppy), I've always worried about the number of variables when departing from the boxed ISO value and processing time. I guess that's from lack of skill/experience. When I read the article, I thought to myself, why halve the boxed value and then expose for the shadows? What's the point of consistently over exposing, when the risk of blowing out highlights is so significant?

 

The heart of his thesis seems to be here:

Because color negative film usually gives the most pleasant results when overexposed, a lot of film photographers rate their film at half box speed (ISO 200 instead of ISO 400) and expose for the shadows, which results in 2-3 stops of overexposure.

 

I assume that this may be right for colour negative film, but less so for digital, transparencies and black and white film?

 

I haven't used colour negative film in many years, so my background is more in slides, where protecting the highlights is critical, and in black and white, getting rich blacks is what it's about for me. I assume, therefore, that the best approach is to continue to use the boxed ISO value, and expose in the normal way with an incident meter, in the light which falls on the subject.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Cheers

John

[Stealth3kpl]

I find the “Sunny 16″ rule slightly misleading – especially when you’re just starting out. You would have to shoot an equivalent of 1/12800 on a sunny day with Portra 400 at f2.8 accordingly, which is neither practical nor accurate.

 

No you wouldn't.

1) You would shoot at a different aperture

2) you could use a Neutral Density filter

3) If you shoot at half box speed, 1/250 @ f16 in bright sunlight is 1/1000@f8, so 1/2000@f5.6 or 1/4000 @ f2.8

 

but then he's suggesting increasing exposure by another 2 or 3 stops in bright sunlight.

 

 

Pete

[wattsy]

Must admit I find the article a bit woolly – a bit like the website itself which has a strong hipster "feel good" vibe about it with its Aga stoves and Sunday morning fresh coffee making routine (though I'm probably just envious of the couple's Cork countryside gaff). That said, I'm not knocking the photographer or his photography which is very nice and very 'of the moment' (the kind of lifestyle travel you see in magazines like Kinfolk) though I do dislike seeing lists of equipment on a photographer's website.

[jaapv]

Yes, but optimal exposure for the image you want, the good old pre-visualisation idea of knowing what the print will look like when you set the aperture and shutter speed. But really, post processing with film offers far more options than digital to rescue a fluffed exposure, by using the choice of developers and times, as long as you can recognised that heart sinking moment when you realise it was a fluffed exposure in the first place!

 

Steve

Yes, with developers, but you have to realise you fluffed the exposure first. Often it is only when you see the negative....

I agree about the visualisation - that is what I treied to indicate with my second sentence. There is no universally correct exposure. There is only the optimal exposure for the image you want to create. (See about a dozen books by Ansel Adams )

[Steve Ash]

...though I do dislike seeing lists of equipment on a photographer's website.

 

 

I love seeing lists of equipment on a photographer's website as it reminds me that it does not matter .

Steve