The "digital camera exposure latitude" test is flawed. You should have shot in RAW and compensated the exposure in post-production. That'd be the equivalent of what you did with the negatives.
This was super helpful for me. I kinda picked film back up in a vacuum with nobody to tell me whether I was doing it right, and since lab scans and prints are corrected somewhat anyway I didn't know whether my metering was correct. Gonna go over my negs now and see how I did!
Wish someone could do film comparison shot at different speed and also “developed” at changed speed too, that mean compensating developing time in process. I did a test roll with portra 400 shot at 200 and pull-develop at 200. The outcome is very surprisingly good, the scanned file looks like it was shot by digital cam.
Thanks for the tip CD11. Great update Sandra. I have one question and will be grateful for your response. 1) When you overexposed, i.e. a ISO400 film as in your example, by metering the shadows, did you develop the film at the box speed, i.e. 400 ? Keep safe and thanks do much.
If you examined the exposure tests critically, meaning not little postage stamps on a computer screen, you would see that exposures outside a -1 to +2 are unacceptable for color shift larger grain and loss of sharpness. Those who routinely shoot at half box speed, are just shifting their risk of exposure error, meaning that they are then risking routine over exposure rather than loss of image quality by underexposure. IMO she's nailed it!
The same principles apply. With color you have different colors providing additional image separation which you do not have in B&W, so image degeneration from over exposure is more apparent in B&W. You can print though overly dense B&W or color negatives, but you cannot really undo the tonal compression (flattening) and loss of highlight separation, which is more apparent in B&W. Basically, all this video is saying is that if you do not know how to use your light meter to properly measure an exposure and you assume you will err, then make your error an over exposure to minimize your lesser results. Unhappily, many folks misread this idea to mean that your image is okay (or better) if you over expose, which is nonsense.
Interesting. Once I also gave the Negatives about 1-2 F-Stops more Light than I wanted but I did that (in some Way) by Accident.. The Lens was broken and the F-Stop changed by just focusing the Camera.. :D But the Results were still good. (with "analog" Film Photography).
The "digital camera exposure latitude" test is flawed. You should have shot in RAW and compensated the exposure in post-production. That'd be the equivalent of what you did with the negatives.
This was super helpful for me. I kinda picked film back up in a vacuum with nobody to tell me whether I was doing it right, and since lab scans and prints are corrected somewhat anyway I didn't know whether my metering was correct. Gonna go over my negs now and see how I did!
Wish someone could do film comparison shot at different speed and also “developed” at changed speed too, that mean compensating developing time in process. I did a test roll with portra 400 shot at 200 and pull-develop at 200.
The outcome is very surprisingly good, the scanned file looks like it was shot by digital cam.
thanks, sandra! wonderful class :-)
thank you!
Excellently explained! Thank you very much!
You are welcome! Happy you found it helpful!
Another great video! Thanks and keep them coming! 😀📷
This is a good, clear explanation.
cdl0 so glad it was helpful!
Thanks for the tip CD11. Great update Sandra. I have one question and will be grateful for your response.
1) When you overexposed, i.e. a ISO400 film as in your example, by metering the shadows, did you develop the film at the box speed, i.e. 400 ?
Keep safe and thanks do much.
@@aristoioannidis7490 Most likely the film was developed at box speed, in accord with the manufacturer's recommendations.
@@aristoioannidis7490 Yes, when I rate at 400 and meter for the shadows, I have the lab process it at box speed as well.
@@cdl0 yep!
Clearly stated! Thanks! You mentioned that you had a link to "How to Meter for Shadows". Don't see it anywhere. Where may I find it?
If you examined the exposure tests critically, meaning not little postage stamps on a computer screen, you would see that exposures outside a -1 to +2 are unacceptable for color shift larger grain and loss of sharpness. Those who routinely shoot at half box speed, are just shifting their risk of exposure error, meaning that they are then risking routine over exposure rather than loss of image quality by underexposure. IMO she's nailed it!
Thank you!
Great explanation. Thank you. How would this change for black and white film Sandra?
The same principles apply. With color you have different colors providing additional image separation which you do not have in B&W, so image degeneration from over exposure is more apparent in B&W. You can print though overly dense B&W or color negatives, but you cannot really undo the tonal compression (flattening) and loss of highlight separation, which is more apparent in B&W. Basically, all this video is saying is that if you do not know how to use your light meter to properly measure an exposure and you assume you will err, then make your error an over exposure to minimize your lesser results. Unhappily, many folks misread this idea to mean that your image is okay (or better) if you over expose, which is nonsense.
Interesting. Once I also gave the Negatives about 1-2 F-Stops more Light than I wanted but I did that (in some Way) by Accident.. The Lens was broken and the F-Stop changed by just focusing the Camera.. :D But the Results were still good. (with "analog" Film Photography).
Density is not just for negative but all. E6 transparency C-41 Negative and Reflective Print. All can be measured by density
Great video!! thanks, sandra!
Good info. Thank you.
Nice job
Thank you!
❤️❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍👍👍👍
You can't overexpose large format, it's insane. I saw Tyler Shields overexposing 8x10 by 9 stops and the shot turned out perfectly exposed.