Lukasz Grabun wrote:
> Aw, I should have known it was just too vague for such a stickler as
> you :-) Kidding, of course :-) It always is wise to speak to someone
> who actually knows the subject well.
>
> But seriously speaking...
>
>
>>> The same holds true when one shoots negatives.
>>>
>> Here I must disagree. Before going largely digital, I had some time ago
>> moved from slide to CN film. CN film has wide overexposure latitude, 2-3
>> stops, and narrower underexposure latitude, 1-1.5 stops.. Once I got a
>> film scanner, I was simply amazed at the highlight detail in negs that
>> was not visible in automated prints. The automated printing process
>> tends to throw away highlights to help reduce the broad dynamic range of
>> the negs to the narrower one of print paper.
>>
>
> Overexposing print films - by a 2/3 or a full stop - is quite common
> among photographers as it yields better prints with more color and
> contrast
Which photographers? Printed how? Automated prints? Custom from a Pro
lab? Home made? The thing is, CN film has way more dynamic range than
color paper. So there are a lot of decisions to be made and things do
be done in printing from CN. Given complete control, you can do pretty
much anything with a properly exposed frame of CN, and a great deal even
with considerable mis-exposure.
> (OK, it may fall into everyone's liking but generally speaking vivid colors
> is something people like).
If that's the goal, it may be achieved in different ways. If using a
given lab, and overexposure gives the desired results, great. But it may
be useful to know that you are simply adjusting to a particular printing
setup. The same result would almost certainly be possible with a
normally exposed neg and different printing settings.
At one time I did a test to see if I could save some money using cheaper
processing. I had been sending my film to a Fuji lab for a while, then
switched to Kodak, as I liked the overall results better. These were
both labs that my photo shop sent film out to, not a minilab. I then did
another experiment. I'm using Kodak process/printing; so what if it says
Royal, or some such on the envelope, what if I send it to Kodak via a
drug store? So I sent two rolls of the same film, similar subjects, to
Kodak the different ways
They might as well have been sent to different planets. The Pro
processing was rich, nicely saturated, with reasonably wide tonal range,
modest contrast and subtle tonality. The 'drug store' roll had much
narrower tonal range, high contrast, all sky detail gone and colors that
were certainly saturated, well, BRIGHT!,although not particularly like
the subjects. And this was Portra 160NC. If I'd sent them VC, it
probably would have jumped off the prints and mugged me.
Scanned myself, with an icc profile, both were wonderful and I could
print them any old way I pleased.
> I think the attitude should depend on what one wants to do with the film;
Sure. On the other hand, my experience has been that exposure at the
stated iso has been good for everything I've done except where I
expressly want to bring up the shadows or had to ocmpensate for a almost
all dark or light subject. In the above tale, I finally changed shops,
still a real one, but one with their own Agfa minilab on the premises.
There, normal exposure yielded the best prints overall.
> print films are generally meant to be printed
Two caveats here. Most mass printing operation do not print optically
anymore. I believe optical prints are difficult to find, at least here.
So every print has been through a scanning process and digitally
printed, whether a wet print or inkjet.
As a result, films are being changed to optimize their characteristics
for scanning. That is, I believe, the major factor behind the new Portra
films. They are supposed to scan beautifully.
> even though some people prefer to have them scanned
Well, I don't have them scanned, I do it myself. My experience was that
scans that weren't too expensive weren't very good and vice versa. For a
real quality image, home scanning or spending lots of money are the only
routes I found. I was getting some pretty good results from the shop
with the Agfa machine on NC. I tried a roll of VC and ouch! Blown
highlights, lost shadows too much contrast, Then the next roll of NC
wasn't up to snuff. Something had been adjusted. It was about then that
I bought my first scanner. Not long after, I discovered that what I
thought were pretty good scans before were only so-so. I could do much
better.
> and displayed on a computer screen - when they look completely different.
>
I agree they are very different mediums, with different source image
requirements. But optimization for either is easy with normally exposed
CN film.
>> I have found SO many blue skies with white clouds in negs where the
>> prints simply showed a rather undifferentiated whiteness. Shoot CN for
>> shadows, if they are important (shoot left).
>>
> Erm, shooting for shadows means underexposing your image?
I'm not sure how you read that into what I said. Language/terminology
problem, I suppose. And as the only thing I can say in Polish is quite
rude and your English is very good, I'll take the blame.
> I've always thought it's the other way around - you apply positive exposure
> compensation (e.g. +1EV) when exposing for shadow
Correct! Both "expose for the shadows" and "expose/shoot left" mean to
increase exposure so as to avoid losing shadow detail.
> so - keeping to the terminology - you expose right.
>
The terms "expose left" and "expose right" come from digital, and refer
to the histogram of the image, not the movement of an EV compensation dial.
>>> With diapositives it's the other way around - it's better to underexpose
>>> slightly.
>>>
>> Again, I don't entirely agree. Slide film has too narrow a dynamic range
>> for many outdoor subjects. The decision whether to over or underexpose,
>> or stay neutral, depends on which end of the tonal range you least want
>> to lose. This may most often mean underexposure to retain highlights for
>> your favored subjects, but isn't a good general rule for everybody and
>> all subjects.
>>
> Sure, I didn't mean to proclaim an universal truth. In *every*
> situation one has to do some serious thinking before applying general
> rule of a thumb. Again, it's what people generally do - they *rate*
> (as it's been labeled few days ago on the list) as somewhat more
> sensitive to the light and have it processed normally thus receiving
> slightly underexposed slides.
>
It's important also to remember that the average exposure meter has some
error. Shoot CN, and you'll never notice unless it's way off. Shoot
slides and you'll notice 1/3 stop. So when somebody says "I shoot
ConcheetaChrome 100 at 80 and it gives me better saturation and color
and I don't lose highlights." they MAY be right - or they may actually
be exposing it at 100, compensating for their meter error.
Meet someone who swears they can always pick out an 18% gray for their
1% spot meter - and they always rate their film at a different than
nominal speed? Bet they are metering something consistently off from
middle gray and compensating with the iso dial. And there is absolutely
nothing wrong with that. But if someone else only tries to adopt one
part of the strategy, they will have trouble.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|