Been doing this for years while shooting film. I always metered and exposed at half of the rated ISO/ASA rating of the film emulsion. It was standard practice to produce a denser negative to open shadows but not completely blowout highlights. Interesting to see new photographers discovering these techniques decades later.
But if you meter for half the ISO, won't it tell you different settings for both the aperture and shutter speed....thus overexposing by more then 1 stop.
@@noscaasifilmstudios, the camera will give the proper exposure setting for the half ISO value you set. You will have a denser negative with more open shadows and the film latitude will hold your highlights. Professional photographers have been doing this for years. Like in digital photography, you would expose to the right of the histogram. Same principle.
I’m not going to lie, I wasn’t expecting much when I clicked, but this is the one of the most thorough, clear, and straightforward explanation video. Thank you for not inserting a joke every 10 seconds. Very professional.
I am an older photographer, so I have been using film since 1969. What you say is true for color negative films. I first experienced this in 1975 when I was shooting a food shot for my portfolio. I had a professional lab process the 4x5" color negative film and contact print it. I sent them back the correct exposed negative. They gave me a phone call, they said they remember my negatives they told me to send the darker negative in. I had done a bracket of one stop over and one stop under, and one at normal exposure. I told them it is overexposed, but they said it will give you more detail and is easier to print. Another time when I was assisting a wedding photographer, he told me he always overexposes VPS one stop over. He told me I should do the same, it gives a better printable negative. Sometimes underexposing color transparency films 1/2 stop can give you more color saturation, so bracket. I once had an industrial photographer tell me that professionals bracket amateurs do not. I don't think I would want to try this with black-and-white film. Increasing development and decreasing development controls contrast with black-and-white. Today I prefer the quality of digital.
Thank you for explaining this. I've been overexposing my color film incorrectly. Just twice but after watching this video, I finally got it. Thank you. Liked and now following too.
Remember, film works on chemical processes, not a digital sensor. It cares a lot less about exact exposure settings and it also sort of RESISTS highlight blowout the longer you expose it (exposure reciprocity) because of it's chemical nature
You've got it! I had that in my initial script but decided to simplify it since this video is more focused on print film. But yes that is what I mean by "usually" box speed.
If you're shooting manual you can just expose at 1 stop over (or whatever) as seen by the meter needle or readout. Thus giving you the ability to adjust exposure per frame without having to change film speeds. If you develop your own film you can play with pushing/pulling, temperature and dilution to play around with shadows and highlights. It's all good fun!
Another useful tip is two overexpose two stops for night photography. The images come out looking clean, and you avoid the dreaded green cast in the shadows. Given that night photography has a lot of shadows, it benefits the most by overexposing by two stops. Yes, you will need a tripod, but lugging around a tripod is better than having thin negatives that look like sh*t.
I think what’s missing is that while it’s good rule of thumb to over expose since it’s more forgiving when you mess up metering. It’s important to learn how to meter correctly because then you will actually know if you loose details in the shadows or not. Then you will have an even greater dynamic range if you find that sweetspot. Internal lightmeters just don’t know where in the scene the detail is you are interested in. They just expose whatever is in the center of the frame for middle gray depending on the lightmeter of course. So shooting a bright sky in the background with the subject to the left, of course the image will be underexposed for your subject because the lightmeter just measures the sky in the center.
Hi Aidan, thank you for your overview and sharing your experience. Here are my 2 cents: 1/mistakenly overexposed negative films are usable. However I like the deep shadows as black for me is the soul of the picture. Further, I do not post process scans of negatives but I do all original digital files- this is how it evolved. 2/Slide film is very sensitive, so my experience is in line with yours. 3/ Said that, we arrived to a personal taste whether you like richly detailed shawows. 4/Finally a gentle question: if your suggestion were a good general approach, why do you think the film manufacturers do not rate films that way? Comment: I do not consider myself as a specialist in the field but have had experiece. Brgs, István
Hi! Yes absolutely, shadow detail is a matter of personal taste. Some people like the thinner "film look", some like a denser detailed look. To answer your question 4, fresh films are perfectly rated by their manufacturers at their box speeds. Manufacturers rate these as such to get the best performance out of the film while yielding most useful film speeds to allow for flexibility in shutter speeds/apertures. My suggestion to forgo this recommended speed and overexpose is because for most print films, there is no harm to the color and highlights and (if you have the light to spare anyways) in exchange you get more shadow detail and (especially for beginners) protection against underexposure.
The mistake you’re making is that you think you’re getting deep shadows with underexposed film when in reality you don’t. Thin negatives means will have no information in the shadows. The scanner is essentially adding grain to those areas, and that’s about it. There is nothing there to recover. In contrast, if you overexpose, you can still bring the shadows down later. And if for some odd reason you don’t like to “edit your photos”, you can always ask the lab to crush the shadows for you and they’ll happily do it for you. Now remember, even if you don’t personally edit your film, your lab certainly does. The fallacy of unedited film photos is just that, a fallacy. Any conversion is by definition an interpretation, and that conversion requires editing to achieve the final image.
@@JimmyHandtrixx Depends on what you want, since pushing/pulling and underexposing/overexposing are two different things. With push/pull you overexpose/underexpose while shooting but you compensate it with longer or shorter development time. With overexposing/underexposing you just shoot the picture with more or less light and just develop it as it is. Sorry for the late reply.
There’re a few things not right here. Firstly, while overexposing can help get people who’re unexperienced with metering film get more usable shots it will not help them lern exposure. And from extensive testing I’ve done practically no color neg film other than Pro400H really benefits from an general overexposure of more than a third stop for a neutral base look. You can get most films to have more of a pop when overexposing by two thirds but anything more than that and skin tones will become more red and slightly less pleasant. There is also little gain in shadow detail between a shot that’s exposed at box speed or one stop over when scanned to look normal, if actually accurately exposed. Secondly, CineStill and Vision3 are not to be treated equally. The Vision3 films when developed in ECN2 are the best imaging technology has to offer and are extremely consistent throughout over and underexposure. Thirdly, Superia 400 is very scanner dependent. Often people don’t know how to scan it or get scans from a wrongly set up scanner that will result in that green cast. This is not nearly as prevalent when scanned correctly on a Fuji Frontier scanner for example. On which a shot exposed at 400 will look very neutral with just a bit of pleasant green in the shadows Superia 400 is the most low light capable C41 film after Portra 800. Overexposure with Superia 400 will result in a more poppy look with redder skin tones. The examples in your videos of Superia are not only of underexposed Superia but also of Superia that’s been scanned incorrectly. Lastly, the shots of box speed in your video look more like they’ve been actually underexposed while the one stop over look like box speed. This often happens when people use a reflective meter and don’t meter for middle grey. But that’s not something you will lern by overexposing evening by one stop since the difference between one stop and two stops overexposure is often as noticeable as the difference between box speed and two thirds of a stop over. There is nothing wrong with just overexposing your film by a stop if you just wanna maximize usable results but you won’t lern how use your meter properly and see the intended characteristics of the film you’re using. With film prices being higher I’d rather expose my film in a way that gets the most out of it for my money based on tests I’ve made than simply rely on a slightly worse image to save my ass. If you want some buffer rate your film at a third or two thirds of a stop over and remember to meter for the shadows. That’s where middle gray is in most scenes.
Hi! Happy to respond to these points- Re learning exposure, that isn't necessarily the topic of this video. Exposure & metering is it's own nuanced topic and this video's scope is instead the "trick" of overexposure effectively as enforced shadow metering. The indented audience of this video is likely not familiar with metering techniques yet, and while it is absolutely something important to learn, this can help them in the meantime. I have also tested many films at various exposure ratings extensively and have indeed found that Fuji's colour negative films like Pro400H and especially Superia benefit from additional light. Although across the board, I have not found any detriment to skintones in colour negative films at +1 as opposed to +2/3 and I am confident to recommend it, though indeed I would not recommend more than +1 (as said in the video I tend to prefer +0.5). And you're absolutely correct that Superia and other Fuji films look better when scanned on a frontier. The problem is that, especially in my part of the world Frontier scanners are exceedingly uncommon. Noritsu is by and large the mainstay. Especially as my store uses a Noritsu and one of my main reasons for making this video is to show our customers, I recommend a full stop of extra light to help level out these colours. For Cinestill you're right that development in ECN-2 vs C-41 changes the exposure recommendations. That difference is not within the scope of this video, and instead I chose to just suggest to shoot these films at or around box speed, with some examples (+2 stops) from when I've messed it up to show what happens to the colours with too much light. As for the exposure in the sample images, you're correct again - but this was a conscious choice. I have actually exaggerated the effect in editing to help convey the difference over youtube. After youtube compression, it is a lot harder to read the extra detail in the darker parts of the images. These clips are marked as "simulated effect". As for your closing/last point, I totally agree with you there! I've just found that across the board, +1 instead of +2/3, so that is what I am choosing to recommend :) -Aidan
I overexpose all of my C-41 films by two stops and the skin tones never suffer the skin color shifts you mention. Pulling your film certainly does, but not overexposure, unless you go to the extremes and overexposure by 3 or more stops. Otherwise, it’s better to have a negative dense and full of information than a thin negative with no information in the shadows.
@@AbdonPhirathon To an extent it also depends on the scanning. I’ve tested most C41 films and skin tones are best at around box speed. But if we’re talking one to three stops it’s very nuanced. With a Frontier, you’ll get a nice and full neg at box speed.
Question. Were your photos you shared straight out of camera with no editing so we can get a better idea of box speed vs over exposing your photos without editing them?
@@莊思妙 Hey! So, setting the iso to 200 for a 400 speed film is already doing the same thing as setting it to 400 and exposure compensation to +1. If you’re shooting in low light and need faster shutter speeds, you could set the dial to -1, therefore bringing the final meter iso back to 400 (which again would be the same as setting the dial back to 400). However, to avoid confusion, I’d recommend sticking to just one method of adjusting your cameras meter, either ISO or exposure compensation. So, either set your camera to 400 and switch between +1 for bright light and 0 for low light, or, set your iso to 200 in bright light and back to 400 for low light.
Short answer is 200. Why? If you are shooting Portra 400 film but want to rate it at ISO 200, you should set your light meter to ISO 200. This way, you will overexpose the film by one stop, Cause The ISO setting on your film camera ONLY job is to tell the camera's light meter what ISO film you are using. Nothing else.
Hi, thanks for this helpful video. Just a quick clarification. So, if I overexpose a film (i.e., shoot a 400 film at 200 in camera) to get more shadow details, should I then underexpose in developing (pull)?
Interesting. The Cinestill web site says that you can rate 800T anywhere between 200 and 1000 and then process regularly without pull or push processing. The film is actually based on cinema film rated at 500 ASA. This week I shot a roll rated at 500 at night using a tripod. Let’s see how it turns out.
You should be safe around 500 on 800T. Since it is indeed based on the 500T stock. The main difference and the reason that Cinestill rates it at 800 ISO is that C-41 chemistry is more contrasty, and effectively pushes the film an extra +0.5 or so.
@@davypelletier oh hah thanks- honestly somehow the first time I’ve noticed that in this video. This was filmed on my old 5D II a few years back. If I remember correctly it was indeed filmed at 1/48th with Magic Lantern, but that camera’s processing can do wacky things.
Haha I'll admit the title is chosen to be a tad more provocative for TH-cam, but it is still accurate - most people don't know the true latitude of negative films and how to exploit it as a buffer to ensure good looking exposure, even if it is "wrong" 😅
I do not care about the video title, but the video maker really doesn't know much about the subject. Over exposure compresses highlights. Period. Some films suffer more than others when treated this way. For example, Portra, particularly 400, has about a three stop capacity to retain highlight` details, whereas Gold 200, a much older style of emulsion, has only a 1 1/2 highlight range, little more than slide film. Neither have much tolerance for shadow detail before disappearing into murky black, but Gold has less tolerance there as well. Both films will color shift if over or under exposed, but this problem tends to be ignored these days because folks can play with color sliders on their computer to easily counter much of such effects. Also, I think a lot of bad color is just accepted these days For example, the masses of over-exposed color negative film scanned or printed with little shadow and almost no highlight detail or separation at all, all color being a range of pale pastels. Say high, Willem and Kyle.
@@randallstewart1224 I do like to think this is a particular topic I'm knowledgeable on so I'd be happy to respond here. You're absolutely correct that different film stocks, both from different technological eras (especially before/after Kodacolor VR and t-grain color stocks) and oriented to different purposes/demographics (e.g. pro films with more latitude), though in my (dare I say extensive) experience, most common color stocks with the exception of a handful mentioned in the video hold or even subjectively improve their colors between +0.5 and +1 stops, with the benefit of extra density. Though I certainly wouldn't recommend any more than +1.
I have been shooting film since 1969. I have been a professional photographer, I am retired now. What he says is true about color negative films. I would not do this with black-and-white negatives. Color slides or transparencies sometimes can benefit by underexposing 1/2 a stop. In my career I shot mostly Etachrome.. Overexposing color negatives give you a richer negative that gives you more detail and it is easier to print in the darkroom. I knew a professional wedding photographer who told me he overexposes Kodak VPS one stop over for more detail. Try it. At least bracket. An industrial photographer I knew told me professionals bracket amateurs do not. When I was working in a catalog studio we had to bracket 8x10 chromes in 1/3 stop increments. Try bracketing if you shoot film. However today I prefer digital.
I've rarely seen anyone do such a clear explanation on dynamics of film vs digital. Hats off.
I love how you explained that topic. Your explanations were clear and precise, and I feel like I have a much better understanding now.
Agreed. I've subscribed just on the strength of this one video.
Been doing this for years while shooting film. I always metered and exposed at half of the rated ISO/ASA rating of the film emulsion. It was standard practice to produce a denser negative to open shadows but not completely blowout highlights. Interesting to see new photographers discovering these techniques decades later.
But if you meter for half the ISO, won't it tell you different settings for both the aperture and shutter speed....thus overexposing by more then 1 stop.
@@noscaasifilmstudios, the camera will give the proper exposure setting for the half ISO value you set. You will have a denser negative with more open shadows and the film latitude will hold your highlights. Professional photographers have been doing this for years. Like in digital photography, you would expose to the right of the histogram. Same principle.
I’m not going to lie, I wasn’t expecting much when I clicked, but this is the one of the most thorough, clear, and straightforward explanation video. Thank you for not inserting a joke every 10 seconds. Very professional.
I am an older photographer, so I have been using film since 1969. What you say is true for color negative films. I first experienced this in 1975 when I was shooting a food shot for my portfolio. I had a professional lab process the 4x5" color negative film and contact print it. I sent them back the correct exposed negative. They gave me a phone call, they said they remember my negatives they told me to send the darker negative in. I had done a bracket of one stop over and one stop under, and one at normal exposure. I told them it is overexposed, but they said it will give you more detail and is easier to print.
Another time when I was assisting a wedding photographer, he told me he always overexposes VPS one stop over. He told me I should do the same, it gives a better printable negative. Sometimes underexposing color transparency films 1/2 stop can give you more color saturation, so bracket. I once had an industrial photographer tell me that professionals bracket amateurs do not. I don't think I would want to try this with black-and-white film. Increasing development and decreasing development controls contrast with black-and-white. Today I prefer the quality of digital.
It’s funny to me that now all the old guys shoot digital and the young folk shoot on film. (I’m old too btw)
Amazing that an in depth explanation like this is so hard to find. Great video
Thank you for explaining this. I've been overexposing my color film incorrectly. Just twice but after watching this video, I finally got it. Thank you. Liked and now following too.
Remember, film works on chemical processes, not a digital sensor. It cares a lot less about exact exposure settings and it also sort of RESISTS highlight blowout the longer you expose it (exposure reciprocity) because of it's chemical nature
Thank you for such a sophisticated explanation
best explanation of this concept ive heard
4:59 Oh wow this explains soooo many bad photos lol. This whole video was a very good lesson. Thanks!
Add a little underexposure to your slide film.
You've got it! I had that in my initial script but decided to simplify it since this video is more focused on print film. But yes that is what I mean by "usually" box speed.
If you're shooting manual you can just expose at 1 stop over (or whatever) as seen by the meter needle or readout. Thus giving you the ability to adjust exposure per frame without having to change film speeds. If you develop your own film you can play with pushing/pulling, temperature and dilution to play around with shadows and highlights. It's all good fun!
Another useful tip is two overexpose two stops for night photography. The images come out looking clean, and you avoid the dreaded green cast in the shadows. Given that night photography has a lot of shadows, it benefits the most by overexposing by two stops. Yes, you will need a tripod, but lugging around a tripod is better than having thin negatives that look like sh*t.
I think what’s missing is that while it’s good rule of thumb to over expose since it’s more forgiving when you mess up metering. It’s important to learn how to meter correctly because then you will actually know if you loose details in the shadows or not. Then you will have an even greater dynamic range if you find that sweetspot. Internal lightmeters just don’t know where in the scene the detail is you are interested in. They just expose whatever is in the center of the frame for middle gray depending on the lightmeter of course. So shooting a bright sky in the background with the subject to the left, of course the image will be underexposed for your subject because the lightmeter just measures the sky in the center.
Another great video!! Thanks for sharing Aidan :)
Great video, thank you.
Brilliant explanation thank you
Hi Aidan, thank you for your overview and sharing your experience.
Here are my 2 cents:
1/mistakenly overexposed negative films are usable. However I like the deep shadows as black for me is the soul of the picture. Further, I do not post process scans of negatives but I do all original digital files- this is how it evolved.
2/Slide film is very sensitive, so my experience is in line with yours.
3/ Said that, we arrived to a personal taste whether you like richly detailed shawows.
4/Finally a gentle question: if your suggestion were a good general approach, why do you think the film manufacturers do not rate films that way?
Comment: I do not consider myself as a specialist in the field but have had experiece.
Brgs, István
Hi! Yes absolutely, shadow detail is a matter of personal taste. Some people like the thinner "film look", some like a denser detailed look.
To answer your question 4, fresh films are perfectly rated by their manufacturers at their box speeds. Manufacturers rate these as such to get the best performance out of the film while yielding most useful film speeds to allow for flexibility in shutter speeds/apertures. My suggestion to forgo this recommended speed and overexpose is because for most print films, there is no harm to the color and highlights and (if you have the light to spare anyways) in exchange you get more shadow detail and (especially for beginners) protection against underexposure.
Shawow
The mistake you’re making is that you think you’re getting deep shadows with underexposed film when in reality you don’t. Thin negatives means will have no information in the shadows. The scanner is essentially adding grain to those areas, and that’s about it. There is nothing there to recover.
In contrast, if you overexpose, you can still bring the shadows down later. And if for some odd reason you don’t like to “edit your photos”, you can always ask the lab to crush the shadows for you and they’ll happily do it for you.
Now remember, even if you don’t personally edit your film, your lab certainly does. The fallacy of unedited film photos is just that, a fallacy. Any conversion is by definition an interpretation, and that conversion requires editing to achieve the final image.
Great explanation 😊
All TH-cam videos should end with a purring cat. Great explanation, too. Thanks!
If I wanna overexpose porta 400, should I meter for iso 200 and use the settings that I get from the light meter for iso 200?
Yes, by tricking the meter that you’re using 200 film it will get overexposed by 1 stop
@@PitlordWeedsmurphdo u need to push pull?
@@JimmyHandtrixx Depends on what you want, since pushing/pulling and underexposing/overexposing are two different things. With push/pull you overexpose/underexpose while shooting but you compensate it with longer or shorter development time. With overexposing/underexposing you just shoot the picture with more or less light and just develop it as it is. Sorry for the late reply.
There’re a few things not right here.
Firstly, while overexposing can help get people who’re unexperienced with metering film get more usable shots it will not help them lern exposure. And from extensive testing I’ve done practically no color neg film other than Pro400H really benefits from an general overexposure of more than a third stop for a neutral base look. You can get most films to have more of a pop when overexposing by two thirds but anything more than that and skin tones will become more red and slightly less pleasant. There is also little gain in shadow detail between a shot that’s exposed at box speed or one stop over when scanned to look normal, if actually accurately exposed.
Secondly, CineStill and Vision3 are not to be treated equally. The Vision3 films when developed in ECN2 are the best imaging technology has to offer and are extremely consistent throughout over and underexposure.
Thirdly, Superia 400 is very scanner dependent. Often people don’t know how to scan it or get scans from a wrongly set up scanner that will result in that green cast. This is not nearly as prevalent when scanned correctly on a Fuji Frontier scanner for example. On which a shot exposed at 400 will look very neutral with just a bit of pleasant green in the shadows Superia 400 is the most low light capable C41 film after Portra 800. Overexposure with Superia 400 will result in a more poppy look with redder skin tones. The examples in your videos of Superia are not only of underexposed Superia but also of Superia that’s been scanned incorrectly.
Lastly, the shots of box speed in your video look more like they’ve been actually underexposed while the one stop over look like box speed. This often happens when people use a reflective meter and don’t meter for middle grey. But that’s not something you will lern by overexposing evening by one stop since the difference between one stop and two stops overexposure is often as noticeable as the difference between box speed and two thirds of a stop over.
There is nothing wrong with just overexposing your film by a stop if you just wanna maximize usable results but you won’t lern how use your meter properly and see the intended characteristics of the film you’re using. With film prices being higher I’d rather expose my film in a way that gets the most out of it for my money based on tests I’ve made than simply rely on a slightly worse image to save my ass. If you want some buffer rate your film at a third or two thirds of a stop over and remember to meter for the shadows. That’s where middle gray is in most scenes.
Hi! Happy to respond to these points-
Re learning exposure, that isn't necessarily the topic of this video. Exposure & metering is it's own nuanced topic and this video's scope is instead the "trick" of overexposure effectively as enforced shadow metering. The indented audience of this video is likely not familiar with metering techniques yet, and while it is absolutely something important to learn, this can help them in the meantime. I have also tested many films at various exposure ratings extensively and have indeed found that Fuji's colour negative films like Pro400H and especially Superia benefit from additional light. Although across the board, I have not found any detriment to skintones in colour negative films at +1 as opposed to +2/3 and I am confident to recommend it, though indeed I would not recommend more than +1 (as said in the video I tend to prefer +0.5).
And you're absolutely correct that Superia and other Fuji films look better when scanned on a frontier. The problem is that, especially in my part of the world Frontier scanners are exceedingly uncommon. Noritsu is by and large the mainstay. Especially as my store uses a Noritsu and one of my main reasons for making this video is to show our customers, I recommend a full stop of extra light to help level out these colours.
For Cinestill you're right that development in ECN-2 vs C-41 changes the exposure recommendations. That difference is not within the scope of this video, and instead I chose to just suggest to shoot these films at or around box speed, with some examples (+2 stops) from when I've messed it up to show what happens to the colours with too much light.
As for the exposure in the sample images, you're correct again - but this was a conscious choice. I have actually exaggerated the effect in editing to help convey the difference over youtube. After youtube compression, it is a lot harder to read the extra detail in the darker parts of the images. These clips are marked as "simulated effect".
As for your closing/last point, I totally agree with you there! I've just found that across the board, +1 instead of +2/3, so that is what I am choosing to recommend :)
-Aidan
I overexpose all of my C-41 films by two stops and the skin tones never suffer the skin color shifts you mention. Pulling your film certainly does, but not overexposure, unless you go to the extremes and overexposure by 3 or more stops. Otherwise, it’s better to have a negative dense and full of information than a thin negative with no information in the shadows.
@@AbdonPhirathon To an extent it also depends on the scanning. I’ve tested most C41 films and skin tones are best at around box speed. But if we’re talking one to three stops it’s very nuanced. With a Frontier, you’ll get a nice and full neg at box speed.
yes those are some great examples
Can this technique be used in black and white film?
5:24 That image is beautiful! What lens & film, and was it overexposed?
Ah thanks! I checked back in my files, that was Portra 400 exposed at 200, shot with the Minolta MD Rokkor 45mm f2 (adapted into a Canon A-1 body).
@@artsyaidan Awesome! Thank you so much for checking.
Hi . Would ask the lab to develop at box speed even if I change the iso by 1 stop ? Thanks
Question. Were your photos you shared straight out of camera with no editing so we can get a better idea of box speed vs over exposing your photos without editing them?
If I set the iso to 200 for a 400 film, can I set the ev to +1 to compensate low light situations?
@@莊思妙 Hey! So, setting the iso to 200 for a 400 speed film is already doing the same thing as setting it to 400 and exposure compensation to +1. If you’re shooting in low light and need faster shutter speeds, you could set the dial to -1, therefore bringing the final meter iso back to 400 (which again would be the same as setting the dial back to 400).
However, to avoid confusion, I’d recommend sticking to just one method of adjusting your cameras meter, either ISO or exposure compensation. So, either set your camera to 400 and switch between +1 for bright light and 0 for low light, or, set your iso to 200 in bright light and back to 400 for low light.
@@artsyaidan thank you, learned a lot here
That is what I have done too. Usually by a stop.
Great video man :)
hi i have question
if I shoot portra 400 at 200 iso
in my light meter what iso I put 200 or 400 ?
thanks you (:
Short answer is 200.
Why?
If you are shooting Portra 400 film but want to rate it at ISO 200, you should set your light meter to ISO 200. This way, you will overexpose the film by one stop,
Cause The ISO setting on your film camera ONLY job is to tell the camera's light meter what ISO film you are using. Nothing else.
Hi, thanks for this helpful video. Just a quick clarification. So, if I overexpose a film (i.e., shoot a 400 film at 200 in camera) to get more shadow details, should I then underexpose in developing (pull)?
Hey! Develop as normal, pulling would more or less cancel out the effect.
Gotcha! Thank you!
Interesting. The Cinestill web site says that you can rate 800T anywhere between 200 and 1000 and then process regularly without pull or push processing. The film is actually based on cinema film rated at 500 ASA. This week I shot a roll rated at 500 at night using a tripod. Let’s see how it turns out.
You should be safe around 500 on 800T. Since it is indeed based on the 500T stock. The main difference and the reason that Cinestill rates it at 800 ISO is that C-41 chemistry is more contrasty, and effectively pushes the film an extra +0.5 or so.
(the Vision3 examples in the video with the color shifts were 250D shot at 100~125 and developed in ECN-2)
I wouldn’t go near that junk
Wish I could actually find superia 400 somewhere 😅
@@adelphitom ah yeah- it’s fully discontinued now, but at the time of filming this it was the easiest cheaply available film 😅
digital underexpose
analog overexpose
good video cute cat
Love your cat...
Is that how the vampire from twilight Halloween costume look like?
Hah! Never thought about it like that but I can see it 😂
Kitty 😍
dude fix your shutter speed. the flickering gave me a seizure.
@@davypelletier oh hah thanks- honestly somehow the first time I’ve noticed that in this video. This was filmed on my old 5D II a few years back. If I remember correctly it was indeed filmed at 1/48th with Magic Lantern, but that camera’s processing can do wacky things.
im just guessing, but aidan is a virgin.
This video has a very very bad title, you don´t get god images making something bad, you just don´t know how photography works.
Haha I'll admit the title is chosen to be a tad more provocative for TH-cam, but it is still accurate - most people don't know the true latitude of negative films and how to exploit it as a buffer to ensure good looking exposure, even if it is "wrong" 😅
I do not care about the video title, but the video maker really doesn't know much about the subject. Over exposure compresses highlights. Period. Some films suffer more than others when treated this way. For example, Portra, particularly 400, has about a three stop capacity to retain highlight` details, whereas Gold 200, a much older style of emulsion, has only a 1 1/2 highlight range, little more than slide film. Neither have much tolerance for shadow detail before disappearing into murky black, but Gold has less tolerance there as well. Both films will color shift if over or under exposed, but this problem tends to be ignored these days because folks can play with color sliders on their computer to easily counter much of such effects. Also, I think a lot of bad color is just accepted these days For example, the masses of over-exposed color negative film scanned or printed with little shadow and almost no highlight detail or separation at all, all color being a range of pale pastels. Say high, Willem and Kyle.
@@randallstewart1224 I do like to think this is a particular topic I'm knowledgeable on so I'd be happy to respond here. You're absolutely correct that different film stocks, both from different technological eras (especially before/after Kodacolor VR and t-grain color stocks) and oriented to different purposes/demographics (e.g. pro films with more latitude), though in my (dare I say extensive) experience, most common color stocks with the exception of a handful mentioned in the video hold or even subjectively improve their colors between +0.5 and +1 stops, with the benefit of extra density. Though I certainly wouldn't recommend any more than +1.
I have been shooting film since 1969. I have been a professional photographer, I am retired now. What he says is true about color negative films. I would not do this with black-and-white negatives. Color slides or transparencies sometimes can benefit by underexposing 1/2 a stop. In my career I shot mostly Etachrome.. Overexposing color negatives give you a richer negative that gives you more detail and it is easier to print in the darkroom. I knew a professional wedding photographer who told me he overexposes Kodak VPS one stop over for more detail. Try it. At least bracket. An industrial photographer I knew told me professionals bracket amateurs do not. When I was working in a catalog studio we had to bracket 8x10 chromes in 1/3 stop increments. Try bracketing if you shoot film. However today I prefer digital.
The cryptic title was too much for you eh?
You must be a great date to a comedy club.
Great stuff Aidan. New sub.
ahhh the art of clear and concise delivery of information without yapping and padding run time🤌