Need advice on my bad shooting

[pixelbrain]

Hi y'all..

Shot a couple of rolls of Portra 400VC over CNY, and some of the shots turned out quite disappointing (about 30% bad), so I'm hoping to find out what I did wrong, or if bad scanning is partly to blame.. Would very much appreciate if the jedi masters out here will be willing to impart some knowledge to this padawan..

I've been metering the shots the same way using the in-camera analog selenium light meter, so could it be a faulty meter or a problem with the way I meter the shots? Struggling to find consistency in my shooting..

The rolls were processed/16-base scanned by one of the popular labs using fuji frontiers btw..

Posting 2 samples..

First shot looks dark and overly grainy(digital-noise like).. Was this due to under-exposure?
The image on the negative looks very light..

The 2nd shot also looks pretty washed out and lacks contrast. Image on negative is very dark. Was this due to over-exposure?

 

[night86mare]

i think the lab corrected for you when they scanned, hence the noise.

yes, first image is probably underexposed, second is slightly over.

 

[kaixiang]

They have definitely been under and over exposed respectively. Negatives show an inverted image, so light = dark (underexposed) and vice versa. I usually find it safer to over expose my negatives when in doubt since I can add contrast later.

 

[pixelbrain]

tks for the advice guys!!

should I tell them not to correct the scans in the future? or is investing in my own scanner the only option?
hmm but guess the point is to get the exposure right in the first place..

 

[ZoomP]

tks for the advice guys!!

should I tell them not to correct the scans in the future? or is investing in my own scanner the only option?
hmm but guess the point is to get the exposure right in the first place..

Think most labs will have an automated machine that will correct the scans for u. Not sure if they can leave it as default with no adjustment. That's why I don't ask labs to scan my pics anymore.

Invest in a good scanner is essential.

 

[night86mare]

tks for the advice guys!!

should I tell them not to correct the scans in the future? or is investing in my own scanner the only option?
hmm but guess the point is to get the exposure right in the first place..

well, i don't know if what labs do, but think of it this way - even if they don't correct, you have to correct somewhat. same result. i think the improvement of your correction over theirs is at best marginal.

 

[dankwan]

tks for the advice guys!!

should I tell them not to correct the scans in the future? or is investing in my own scanner the only option?
hmm but guess the point is to get the exposure right in the first place..

Hi pixelbrain, your last sentence makes the most sense. I agree with night86mare, that we know little of what labs do, and our own corrections will yield marginal results as well. No matter how many bells and whistles a machine may have, it is hard pressed to "rescue" a thick negative. I have had bad experiences as well with lab scans but mostly from those little shops, fotohub has a noritsu and so far my scans from them are almost flawless.

Maybe you already know this and I am presuming (so forgive me if I do): My advice, first, learn about how a meter reads light and the weighting of your in camera meter (center weighted, spot, top loaded etc). A meter does not read color and the meter will try to make everything 18% gray (or middle light), that is how the meter is set up. So you need make a decision what is middle grey, point your meter there, lock the settings, reframe and shoot. The rest of the light will take care of itself and the neg will be somewhat exposed correctly throughout. Basically, its Ansel Adams zone system.

So in the first case of under-exposure: the meter was probably fooled by the bright back lit neon signage behind and said "uh oh, Ive got to expose that in middle grey and compensated for that", not realizing that you wanted to expose the person instead. So in this case, I would have metered the lower portion, his costume, set the cam, then re-framed and shot.

I cant tell why the second shot is overexposed, it should be a little under due to the white plates. Maybe you meter is top loaded so its reading the black shapes beyond, but I think you get the drift.

The best way to get correct exposure and to understand how it works? Get a kodak grey card, put it in the light falling on the subject, go in close, fill the VF with the entire card, meter, set, step back and shoot. That not only gets you good results but also you will start understanding light.

Best practical advice Ive ever got - "expose for the shadows" (which makes everything on the + side, preserving details). The rest you can adjust later during PP

Just my 2 cents, hope that helps. Cheers

 

[gommy]

First neg definitely underexposed-very 'thin'. No detail in the shadow areas.
Density of second doesn't seem too bad; printing it a little darker may have worked.

 

[pixelbrain]

Hi pixelbrain, your last sentence makes the most sense. I agree with night86mare, that we know little of what labs do, and our own corrections will yield marginal results as well. No matter how many bells and whistles a machine may have, it is hard pressed to "rescue" a thick negative. I have had bad experiences as well with lab scans but mostly from those little shops, fotohub has a noritsu and so far my scans from them are almost flawless.

Maybe you already know this and I am presuming (so forgive me if I do): My advice, first, learn about how a meter reads light and the weighting of your in camera meter (center weighted, spot, top loaded etc). A meter does not read color and the meter will try to make everything 18% gray (or middle light), that is how the meter is set up. So you need make a decision what is middle grey, point your meter there, lock the settings, reframe and shoot. The rest of the light will take care of itself and the neg will be somewhat exposed correctly throughout. Basically, its Ansel Adams zone system.

So in the first case of under-exposure: the meter was probably fooled by the bright back lit neon signage behind and said "uh oh, Ive got to expose that in middle grey and compensated for that", not realizing that you wanted to expose the person instead. So in this case, I would have metered the lower portion, his costume, set the cam, then re-framed and shot.

I cant tell why the second shot is overexposed, it should be a little under due to the white plates. Maybe you meter is top loaded so its reading the black shapes beyond, but I think you get the drift.

The best way to get correct exposure and to understand how it works? Get a kodak grey card, put it in the light falling on the subject, go in close, fill the VF with the entire card, meter, set, step back and shoot. That not only gets you good results but also you will start understanding light.

Best practical advice Ive ever got - "expose for the shadows" (which makes everything on the + side, preserving details). The rest you can adjust later during PP

Just my 2 cents, hope that helps. Cheers

Definitely learnt something today!.. tks dankwan!
And yes u're spot on, I'm using the top-mounted built-in selenium meter of my contax IIIa to get the reading. Where can I get this Koday grey card btw?

 

[dankwan]

Definitely learnt something today!.. tks dankwan!
And yes u're spot on, I'm using the top-mounted built-in selenium meter of my contax IIIa to get the reading. Where can I get this Koday grey card btw?

Hi pixelbrain, I'm glad you learnt something today. You can easily get the grey card at Ruby, Cathay or Konota, failing which just walk into anyone of the various stores at peninsula and ask.

go google "kodak exposure guide", they have a pdf file which you can download and learn more about exposure and how a meter "sees" You may also want to learn more about Ansel Adams zone system, again just google it. Photography becomes more fun if you are at least armed with the basics.

 

[chiif]

I see that you have started to use your first roll in doors with 400 film. Both shots are under exposed. The meter on the Contax III is probably over 50 years old and if you were to use it, you might need to be a little conservative with the readings.

Looking at the condition where you were in, I think your lens wide open f1.5 @ 1/60 with the ISO 400 film should be fine. If you shoot at this shutter speed and this is the result, then I suggest that you bring down the camera to my shop and have the shutter speed check.

Hope that helps... and remember, Practice Makes Perfect.

 

[sweat100]

As mentioned, exposing for shadows generally helps because more details are captured. In my opinion, the zone system is difficult to apply to roll film because shots are generally captured in a variety of different lighting conditions. In addition, when you develop at shops you cannot control the developing conditions thus it is not possible to fit the dynamic range of the scene to the dynamic range of the negative for the zone system to be fully utilized.

The first pic is largely due to underexposing, thus you get the "grains".

For the 2nd pic, the exposed pic looks all right judging from the negative. However the colour balance is not correct. I have help you to tweaked the black point, grey point and white point. You can see that the picture is now somewhat the sort of colour you might expect?

*The above is based on my understanding of zone system and how I used it to apply to LF shots. This is with reference with what I learnt from "The Negative". If I have understood wrongly, please feel free to correct me. Still learning...

 

[pixelbrain]

I see that you have started to use your first roll in doors with 400 film. Both shots are under exposed. The meter on the Contax III is probably over 50 years old and if you were to use it, you might need to be a little conservative with the readings.

Looking at the condition where you were in, I think your lens wide open f1.5 @ 1/60 with the ISO 400 film should be fine. If you shoot at this shutter speed and this is the result, then I suggest that you bring down the camera to my shop and have the shutter speed check.

Hope that helps... and remember, Practice Makes Perfect.

tks chiif.. I did kind of test the shutterspeeds when I got the cam..
Ran through the entire range and it did progressively sound quicker, but yeah might not be accurate. Will run through a roll of the Agfa's I got frm u, and see how it goes this time round.

 

[glchua]

tks chiif.. I did kind of test the shutterspeeds when I got the cam..
Ran through the entire range and it did progressively sound quicker, but yeah might not be accurate. Will run through a roll of the Agfa's I got frm u, and see how it goes this time round.

Another way to test is just to shoot a plain and evenly lit wall (not too white or dark) at various shutter speeds (with corresponding aperture settings to give the same EI) and see if the resulting density differs from frame to frame. Best to do this using slide film. I have some expired but still good Provia 100 F in my fridge. I can send you a roll free of charge if you want. Just send me a PM. I hardly use slides nowadays except to test lenses and cameras.

 

[pixelbrain]

Another way to test is just to shoot a plain and evenly lit wall (not too white or dark) at various shutter speeds (with corresponding aperture settings to give the same EI) and see if the resulting density differs from frame to frame. Best to do this using slide film. I have some expired but still good Provia 100 F in my fridge. I can send you a roll free of charge if you want. Just send me a PM. I hardly use slides nowadays except to test lenses and cameras.

Tks for your very generous offer , but I've also got some expired slides(fuji 64T) in the fridge as well..
Could you elaborate more on the testing technique?
Are you saying I should shoot say f/1.5 @ 1/100, then shoot f/2 @ 1/50, f/2.8 @ 1/25, etc.. and the density should be the same for all 3?

cheers.

 

[glchua]

Tks for your very generous offer , but I've also got some expired slides(fuji 64T) in the fridge as well..
Could you elaborate more on the testing technique?
Are you saying I should shoot say f/1.5 @ 1/100, then shoot f/2 @ 1/50, f/2.8 @ 1/25, etc.. and the density should be the same for all 3?

cheers.

Yes. That's how I occasionally test my cams.

By the way, I shot many rolls of 400VC many years back. I rated it at ISO250.

 

[pixelbrain]

As mentioned, exposing for shadows generally helps because more details are captured. In my opinion, the zone system is difficult to apply to roll film because shots are generally captured in a variety of different lighting conditions. In addition, when you develop at shops you cannot control the developing conditions thus it is not possible to fit the dynamic range of the scene to the dynamic range of the negative for the zone system to be fully utilized.

The first pic is largely due to underexposing, thus you get the "grains".

For the 2nd pic, the exposed pic looks all right judging from the negative. However the colour balance is not correct. I have help you to tweaked the black point, grey point and white point. You can see that the picture is now somewhat the sort of colour you might expect?

*The above is based on my understanding of zone system and how I used it to apply to LF shots. This is with reference with what I learnt from "The Negative". If I have understood wrongly, please feel free to correct me. Still learning...

cool tks.. :thumbsup: