[jgredline]

Thanks Steve....This helps a bunch. Personally I am in the +1 camp. That full stop seems right to me on my work computer. I will take a look when I am home on my calibrated monitor. Thanks again

[woof]

>> Great work, thanks! I kind of like the +1 overexposed shots the best.

+1

[troyz]

Steve: thanks for the good data!

RE The informal poll: I'd say "expose as rated" -- the white terrycloth towel in the sunlit shots seems to lose detail with underexposure and the colors go wrong with overexposure (at least the way my monitor is calibrated ).

[stevebrot]

Thank you everyone for your comments and "votes".

Here is a straight shot of the "Sunny" setup with the K10D using auto white balance and center-weighted metering. It was taken with a Helios 44M-4 belonging to ISO50.



As you can see...the setting involves some VERY harsh light.

Luc -- Sorry you have had poor luck with Ektar. Slide film is often more rewarding, particularly for landscape work. Good luck with the Elitechrome.

Nesster -- Thanks for your comments regarding the scanner. You explained nicely what I would have had difficulty saying.

mischivo -- Your comments regarding hand-held vs. in-camera metering are interesting. I suspect that the results might have been somewhat different if the baseline exposure was based on an incident light reading. In answer to your questions: 1) The KX has center average metering only and 2) In used Nikon Scan 4...I do not care for VueScan and can't afford SilverFast.

Javier, Woof, and the rest of the +1 crowd -- If it was not for the loss of subtle shadows in the highlights, I would be with you. Instead, I don't think I will shoot it at less than ISO 80 and deal with any magenta shift in PP.

troyz -- I am with you regarding the detail in the washcloth, though there is some blown highlight in each of the sunny shots. The higher contrast of the -1 and -2 just makes it look worse. Ektar actually does a pretty good job of holding detail in the highlights. Even with two stops overexposure, the whites are not blocked up. Compare to the K10D shot above! There definitely is a color shift with exposure, but I am more concerned with the contrast loss with overexposure. I tried to add a little punch to the +1 and +2 shots in PP, but had little luck. There simply is no detail to pull out.

Future work??? -- If I get a chance, I may repeat the scans for the series using manual scan settings. The resulting raw scans will suck for 4 out of the 5 for each series, but the aim will be to see what can be done in PP without the scanner having mucked with the curves.

You might also be interested in seeing the next frame on the roll after the last test shot shot shot a few minutes later a few feet away. Just to show that the development was fine:



A little out of focus, but nice colors. Also with the Helios. The yucky orange red things in the background are some mostly dead tiger lilies. They really looked that bad...

Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-16-2009 at 11:18 PM.

[jgredline]

So steve, your thinking about +1/3 stop?

[stevebrot]

So steve, your thinking about +1/3 stop?

Yep...and no more than +1/2...though for now I will probably continue to expose at the rated ISO.

FWIW, My really yucky roll that was poorly developed by Costco was also exposed +1. I figure that the combination of under development and overexposure was probably the cause of the fatal lack of contrast and weak colors.

Steve

[Vertex Ninja]

I've been away for a bit, but in the other Ektar thread I suggested over exposure of +1 to +1/2 and to me that looks best here too. Did you by chance try any indoor, overcast, or heavily shaded shots? I find that Ektar actually isn't that bad at rated iso in direct sun, but take it indoors or in the shade and it will destroy skin tones and completely lose detail in the reds. This may just be the inaccuracy of the camera's meter I used(F100) but for some reason I remember reading a Kodak spec sheet that rated it different in different light. Thanks for the testing, it's very helpful!

[stevebrot]

I've been away for a bit, but in the other Ektar thread I suggested over exposure of +1 to +1/2 and to me that looks best here too. Did you by chance try any indoor, overcast, or heavily shaded shots? I find that Ektar actually isn't that bad at rated iso in direct sun, but take it indoors or in the shade and it will destroy skin tones and completely lose detail in the reds. This may just be the inaccuracy of the camera's meter I used(F100) but for some reason I remember reading a Kodak spec sheet that rated it different in different light. Thanks for the testing, it's very helpful!

Sorry, just full sun, though I have had generally good luck in other light since I started using a pro lab and doing my own scans.

Steve

[Jonson PL]

What's strange seeming to me is the sun/overexposed avoid blowing out details in bright spots, while rated and under-exposed blow the highlights something wicked.

This is what surprised me as well

Of couse there's the scanner auto exposure to contend with - the wider the negative latitude the more it pushes the scanner's highs... with the +1 the highest highlight gets the nod, then there's a slight gap to where the tones start. That may be an advantage. I've been meaning to go back and manually scan a couple of problem negatives, with the widest scanner latitude, produce very flat seeming scans, and then see what photoshop can do.

When I shot my three rolls of ektar, I found that an unfortunate coincidence of three factors served to produce over-exposed and detail-free scans of flower shots: 1) the meter on many Pentax cameras maybe slightly color influenced (ie. under reports bright yellows e.g.) and shadow-biased, 2) ditto ektar 3) ditto photographer (me) being lazy and/or not conscious enough when doing these photographs. How hard is it to dial in exposure comp on auto cameras or take two readings with a KX?? but there you have it. The auto exposed scans don't help either.

But thank you for the very interesting and edifying series, I'm somewhat surprised by the evidence.

[davef]

Althought I still can't buy this film in Canada I will some day and your test is very helpful.

I was able to purchase at Vistek in Toronto earlier this year... Dave

[Vertex Ninja]

This is what surprised me as well

That's because it's a negative. when you under expose, the negative gets lighter/less dense and therefore contains less information/harder to pull details out. if you overexpose, the the negative becomes more dense and has more range in the highlights assuming your scanner can pull them out(almost all can). That's why it's almost impossible(not really, but very hard) to blow highlights on negative film, and why I prefer a slightly overexposed negative when scanning.

I'm shooting a test roll of Ektar right now and hope to have some tests to add to this thread beginning of next week. I'm shooting at ISO64. We'll see what happens.

[little laker]

I was able to purchase at Vistek in Toronto earlier this year... Dave

Lens & shutter, in BC has it as well.

The lab I work in, in Kelowna, can order some in, however we don't have any in stock at the moment.

I've shot 2 rolls so far, and will start my third in a week or 2. For me it performs very nicely.

[colesf]

Interesting post. Colors seemed fine to me (not that it really matters with PS) except for underexposure. Just think what a DSLR would have done with this exposure range!

[Jonson PL]

That's because it's a negative. when you under expose, the negative gets lighter/less dense and therefore contains less information/harder to pull details out. if you overexpose, the the negative becomes more dense and has more range in the highlights assuming your scanner can pull them out(almost all can). That's why it's almost impossible(not really, but very hard) to blow highlights on negative film, and why I prefer a slightly overexposed negative when scanning.

I'm shooting a test roll of Ektar right now and hope to have some tests to add to this thread beginning of next week. I'm shooting at ISO64. We'll see what happens.

Thanks a lot. That is exactly what I’ve read before but never understood till now; how slides (and digital) vs. negatives should be exposed with different emphasis