# Negatives Are Consistently Underexposed



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 3, 2017)

Hi All,

I'll keep it brief,

My Minolta XGM (1982) has underexposed a new, ISO 200 36 exp.  Kodacolor roll (it's first roll in 10 years), 100% consistently - by around 1 stop.  Film technology presumably has improved and as such 200 ISO is the new 100?  I'm considering setting the ISO to 100 on the device, as this will likely resolve the issue.

Guidance?


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 3, 2017)

Sounds like a plan. Keep in mind that the shutter speed may be the culprit as well. They do tend to be off a lot with a camera that old.


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 3, 2017)

Noted - the ISO dial actually allows me to set it between stops, so between 100 there's two options before 200, two options before 400, etc. I'll run a third test roll through it, with the ISO midway between 100 and 200, and drop it to 100 throughout the filim.

You're referring to the metering system perhaps?


----------



## limr (Mar 3, 2017)

OliverMcDermott said:


> Noted - the ISO dial actually allows me to set it between stops, so between 100 there's two options before 200, two options before 400, etc. I'll run a third test roll through it, with the ISO midway between 100 and 200, and drop it to 100 throughout the filim.
> 
> You're referring to the metering system perhaps?



I think he's referring to the actual shutter being a bit sluggish. The issue, then, is not that film has changed but your camera isn't performing the way it did in 1982. There are two possible solutions: check the shutter and fix as necessary, or, as you mentioned, just get used to shooting at slower than box speed.

As for "200 being the new 100," I'm not really sure what you mean. ISO 100 and 200 still mean what they used to mean in that they refer to the relative light sensitivity of that film, and those levels of sensitivity have not changed. It doesn't mean that you automatically now expose for 100 when using 200 ISO. That's a function of your camera and your preference. I know people who regularly expose for half box speed because of their preferred developing methods, the look they desire, or the age of the film (fresh vs expired vs very expired.)


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 3, 2017)

limr said:


> OliverMcDermott said:
> 
> 
> > Noted - the ISO dial actually allows me to set it between stops, so between 100 there's two options before 200, two options before 400, etc. I'll run a third test roll through it, with the ISO midway between 100 and 200, and drop it to 100 throughout the filim.
> ...



I agree - I probably misunderstood the photographic store guy - ISO/ASA represent rules and 'it is what it is'
Many people underexpose for digital imaging - and considering this issue is consistent - it will hopefully go away with use, or I'll permanently shoot below box speed, to your point.


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 3, 2017)

If you are sure the meter is always 1 stop under ... then set the EV dial to +1 and keep it there.


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 3, 2017)

dxqcanada said:


> If you are sure the meter is always 1 stop under ... then set the EV dial to +1 and keep it there.



I've not shot enough filim to answer that 
 If I do that, then I'm going to lose one + stop, which I regularly use for evenings. (guide me here)


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 3, 2017)

limr said:


> OliverMcDermott said:
> 
> 
> > Noted - the ISO dial actually allows me to set it between stops, so between 100 there's two options before 200, two options before 400, etc. I'll run a third test roll through it, with the ISO midway between 100 and 200, and drop it to 100 throughout the filim.
> ...



I am aware that ISO can be rated differently (100 - 200 eg) depending on brand ?


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 3, 2017)

The exposure comp is just to offset the metering/exposure issue you mentioned ... so you can keep setting the ISO dial to the matching setting.
Yes, different brands and type of film have slight differences on how you want the film to look. In general I try not to under expose neg ... if you under expose you got nothing to work with when printing.


----------



## limr (Mar 3, 2017)

OliverMcDermott said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > OliverMcDermott said:
> ...



I don't know about films being rated differently depending on brand, but I do know that some films of the same ISO have different latitude than others, or that respond differently to under/over exposure. For example, Kodak Tri-X (400) and Ilford HP5+ (400) are both rated the same, and they are both pretty forgiving of errors, but they respond differently at the ends of their ranges, so people may react by adjusting their exposure either up or down depending on which film they are using. Or take Tri-X vs Ilford Delta 400, which is pickier about exposure and can have lower contrast, so people may expose for it differently to get a different look than it would give at box speed.


----------



## KmH (Mar 3, 2017)

Film ISO speed has been an International standard since 1974.
Film speed - Wikipedia


----------



## snowbear (Mar 3, 2017)

Do you have access to an external meter or a DSLR?  If so, try comparing that to the film camera's meter.  If they are the same or very close, the issue is something else (like the shutter).  If they vary quite a bit, then the meter (or light sensor, batteries, circuitry, ... ) is the problem.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2017)

OliverMcDermott said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I'll keep it brief,
> 
> ...



YES, it has long been quite common to over-expose color negative film, which likes a "generous" exposure,much more so than say, color slide film. If results are generally consistently looking under-exposed, I would down-rate the ISO of the 200 speed film to 100, or maybe even to ISO 80.

Check the camera first, and make sure the Exposure Compensation dial is not already set to say, Minus 1.0. Instead of making the change using the exposure comp dial, I say *down-rate the ISO* right from the get-go, and THEN use the Exposure Comp dial for situations where you need or want to dial in EX, such as say + 1.7 EV for strroingly back-lighted subjects in shade.

We used to shoot Kodak VPS color neg, nominally rated as ASA 160 at the time it was made (before ISO, so save any arguments) as if it were ASA 100; I shot hundrerd and hunbred of rolls of Kodacolor Gold 200 at ASA 100 or ASA 125; I shout THOUSANDS of slide photos goinjg the opposite way, rating Kodachrome 64 at ASA 80 or ASA 100. Generously exposing modern color neg films usually results in better shadow detail, and finer grain, and better images! (this has been commonly known for 40 years regarding how to expose color neg stocks.)

Sometimes exposure issues result from how one uses the camera's built-in meter, and so this is why I suggest just down-rating the ISO that full stop, from 200 to 100 ISO, in ortder to get the meter's readings more in-line with where the actual expiosures need to be,


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 5, 2017)

The good news! - the light meter is 100% - I compared it with two bridge cameras - and it's almost identical, and spot on.  I'll let you guys know what happens with the next development @ 100 ISO.


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 5, 2017)

Derrel said:


> OliverMcDermott said:
> 
> 
> > Hi All,
> ...



You're a legend for posting this for me  THANKS!


----------



## gsgary (Mar 5, 2017)

OliverMcDermott said:


> Noted - the ISO dial actually allows me to set it between stops, so between 100 there's two options before 200, two options before 400, etc. I'll run a third test roll through it, with the ISO midway between 100 and 200, and drop it to 100 throughout the filim.
> 
> You're referring to the metering system perhaps?


Colour film like to be overexposed shoot it at 100 or even 80


----------



## compur (Mar 5, 2017)

How was it determined that the film was underexposed by 1 stop?


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 12, 2017)

compur said:


> How was it determined that the film was underexposed by 1 stop?


Comparing my negatives to several sets from other people - and visual inspection by someone who has been developing film and shooting on the same SLR that I have, for many years. Also, comparing to another two Bridge cameras - same settings from several samples. (We went full OCD)


----------



## compur (Mar 12, 2017)

OK, what lens are you using?


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 13, 2017)

I thought I'd post some of the images I got back from the lab today.  I DON'T TRUST their "EZ Scanner" and I think it's rubbish.  The images look rubbish and grainy.  Perhaps this is the 'preview' scan they do. ISO 200.


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 13, 2017)

this one is probably the worst - I will HOPEFULY assume this is just the scanner, and perhaps a bit of underexposure (stilll)


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 13, 2017)

Derrel said:


> OliverMcDermott said:
> 
> 
> > Hi All,
> ...



If I may, here's one for you: this is absolute rubbish.  Scanner? seems a bit underexposed and yuk!


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 13, 2017)

OliverMcDermott said:


> If I may, here's one for you: this is absolute rubbish.  Scanner? seems a bit underexposed and yuk!View attachment 136497



I'd say not the scanner. Looks like the scanner and scan operator are doing a good job. Underexposed in the camera, yes, but with the caveat that the camera meter is working well and did it's job as expected. What specifically about the photo don't you like?

 The previous photo of the woman at the table looks also as expected. The grain is appropriate for 35mm ISO 200 film and the scan appears well done. The detail (resolution) recorded by the scanner is good and the tonal response and color are appropriate.

Joe


----------



## nickgillespie (Mar 13, 2017)

Get a handheld meter (borrow one if you can) and find out the proper exposure for each frame. This should tell you if it's an issue with your internal meter or your shutter. 

I assume that you checked that the aperture is working properly.


----------



## nickgillespie (Mar 13, 2017)

OliverMcDermott said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > OliverMcDermott said:
> ...


This looks like it was exposing for the scene - properly I'd add. You were shooting into the sun in a very bright situation. I'm 99% sure that it would look the same at +/- 0 compensation on a digital.


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 13, 2017)

Surprising but welcomed feedback - I was expecting higher resolution with less grain.  Also, I had a UV filter on for most of the shots, and pulled my 200 to 125, actually.  Interesting! Also, MF is something to learn.  I guess  I will try pulling it down to 100, or even 80 to see what happens.


----------



## nickgillespie (Mar 13, 2017)

Feel free to overexpose modern film. There is much more latitude overexposing than under - especially shooting INTO the sun (not so much shooting with the sun).


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 13, 2017)

OliverMcDermott said:


> Surprising but welcomed feedback - I was expecting higher resolution with less grain.  Also, I had a UV filter on for most of the shots, and pulled my 200 to 125, actually.  Interesting! Also, MF is something to learn.  I guess  I will try pulling it down to 100, or even 80 to see what happens.



The grain in your photos is ISO 200 appropriate. Look carefully at the photo of the woman at the table. She and all that is on the table are out of focus. You have very good resolution in the photo in the grass on the hillside behind her where the camera was focused. The appearance of grain is suppressed by fine detail and exposed by loss of detail -- the grain is more noticeable in out of focus areas.

Grain is also more apparent in darker regions of a photo that have been brightened. This is the case in your crowd photo. The scanner brightened the exposure for that photo and you see a lot of grain especially in the lighter clothing of the people in the foreground. They would have benefited from a lot more exposure. *BUT *the sky would have benefited from a lot less exposure. So what you needed to do in that photo was lower the ISO right down to 64 for the crowd and raise the ISO straight to 640 for the sky -- neat trick if you can do it.

Look at the grain in the sky of the crowd photo at the top. Start on the right side and move across the top of the photo toward the left. Eventually the grain disappears entirely. In fact the scanner software (or operator) is filling that upper left region of sky in for you with a flat light color because the scanner couldn't record the film at all; it was massively overexposed. And yet the foreground scene is underexposed and that's the key to your problems with that photo. It's is also a factor in the photo of the woman at the table. The lighting condition in both photos is very high contrast. For the woman at the table it's very high and for the crowd scene it's extremely high. Both scenes are backlit. As such your camera meter appears to have worked properly.

What you need to do is start recognizing the lighting condition and then responding appropriately. In some cases like the crowd photo the appropriate response might be, "no way in h*ll is this lighting going to work, let's walk to the other end of the field and see if that's better."

Lot of talk in this thread about film latitude and overexposing film. That all makes me very anxious. In Leonore's 2nd response she said this, "they are both pretty forgiving of errors" -- that feels better. It is true that film's response can be manipulated via exposure and processing but the term latitude has always struck me as suspiciously imprecise. How film reacts to light and chemistry is very precise. Way too many times over the years when I've encountered photogs talking about film latitude they were really talking about how sloppy their practice was and wasn't it nice that the film "forgave their errors." It's very seductive to make the switch in your thinking from "Cr*p! I screwed up again, thank heaven I was shooting film" to "I often take advantage of the exposure latitude built into film."

Joe


----------



## compur (Mar 13, 2017)

They don't appear overly grainy to me either. It looks like focus is a bit off and/or unsteady camera for shutter speed in use.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 13, 2017)

Shot #3: the left side of the image looks like a lens element might be slightly decentered. Seems like I might see a bit of evidence of that also in shot #2 of the woman seated at the table. Not a horrible lens performance, and the scans look mostly good; the grain is clearly visible, but it's color negative film, which has obvious, but tight and crisp grain structure.


----------



## denada (Mar 14, 2017)

bright backgrounds might be throwing your meter off. or off of what you want exposed properly. if you have a bright sky background and shadowed foreground or subject, one is not going to be properly exposed.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 14, 2017)

There is nothing wrong with these images, Film has grain embrace the grain some of us are 100% film because of the grain, i expect you are looking at them at 100%, well don't


----------



## Derrel (Mar 14, 2017)

gsgary said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with these images, Film has grain embrace the grain some of us are 100% film because of the grain, i expect you are looking at them at 100%, well don't



RE: looking at scans at 100%. With my film scans, made at high on-screen size of between 7,250 or so and 15,000 pixels on the long axis of the scan with 6x6 MF negatives, the orioginal, out-of-the-scanner scans look "soft" when seen on-screen at that size since I scan with no sharpening applied in the scanning phase. However, if I apply unsharp mask later to the scan in Photoshop, and then reduce the display size by 50%, then apply another pass of USM, and then reduce the size again, and then apply final sharpening, the scans look SHARP! As in very,very sharp, and crisp, and detailed.

You *want* the grain to show up in a scan! You *want* to be able to see the grain pattern, otherwise there will be no impression of edge acutance, just mushiness. Looking at a scan at 100% can mean that you're seeing what could be a window-sized enlargement, and are peering at little sections of it, a bit at a time...also called pixel-peeping. Many people who have not shot film equate grain with digital noise, and the two are not related.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 14, 2017)

This is HP5 underexposed at iso1600, scanning always shows more grain but you can hardly see grain in the wet print i have made


----------



## gsgary (Mar 14, 2017)

This is what you call grain, Double X @iso1600 and 2 hour stand developed in Rodinal


----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 28, 2017)




----------



## OliverMcDermott (Mar 28, 2017)

There we go, gents - without making any further changes to the camera, this is the latest result - your guidance has been noted, from everyone here - thank you, you lot have contributed to me being a better photographer.

Thank you,


----------



## Derrel (Mar 28, 2017)

Nice photos in this latest batch!


----------

