ISO settings Minolta Dynax

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Gerard, Jul 27, 2007.

  1. But who would purposely overexpose it? If they didn't want to underdevelop it
    to get those ghostly low-contrast effects?

    I'm sure you can correct a mistake, but this guy was asking about overriding
    DX coding. He was wondering if he'd get the effect of a slow film by
    overexposing it (no) or can he just underexpose it (not without overdeveloping
    in the lab).
    Yeah thanks for agreeing with me.
    Thanks for the advice. Where is your lab so I can avoid it?
    Which is why you always take anything BUT C-41 to a decent lab.
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 1, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Why is this, do you reckon? Are all cameras meters that poor? I'm assuming
    that these cameras are typically fully automatic.
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 1, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. The question remains: why on earth would you?
    Which at least has its reasons. You can get photos in low light.
    Which is another good reason not to bother with them.
    Or pulled.
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 1, 2007
    #23
  4. Gerard

    Tony Polson Guest


    I routinely "overexpose" negative film, by 0.7 to 1.0 stop.

    I routinely "underexpose" slide film by 0.3 stop, except for Velvia 50
    which I "overexpose" by 0.3 top.

    But this isn't really "underexposing" or "overexposing", because the
    ISO printed on the film pack is only a guide. You should experiment
    with different ISO settings in order to get the best out of each film.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 1, 2007
    #24
  5. Richard Polhill wrote:

    (I've lost who wrote this)

    Because consumer grade color print film is designed to take overexposure
    "gracefully", and minilabs to print it properly. The results are more
    saturated color and better shadow detail. Some people like it, some
    don't. I line it on cloudy days, it really makes some interesting
    shots.

    Kodak recently came out with film for P&S cameras that is ISO 800.
    The idea was that many cameras would not have the ability to properly
    expose it (fixed or limited range auto exposure) at ISO 800 in
    bright sunlight, but the 3 to 4 stop overexposure (ISO 100 exposure in
    bright sun, or on the beach/snow) would still produce good prints
    and in lower light you would still get good prints and more range
    from a built in fixed exposure flash.

    Personally, I recommend that you try it color print film with one
    or two stops extra exposure with regular processing. If you like
    the results, do it all the time.

    You can do this on one roll try a shot and bracket the exposure
    (take several shots with increasing exposure between them) in
    several conditions (open shade, closed shade, direct sun) and
    see what you like.
    It depends. We use one of the local one hour photo places at the mall.
    We get the film developed, scanned at 2mp per negative and printed.
    The prints go in an album, the 2mp jpegs get emailed and the ones
    we want to hang on the wall get enlarged.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Aug 1, 2007
    #25
  6. With or without "underdeveloping" or "overdeveloping".
    Fair point, but we all know what we mean.
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 1, 2007
    #26
  7. Gerard

    Tony Polson Guest


    Without, of course. Otherwise, there would be no point.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 1, 2007
    #27
  8. I was just thinking I should try overexposing C41 film but was worried about
    the blown out highlights I got the other day. Then remembered that was using
    digital. Hah!
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 1, 2007
    #28
  9. Gerard

    Tony Polson Guest


    Shooting digital is like shooting slide film, but with an even smaller
    "dynamic range" than slide film offers.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 1, 2007
    #29
  10. Gerard

    Alan Browne Guest

    eh? Surely you know that raw provides more shadow detail than slide?
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 1, 2007
    #30
  11. Oh **** here we go...
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 1, 2007
    #31
  12. Gerard

    Tony Polson Guest


    Exactly. Tha man who doesn't understand lighting, dishing out advice.

    Pass the sick bag ...
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 1, 2007
    #32
  13. Gerard

    Alan Browne Guest

    Polson, Ya blew it and ya know it...

    'Course ya could provide better photos than:

    http://www.pbase.com/paris_polson/examples
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 2, 2007
    #33
  14. Gerard

    Pudentame Guest

    We're the nearest one to where-ever you happen to be at the moment.
     
    Pudentame, Aug 2, 2007
    #34
  15. Gerard

    Pudentame Guest

    Lost detail is LOST. Doesn't matter what format.
     
    Pudentame, Aug 2, 2007
    #35
  16. Gerard

    Pudentame Guest

    No, as I said, I think it the photographers.

    They're more likely to underexpose than to overexpose. I can't tell you
    why that is, it's just something I observe in my daily routine.

    I *think* it's because most photographers will push the envelope. It's
    almost enough light to get a good shot, so trip the shutter. If the
    meter tells them it's a little bit low or a little bit over they'll take
    the picture anyway.

    Admittedly, since I can still usually pull a good print from an
    over-exposed C-41 negative, I might be less likely to notice
    over-exposure. So, it might just be I'm more sensitive to under-exposure
    because the under-exposures affects my ability to give the customer a
    good print.

    OTOH, over-exposure happens so rarely that I think I do notice the
    disparity; i.e. it's notable by its rarity.

    But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the photographer, using C41
    film takes 1/3 of their shots over-exposed by one stop, 1/3 properly
    exposed, and 1/3 UNDER-exposed by 1 stop - according to the meter.

    What happens if you set the meter so it consistently recommends a
    aperture/shutter speed combination that's 1/3 stop over?

    They shoot something that the meter reading says is 1 stop over
    (i.e. = +1-1/3 stop) ... I can still give them a good print.

    Or they shoot what the meter tells them is properly exposed
    (= +1/3 stop)... I can still give them a good print.

    Or they shoot what the meter tells them is 1 stop UNDER
    (=-2/3 stop) ... I *might* be able to give them an *acceptable* print.

    That's my experience from processing & printing my own C41 film where I
    do compensate the DX coding to over-expose by 1/3 stop.

    But if the exposure is really a whole stop under, or more, with C41 film
    there's not enough image there to print.
     
    Pudentame, Aug 2, 2007
    #36
  17. Gerard

    Pudentame Guest

    People do make mistakes.

    I even thought I'd made one once. Of course, I was wrong about that.
     
    Pudentame, Aug 2, 2007
    #37
  18. Yik.
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 3, 2007
    #38
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.