How do you set 400 ISO color film?

[kshapero]

Do you set it at 400, 320, 250, 200? or something different? I usually leave mine at 320.

[kshapero]

I mean: What DO you normally set 400 ISO color film at? Sorry for the misspell.

[Al Kaplan]

I find that I get better results giving color negative film a bit of overexposure.

[amateriat]

Agreed. I usually go with EI 320.

This, of course, has been a somewhat controversial subject here... ;)


- Barrett

[photogdave]

Slide or neg?

[amateriat]

Slide or neg?
In my case, at least, obviously neg. :)

The OP should've made this clear, of course.


- Barrett

[wlewisiii]

I prefer just to keep it at 400 but there are some situations where it can benifit from slight overexposure. I'm more likely to do that with 100 ISO Reala (rate it at 64 or 80) than with any 400 ISO film.

William

[amateriat]

I can't remember the last time I shot any colour film ... I think I'm trapped in a black and white world! :p
I prefer the term "ensconced" in a black-and-white world, Keith. :)


- Barrett

[snip]

320 for me.

[kshapero]

It is my understanding that when one uses the term film they mean negs and one shoots slides they use the term slide. At least that is what my mammy taught me.

[Arvay]

Mr. Peterson in his book "Understanding Exposure" gives the following advice:
- +2/3 for neg
- -2/3 for slide and sensor
Once have read, I'm using this with better results.

[payasam]

I now use only C-41 and do not tinker with speed ratings. When I used B & W film, I developed it in Promicrol and Microphen, both of which give an increase in speed.

[JonasYip]

I generally use 320

[btgc]

100, 200, 320, and 400, too. Negative is good when served baked :)

[projectbluebird]

I usually overexpose my c-41 negatives by a full stop, I like how it saturates the color. Since my favorite is fuji 800NPZ, it makes it easier to use outside during the day.

[pvdhaar]

I find that despite careful metering, even when cross checking with digitial, prints from 400 ISO color neg film rated at 400 come back as if they're underexposed. And that's the same across a couple of cameras, so it's not inaccurate shutters/meters that are to blame.

It gets better when shot at 320, and better still at 250. It's as if the labs are rationing the chemicals used for processing & printing..

[ijohnnyz]

I usually rate it at 400 but will override and compensate on the fly with my manual cameras. When I'm using an auto everything film slr, I will consider rating 400 film anywhere from 800 to 200 depending on the situation. I don't feel 1/3 of a stop is enough to make a noticeable difference with color negative film.

[mh2000]

If my camera actually has an ISO setting I set it to 400 (or let the DX coding do it), but if I am guessing my exposures I tend to increase by 1-stop to cover my errors... except when I am at my handheld minimum...

[ClaremontPhoto]

I often tend to be cynical and believe the technical people make an ISO320 film, then the marketing people 'sex it up' to ISO400.

[Roger Hicks]

With a spot meter: 400.

With through-lens: 250 or 320.

ISO speeds are for the most part remarkably accurate. If anything, manufacturers try to make neg film so that if there are batch-to-batch variations (which are ever smaller nowadays) then the bias is towards being a little faster than the ISO speed -- a small fraction of a stop. This allows for user error and helps to make sure they reach the stated speed. Thus, an ISO 400 film might be 420 but would rarely be 380.

It is true that ISO standards allow +/- 1/3 stop, so ISO 320 could be sold as ISO 400, but it's extremely unlikely nowadays.

Black and white, where the developer makes an enormous difference, is another matter.

Finally, I'd never heard the idea that 'film' automatically implies negative material. Both negs and trannies are film as far as I am concerned, and indeed as far as everyone I've met is concerned.

Cheers,

R.

[mfogiel]

For general outdoors shooting at ISO 200, in contrasty light ISO 100, for close portraits in soft light ISO 320-400

[Gaspar]

If I am shooting people I will actually underexpose because white skin is almost 2 stops lighter than neutral grey. I usually set the film at the rated ISO but addapt compensation to suit situation.

[dmr]

ISO speeds are for the most part remarkably accurate.

Almost always I use the box speed. For most subjects, it works for me.

However, I will occasionally expose 400 as if it were 800 when doing things like the Las Vegas Strip where there are highlights with a lot of detail and most of the scene is darker. This helps blowing out highlights when using the GIII in auto mode.

[Roger Hicks]

Almost always I use the box speed. For most subjects, it works for me.

However, I will occasionally expose 400 as if it were 800 when doing things like the Las Vegas Strip where there are highlights with a lot of detail and most of the scene is darker. This helps blowing out highlights when using the GIII in auto mode.

Very true! But of course this is a metering question (and therefore an entirely valid answer to the original query) rather than an ISO speed question.

I suppose that one could spot-meter the lights and give (say) 4 stops more but this might be difficult...

The thing is, it's amazing how many people don't realize that ISO speeds won't work, every time, on every meter, for every camera, if you just set them blindly.

In fact I'd add that if I'm using my Pentax SV (with a 'lazy' shutter) I can set ISO 400 as 800, but with my wife's 35/5.6 Apo Grandagon on the Alpa I need to set 200 just to get the effect of 400 -- because, I think, of extra-high shutter efficency on the tiny absolute aperture.

Cheers,

R.

[dmr]

But of course this is a metering question (and therefore an entirely valid answer to the original query) rather than an ISO speed question.

Yes, this is not an issue of questioning the film speed, it's adjusting the exposure, overcoming a "feature" of the averaging meter in the camera.

I regard the ISO film speed to be one of the more consistent variables in the whole exposure thing. Things like light and how the meter behaves appear to be far less precise. (Grabbing whip and looking for dead horse to beat ...) I sure wish there were available some kind of an accurate standard light source, something that could be used to check the accuracy of exposure meters!

[Al Kaplan]

I prefer to use an incident light meter whenever possible. It meters the light, not the subject.

[charjohncarter]

I'm with Roger, spot meter 400, though the lens 320.

[Brennotdan]

I often tend to be cynical and believe the technical people make an ISO320 film, then the marketing people 'sex it up' to ISO400.


ooohhhh yeeah faster, faster! :angel:

[italy74]

Depending on the roll, if it's an NC and need sometimes a bit more saturated colours I just underexpose half stop (so it's iso 560, I guess), otherwise i let it at 400. I know some say that film rolls should be overexposed but to tell the truth I never understood why. Could you explain? Why looking for paler colours? Or there's something else to consider? Let me know thanks

[Roger Hicks]

Depending on the roll, if it's an NC and need sometimes a bit more saturated colours I just underexpose half stop (so it's iso 560, I guess), otherwise i let it at 400. I know some say that film rolls should be overexposed but to tell the truth I never understood why. Could you explain? Why looking for paler colours? Or there's something else to consider? Let me know thanks

Dear Dino,

With neg film, you'll normally get less saturation by underexposing the neg; it's the print that needs to be underexposed, preferably with a generously exposed negative. Sure, underexposing slides will give more saturation (and overexposing will give weaker colours) but if you get pale prints from overexposed negs it just shows that the auto printer isn't doing its job properly.

Cheers,

Roger

[italy74]

Hi Roger,
thanks for your lines, effectively I always underexposed slides for the same reason
I'll try and see how it looks.