Tips for Metering Color Negative Film

[ChrisP]

Going to be heading to Northern Saskatchewan on a canoe trip soon and I'm planning on shooting a bunch of B&W and color negative film (the idea being that if we dump and my ME Super ends up in the bottom of a river than I'm out about $100 rather than the $1000 I'd be out if my digital lands there).

Alot of the shots will be during the day and there will be alot of contrast. How should I meter to make sure I don't lose the highlights?

With digital I expose for the highlights and push shadows in PP if need be.

B&W I expose for the shadows and adjust processing time accordingly.

However I won't be developing my own colour stuff so does anyone have tips for how to meter for Colour Negative Film? Is it forgiving enough that I shouldn't have to worry about the highlights? I read some accounts of overexposing a bit but that seems a little risky if I'm worried about the highlights.

Any tips?

Thanks in advance,

[Nikon Bob]

Would a polarizer help tame the contrast some? Enjoy your trip.

Bob

[Sparrow]

I shoot perhaps 2, sometimes 3 stops into the shadows with Fuji 400 superia in Greece in the summer and blown skys are seldom a problem ...

[FrankS]

Same as with black and white neg film, unless it's something super fussy/contrasty like Ektar 25.

[Ranchu]

2/3s of a stop hot works for me for a normal center weighted meter, 250 insead of 400, etc. Don't worry about the highlights with this little increase. Underexposed color neg does NOT look like a happy vacation.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Same as with black and white neg film, unless it's something super fussy/contrasty like Ektar 25.

Yep, expose for shadows. Color neg can tolerate a lot of over exposure in highlights. You might try a film portrait like Portra since portrait films have lower contrast than most color neg films.

[FrankS]

I read once that with neg film, 5 stops of over exposure is better than 1 stop of under exposure. (or was that 1/2 stop of underexposure?)

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by FrankS

I read once that with neg film, 5 stops of over exposure is better than 1 stop of under exposure. (or was that 1/2 stop of underexposure?)

It appears as though Digital has given me an unfounded "highlight paranoia", although I understand its easy to lose the highlights on slides as well

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

You might try a film portrait like Portra since portrait films have lower contrast than most color neg films.

Very true, and also superior colors.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by FrankS

I read once that with neg film, 5 stops of over exposure is better than 1 stop of under exposure. (or was that 1/2 stop of underexposure?)

This is my experience. I shot Portra 400 last weekend, the ones I underexposed really look bad, but shots that went over still look fine. I shot largely unmetered, and went over by what must have been easily 5 stops.

I think modern colour negative can barely be overexposed to the point the shot in ruined. It just seems to plateau, exposure gets brighter and brighter then stops after a bit. Colour negative film now really does have unbelievably good tolerance of over exposure. Under exposure is another matter entirely.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by ChrisP

It appears as though Digital has given me an unfounded "highlight paranoia", although I understand its easy to lose the highlights on slides as well

I'd agree with this, slides do need to be exposed with a degree of care, much like digital.

It's good to remember that disposable cameras shoot negative film with a fixed shutter speed, and a fixed aperture, no metering of any kind, and most shots still turn out fine.

[canetsbe]

Color neg film = meter for the shadows no questions asked. Just dumb it down to shooting 400 @ 125 or 100 @ 50 and you will be blown away by the dynamic range. Trust me, you'd probably need to overexpose by 10 stops or something insane to blow highlights w/ color neg film. I regularly overexpose 1-2 stops for the best results.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by FrankS

I read once that with neg film, 5 stops of over exposure is better than 1 stop of under exposure. (or was that 1/2 stop of underexposure?)

... possibly with xp2 but I'd be more cautious with colour-print films, I also agree and would never knowingly underexpose

[FrankS]

Once, my Nikon F4 failed due to there being oil on the lens aperture blades. The resistance broke the aperture control/actuating arm. Photos that should have been made at f11 on the colour neg film were made wide open at f1.4. The print results were a bit off, but still acceptable.

[Pete B]

Originally Posted by canetsbe

Just dumb it down to shooting 400 @ 125 or 100 @ 50

This is what I do with Portra 400 (EI 250) Sunny 16:
Sunshine: Speed 1/250 f16
Shade/ subject backlit: Speed 1/250 f5.6

Also with Portra 160 (EI 125):
Sunshine: Speed 1/125 f16
Shade/subject backlit: Speed 1/125 f5.6

If in doubt open up another stop. I think I regularly open up another 0.5-1 stop above the foregoing. Results seem fine.

Shoot a couple of films off before you go, and spend the dough on a decent lab to scan the film properly.
Pete

[f16sunshine]

I like 160S and expose it at 100 or 400H at 320/250. It's probably been mentioned. Overexposure is much more pleasing than underexposure with Color Negative film.
Fuji suits my look best. I imagine Kodak c-41 films behave the same.

[Pete B]

Just out of interest, I'd put a 3 stop ND filter on my lens and forgot about it and shot sunny 16 here (but probably closer to sunny 11):

CNV00032.JPG

When I realised my error I retook it with a better exposure here:

CNV00034.JPG

There's not a great deal in it but the better exposure has more detail in the trees. The first exposure was somewhere between EI 1600 and 3200 (no pushing of development). This give an indication of how forgiving Portra 400 is.

This photo was potentially even worse. I'd left a green filter on the lens! The Fuji Superia 200 was underexposed between 0.5 and 1 stop. The lab did a great job in trying to get rid of the cast!

CNV00003.JPG


Pete

[filmfan]

My favorite is Fuji 400H @200, developed normally for 400.
Sometimes I even rate it @160

[Pete B]

Incidently, it was digital's issue with highlights that brought me back to film. I was sick of staring at a histogram to ensure no info had been lost. Sunny 16 with film rules! Back to enjoying photography and having time to look at the view. I'm sure we'd be interested to hear your thoughts when you return from you trip and have seen your film scans compared to your digital images.
Pete

[v_roma]

Bonus points go to Pete for using the word "incidentally" in a metering discussion.

Originally Posted by Pete B

Incidently, it was digital's issue with highlights that brought me back to film. I was sick of staring at a histogram to ensure no info had been lost. Sunny 16 with film rules! Back to enjoying photography and having time to look at the view. I'm sure we'd be interested to hear your thoughts when you return from you trip and have seen your film scans compared to your digital images.
Pete

[Pete B]

Pete

10 characters