I never want to hear a single person on this board ever say film has the same dynamic range as digital ever again.Look what happened to my photo...
I tried to save it by lifting the shadows and it got even worse.This is Kodak Ultramax by the way, a supposedly high end film.
skill issue
>>4306871I masterfully went right to the edge of the highlights without blowing them. But due to the low dynamic range of film everything else went into shadow...
>>4306873film can take more in the highlights, as opposed to digital that can recover more in the shadows>>4306871
>>4306873Why do you ETTR on film?
you need a camera with better metering anonor to learn how to meter yourselfor get a fully automatic modern cameratldr>>4306871
Ok here is another one closer to midtone exposure.The blacks are still really heavy. Maybe I need to do some more work with curves.It still feels less dynamic range than I get on digital.
>I suck at the technical aspects of photography>WTF why is film shit
>>4306865this just looks really underexposedyou can overexpose film quite a bit before highlights blow
>>4306915>filmcolour filmOP is such a retard he might try to blow some foma 6 stops over and come back with "see how much film sucks???"
>>4306917Jokes on you foma can take that no issues >>4306867>Ultramax>High endBait used to be believable
>>4306921depends on how the retard develops itHP5+ in DD-X is where it's at impossible dynamic range wise
>>4306915Overexpose a ton yesPull back all the info for crazy dr? Lol good luck.
>>4306873you did the exact opposite of what you're supposed to with film. basically >>4306871
>>4306865Have you learned exposition?
>>4306865idk bruh, I think that looks pretty neat...
>>4306937except the point is you can overexpose, without really needing to pull back
>>4306873I haven’t seen a self own this bad in a long time. You need to lurk a lot more before telling the board what they are and aren’t allowed to say, lol.
>>4306873you exposed the highlights as if they were middle gray lmao
>>4306997He thinks film exposes linearly, like most of /p/.
>>4306998bruh even if it did it'd still look like ass[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern794Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:04:23 19:21:19Exposure Time1/4000 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height998RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4306865Point spot meter at a bright spot in the sky, increase metered exposure by 3 or 4 stops depending on if the highlights or shadows are more important to you.Point spot meter at shadows, increase metered reading by 3 or 4 depending on if the shadows or highlights are more important. They should both sort of match up, and WA LA, SNAP YOUR SHIT, BOY!
>>4307029Oops, I meant decrease for the shadows. MY BAD!
Yes negative film has pretty bad shadow detail and can require lots of light. Always prepare to decrease the shutter speed one, two or even three stops if you want to have any kind of shadow detail
>>4306865You exposed wrong, colour neg film has 20 stops of dynamic range when used correctly[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7RM2Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)100 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.0Brightness-3.1 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceOtherFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1463Image Height2048RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4307080It has 13 tops. You can overexpose forever but you wont get HDR.
I think this is the hard part with film. Photos with no clear obvious midtone to meter on. Sure it’s obvious if you photograph a person to meter on their face.But here you want the trees slightly dark, the water and sky are really bright, like how do you meter that properly with just a spot meter and zero way to see how the photo came out until it’s developed.
>>4307120Did you look?>>4307029Spot meters give you exact midtone exposure for whatever you point them at.
>>4307122Yup which falls down when their is no obvious midtone, people are saying go 4 stops below the sky but wouldn’t that depend on the weather…
>>4307120>>4307141The answer is an averaging spot meter, but only few film cameras are capable of it, the canon t90 and the Olympus OMs off the top of my head. And even then that isn’t perfect still, but it’s better. Some Standalone spot meters can do it as well.
>all this nerd shitJust use sunny 16 bro
>>4307141Brother, you have a spot meter. Use it! You can just look around for the midtone! It can be helpful to just read the EV instead of exposure settings in such cases.>>4307151The canon 1v as well, the later nikon f series film cameras probably have it as well. The metering is so good on these cameras you don't really need to use the averaging unless you're in extremely contrasty settings, or with specific subjects in mind.
>>4307029>WA LA
>>4307151On my op picture which 2 points are you going to average? You are just moving the goalposts instead of answering.So one meter reading in the sky. 1 on the tree then take the average of those 2?
>>4307181Why are you trying to argue with someone after being spoonfed the exact and obvious answer to your mistake?Go take a digital camera out with you, put it on manual mode, and learn how to properly use your light meter.
>>4307182There was like 50 years of film cameras before digital came along. I refuse to use anything but my film camera with one single spot meter. Surely we have some p users the same, how are you metering scenes with high dynamic range and no obvious midtone ie a forest by a lake
>>4307184You do not "find" a midtone when using a spotmeter. It's the wrong way to think about how a spot meter works. Do not apply incident meter thinking to a spot meter.A spot meter shows you the exposure that would set your metered area to zone 5, or middle gray. With that information you set your exposure to place your metered area into the correct zone.You must properly expose shadows or you will not get information onto the film, so pick the darkest section that has important information, and then increase your exposure setting by 3 stops. That will place your shadows at zone 2, which is as dark as you can get while still recording detail/information. >>4307029 look at pic. The different zones are stops of exposure.NOW you measure your highlights. If your highlights are showing over the maximum dynamic range of your film then you must reduce the contrast of the negative by pulling the development. When you reduce your development time it stops the highlights from becoming too dense to print/scan. There are dev times you can look up when doing this with certain developers.It becomes difficult to utilize pushing/pulling properly if you are developing an entire roll of film, so you need to decide if a little bit more highlight information or a little bit more shadow information is more important to you. Generally speaking decent b&w film is pretty good at retaining highlights, so I would suggest focusing on proper shadow exposure, so you can get as much information onto your negstive as possible.Read about the zone system if you want a better explanation.
>>4307184this is such a bait it's unbelievable
>>4307188incidentally this is kinda how the "shadow" and "highlight" buttons work on the OM-3/OM-4it's just the spot meter reading and +/-2EV correction
>>4307196They missed an opportunity to have a blacks button on their camera. I like the more modern film cameras with features that take thinking out of taking pictures. Not for using, but just knowing they exist. One I like is on the 1v where you can choose a foreground object and then a background object and it will set the aperture to make sure both are in focus. Just a fun little thing they crammed into the feature set.
>>4307197suuure, definitely not for using>>4307193
>>4307188>It becomes difficult to utilize pushing/pulling properly if you are developing an entire roll of film,Stand dev can mitigate this somewhat at the expense of reducing contrast considerably
>>4307198You don't want a camera with race based exposure settings?
>>4307181Go do your fucking homework before complaining about a medium that works perfectly for everyone else who did theirs.
>>4307181What stage of grief is this?
>>4307181>On my op picture which 2 points are you going to averageThat would be a creative decision but 99% of the time I just turn my camera to "Aperture priority" and it just werks lol.On manual cameras I would take a light meter reading off the nearest green grass and just use that.
>>4307245not one for the blacks, no
>>4306865film has the same dynamic range as digital
>>4307484Make it easy for OP, he's just beginning to open up to reality.
>>4306881niggerstop ityou're using shitty lab scans, come back when you're dealing with drum scans or raw linear tiffs from a high end device without some idiot operator baking in presets to produce a JPEGalso if you're not MULTI SAMPLING a scan for a negativeyou are doing it wrong and cannot speak about the true dynamic range of filmthis means, if you're camera scanning, you should be exposure bracketing and doing a hdr merge to eliminate noise and produce a linear 16-bit or 32-bit floating point file to then invert/edit. Any single digital capture of a negative or slide is limited by the digital sensor used to capture it, and means no such scans can be used to actually judge the performance of film.Grain is grain.Noise is noise.Combine noise and grain, and you get even worse results.
>>4306865>underexpose the scene by like 2-3 stops or more>expose the highlights as the midrange>WHY IT LOOK BADkek
>>4306921yeah cause if you don't overexpose fomashit by 6 stops you might not even get an image
