Overexposure= vibrant colours?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 13, 2006
10
0
0
#1
I am currently using an ancient (okay by ancient I mean maybe 25 years?) Minolta X-700 SLR. The thing is I love vibrant colours and when I use ISO 400 film it gives me pretty good quality but when I use my lomo colorsplash camera, 200 gives a better colour.

So basically my question is what speed film or what brand would you recommend for vibrant colours?

Second part of my question is that in another forum, someone mentioned that they get beautiful colours by using a low speed film and overexposing by one stop.

I don't really understand it but the example they gave was to use say, 200 film and setting the camera to 100 speed. When I read this, I had thought that the photos will come out underexposed if anything. Can anyone help me understand this concept? :) Or will I just end up with a bunch of overexposed/ underexposed shots?

I know I could just try it out and see what happens but then film photography can cause quite a dent in the pocket so I just want to be sure without wasting 30odd bucks.
 

KNIGHT ONG

Senior Member
Dec 18, 2003
5,792
1
38
PAKISTAN
www.pbase.com
#3
denisegail said:
I know I could just try it out and see what happens but then film photography can cause quite a dent in the pocket so I just want to be sure without wasting 30odd bucks.
you should try and shoot slide and see the result for yourself .. :)

sometimes it is not about wasting that 30 odd bucks but what kind of lesson or experience can you gain ?? :dunno:

vibrant colors is not just about exposure alone .. it is everything in .. :sweat:
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#4
denisegail said:
..............................

Second part of my question is that in another forum, someone mentioned that they get beautiful colours by using a low speed film and overexposing by one stop.

I don't really understand it but the example they gave was to use say, 200 film and setting the camera to 100 speed. When I read this, I had thought that the photos will come out .....................................
This, is only refering to negative film, in general speaking, negative film have greater exposure latitiue, and it holds highlight details better than shadows details, so ones should expose for the shadows details, so the shadows details be able to reproduce in print.
 

Jemapela

New Member
Feb 20, 2005
791
0
0
Melbourne
www.jemapela.com
#5
denisegail said:
I am currently using an ancient (okay by ancient I mean maybe 25 years?) Minolta X-700 SLR. The thing is I love vibrant colours and when I use ISO 400 film it gives me pretty good quality but when I use my lomo colorsplash camera, 200 gives a better colour.

So basically my question is what speed film or what brand would you recommend for vibrant colours?

Second part of my question is that in another forum, someone mentioned that they get beautiful colours by using a low speed film and overexposing by one stop.

I don't really understand it but the example they gave was to use say, 200 film and setting the camera to 100 speed. When I read this, I had thought that the photos will come out underexposed if anything. Can anyone help me understand this concept? :) Or will I just end up with a bunch of overexposed/ underexposed shots?

I know I could just try it out and see what happens but then film photography can cause quite a dent in the pocket so I just want to be sure without wasting 30odd bucks.
If your interest is in colour print (negative) films, the films with the high contrast and high vibrancy would come from the consumer-grade films from reputable brands such as Kodak, Fuji, Konica and Agfa. Currently, they are sold as Kodak Gold, Kodak High Definition, Fuji Superia, Konica Centuria and Agfa Vista. These films were made for consumers who aren't smart or skilled in photography, and who are very likely to blunder their shots by gross over- or under- exposure. Hence film manufacturers made these consumer-grade films with a little bit more ummph!

The professional-grade films tend, but not always, and not all, to be more neutral/natural/normal (or whatever you might want to call it) unless they were deliberately made with certain discriminating properties, such as extra saturation or extra contrast.

This logic/practice is imitated in most digital cameras too.

Quoting your example, when a ISO200 film is loaded into a camera, but the camera is set as ISO100, the user is bluffing the camera into thinking that ISO100 film is loaded instead of ISO200. Hence, the camera thinks it has less sensitive film in it, and will expose the images longer by 1 stop, resulting in over-exposure by 1 stop.

The deliberate over-exposure of colour negative print films by 0.5 or 1 stop to obtain more vibrant/richer colour is only experienced in the print, that is, the photos. You can't see the benefits of vibrant/richer colour just by looking at the negatives.

The reason for this slight (and I emphasise, slight) improvement is because the user's deliberate over-exposure will be countered/adjusted by the lab operator, or even automatically by the software in the film scanner/reader, by darkening the image slightly. When this happens, the colours of the image on the photo looks more vibrant/richer, and the image on the photo also possibly looks more contrasty. This I personally know because I work in a photo lab.
 

Cap_Dingo

New Member
Apr 25, 2006
134
0
0
#6
That is a ripper response! Clearly explained.

Jemapela said:
If your interest is in colour print (negative) films, the films with the high contrast and high vibrancy would come from the consumer-grade films from reputable brands such as Kodak, Fuji, Konica and Agfa. Currently, they are sold as Kodak Gold, Kodak High Definition, Fuji Superia, Konica Centuria and Agfa Vista. These films were made for consumers who aren't smart or skilled in photography, and who are very likely to blunder their shots by gross over- or under- exposure. Hence film manufacturers made these consumer-grade films with a little bit more ummph!

The professional-grade films tend, but not always, and not all, to be more neutral/natural/normal (or whatever you might want to call it) unless they were deliberately made with certain discriminating properties, such as extra saturation or extra contrast.

This logic/practice is imitated in most digital cameras too.

Quoting your example, when a ISO200 film is loaded into a camera, but the camera is set as ISO100, the user is bluffing the camera into thinking that ISO100 film is loaded instead of ISO200. Hence, the camera thinks it has less sensitive film in it, and will expose the images longer by 1 stop, resulting in over-exposure by 1 stop.

The deliberate over-exposure of colour negative print films by 0.5 or 1 stop to obtain more vibrant/richer colour is only experienced in the print, that is, the photos. You can't see the benefits of vibrant/richer colour just by looking at the negatives.

The reason for this slight (and I emphasise, slight) improvement is because the user's deliberate over-exposure will be countered/adjusted by the lab operator, or even automatically by the software in the film scanner/reader, by darkening the image slightly. When this happens, the colours of the image on the photo looks more vibrant/richer, and the image on the photo also possibly looks more contrasty. This I personally know because I work in a photo lab.
 

#7
Jemapela said:
The deliberate over-exposure of colour negative print films by 0.5 or 1 stop to obtain more vibrant/richer colour is only experienced in the print, that is, the photos. You can't see the benefits of vibrant/richer colour just by looking at the negatives.

The reason for this slight (and I emphasise, slight) improvement is because the user's deliberate over-exposure will be countered/adjusted by the lab operator, or even automatically by the software in the film scanner/reader, by darkening the image slightly. When this happens, the colours of the image on the photo looks more vibrant/richer, and the image on the photo also possibly looks more contrasty. This I personally know because I work in a photo lab.
I've read somewhere that for slides, WYSIWYG, hence it is unforgiving towards exposure errors, unlike negatives?

correct me if i'm wrong
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#9
catchlights said:
yes, you have to be accurate about your exposures.
But exposure is not absolute. Exposure is about creativity and what do you want to achieve or tell about your photo.

For example: How to take a good sunset or sunrise photo if we want to stick to the correct exposure?

Regards,
Arto.
 

Caspere

New Member
Jul 27, 2003
1,316
0
0
East Side
gallery.clubsnap.com
#11
+evenstar said:
yes, u misunderstood catchlight's meaning.

for slide film, once ur exposure is off, there's nothing a photo lab can do about it. for negatives, the photolab can still help u adjust it.
If you want to print either the negative or the slide, the lab/printer can help somewhat.

There is nothing the lab can do for the original slide or negative.
 

Jun 13, 2006
10
0
0
#12
Thank you thank you thank you!
That clears up so much :)
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#13
Artosoft said:
But exposure is not absolute. Exposure is about creativity and what do you want to achieve or tell about your photo.

For example: How to take a good sunset or sunrise photo if we want to stick to the correct exposure?

Regards,
Arto.
Thanks to +evenstar and Caspere for explaining

What do I mean expose it accurately? is expose the trans to the way you want it, be it high key or low key.
No agar agar.

once the exposure is off, you have little chance to salvage it on the transparency.

Of causes negative film have greater exposure latitude.
 

Jemapela

New Member
Feb 20, 2005
791
0
0
Melbourne
www.jemapela.com
#14
+evenstar said:
I've read somewhere that for slides, WYSIWYG, hence it is unforgiving towards exposure errors, unlike negatives?

correct me if i'm wrong
Yes, it is correct to say that what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) with slides but that's because slides (or sometimes called as transparencies or positives) are viewable, and mostly viewed, straight off the processed film itself. We pick slides up, hold them against a bright light, put them on a light box, or project them through a projector.

Now, imagine if we could do the same with negatives. In reality we can but we have to smoke some weed or eat space cakes before we see the reversed colours correctly.

However, it is also true that slides/transparencies generally have a narrower exposure lattitude than print/negative films. This fact itself hints that exposure accuracy with slides is important.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom