How to choose the correct exposure for flower photography?How do I know I have the correct exposure when shooting in manual mode?How to choose the correct exposure?How is the exposure of this histogram?What is “correct” exposure?How can I get the exposure correct in this picture?How to take unreal looking flower shots?How to set correct exposure in low light conditionHow do I get correct exposure for long shutter times in bulb mode?Exposure level indicator in the top panel not showing correct exposure on Canon 7DMKIIHow do I get rid of the glare in this photo?

How to deal with a colleague who is being aggressive?

Security vulnerabilities of POST over SSL

Can we assume that a hash function with high collision resistance also means highly uniform distribution?

What is the meaning of "<&3" and "done < file11 3< file22"

Time complexity of an algorithm: Is it important to state the base of the logarithm?

Why do Russians almost not use verbs of possession akin to "have"?

Does French have the English "short i" vowel?

How to patch glass cuts in a bicycle tire?

Why did the person in charge of a principality not just declare themself king?

Writing style before Elements of Style

Did this character show any indication of wanting to rule before S8E6?

The art of clickbait captions

Must a warlock replace spells with new spells of exactly their Pact Magic spell slot level?

How to let other coworkers know that I don't share my coworker's political views?

How do I superimpose two math symbols?

What could a self-sustaining lunar colony slowly lose that would ultimately prove fatal?

“Quand même” to mean “anyway”

Grade-school elementary algebra presented in an abstract-algebra style?

Mercedes C180 (W204) dash symbol

USPS Back Room - Trespassing?

What did the 'turbo' button actually do?

Shorten or merge multiple lines of `&> /dev/null &`

How to melt snow without fire or body heat?

My players want to grind XP but we're using landmark advancement



How to choose the correct exposure for flower photography?


How do I know I have the correct exposure when shooting in manual mode?How to choose the correct exposure?How is the exposure of this histogram?What is “correct” exposure?How can I get the exposure correct in this picture?How to take unreal looking flower shots?How to set correct exposure in low light conditionHow do I get correct exposure for long shutter times in bulb mode?Exposure level indicator in the top panel not showing correct exposure on Canon 7DMKIIHow do I get rid of the glare in this photo?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








7















I have an old Minolta X-700 with an MC-Rokkor lens (its internal light metering was broken) and I'd like to use it to take photos of flowers. I use Sunny 16 rule, and though it seems that for the whole picture the exposure is correct, I always lose the sharpness and details of the center of the flowers, which I guess is due to the wrong exposure, because the flowers also reflect the light.



Here are some examples of negative film photos (Kodak Max 100 expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again) developed and scannned by some labs near my home, taken in overcast days, nearly at 4-5pm.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



So how can I fix that? Please help me. Thanks.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 3





    They all feel as though they're focussed slightly behind the main subject to me, so perhaps it's not entirely the exposure.

    – Tetsujin
    May 17 at 11:31






  • 3





    Are these scans of the print, scans of the negative, scans done by a lab ... ?

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:13






  • 1





    If these are prints, who developed the negatives? If it wasn't you, and it wasn't a lab you have unwavering confidence in, it could be that your negs are fine.

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:50







  • 1





    @Knumber10 Do you have any tools to examine the negatives yourself? Do you feel the lab did a good job printing them? (ie: how confident are you that the overexposure happened on the negative?)

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:54






  • 2





    If you don't have a loupe and a light table, hold the negatives up to the sky. Can you see detail in the flowers that didn't make it into the prints?

    – TKK
    May 17 at 19:57

















7















I have an old Minolta X-700 with an MC-Rokkor lens (its internal light metering was broken) and I'd like to use it to take photos of flowers. I use Sunny 16 rule, and though it seems that for the whole picture the exposure is correct, I always lose the sharpness and details of the center of the flowers, which I guess is due to the wrong exposure, because the flowers also reflect the light.



Here are some examples of negative film photos (Kodak Max 100 expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again) developed and scannned by some labs near my home, taken in overcast days, nearly at 4-5pm.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



So how can I fix that? Please help me. Thanks.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 3





    They all feel as though they're focussed slightly behind the main subject to me, so perhaps it's not entirely the exposure.

    – Tetsujin
    May 17 at 11:31






  • 3





    Are these scans of the print, scans of the negative, scans done by a lab ... ?

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:13






  • 1





    If these are prints, who developed the negatives? If it wasn't you, and it wasn't a lab you have unwavering confidence in, it could be that your negs are fine.

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:50







  • 1





    @Knumber10 Do you have any tools to examine the negatives yourself? Do you feel the lab did a good job printing them? (ie: how confident are you that the overexposure happened on the negative?)

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:54






  • 2





    If you don't have a loupe and a light table, hold the negatives up to the sky. Can you see detail in the flowers that didn't make it into the prints?

    – TKK
    May 17 at 19:57













7












7








7








I have an old Minolta X-700 with an MC-Rokkor lens (its internal light metering was broken) and I'd like to use it to take photos of flowers. I use Sunny 16 rule, and though it seems that for the whole picture the exposure is correct, I always lose the sharpness and details of the center of the flowers, which I guess is due to the wrong exposure, because the flowers also reflect the light.



Here are some examples of negative film photos (Kodak Max 100 expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again) developed and scannned by some labs near my home, taken in overcast days, nearly at 4-5pm.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



So how can I fix that? Please help me. Thanks.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I have an old Minolta X-700 with an MC-Rokkor lens (its internal light metering was broken) and I'd like to use it to take photos of flowers. I use Sunny 16 rule, and though it seems that for the whole picture the exposure is correct, I always lose the sharpness and details of the center of the flowers, which I guess is due to the wrong exposure, because the flowers also reflect the light.



Here are some examples of negative film photos (Kodak Max 100 expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again) developed and scannned by some labs near my home, taken in overcast days, nearly at 4-5pm.



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



So how can I fix that? Please help me. Thanks.







exposure lighting lighting-basics






share|improve this question









New contributor



Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 19 at 12:43







Knumber10













New contributor



Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked May 17 at 7:45









Knumber10Knumber10

1365




1365




New contributor



Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Knumber10 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









  • 3





    They all feel as though they're focussed slightly behind the main subject to me, so perhaps it's not entirely the exposure.

    – Tetsujin
    May 17 at 11:31






  • 3





    Are these scans of the print, scans of the negative, scans done by a lab ... ?

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:13






  • 1





    If these are prints, who developed the negatives? If it wasn't you, and it wasn't a lab you have unwavering confidence in, it could be that your negs are fine.

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:50







  • 1





    @Knumber10 Do you have any tools to examine the negatives yourself? Do you feel the lab did a good job printing them? (ie: how confident are you that the overexposure happened on the negative?)

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:54






  • 2





    If you don't have a loupe and a light table, hold the negatives up to the sky. Can you see detail in the flowers that didn't make it into the prints?

    – TKK
    May 17 at 19:57












  • 3





    They all feel as though they're focussed slightly behind the main subject to me, so perhaps it's not entirely the exposure.

    – Tetsujin
    May 17 at 11:31






  • 3





    Are these scans of the print, scans of the negative, scans done by a lab ... ?

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:13






  • 1





    If these are prints, who developed the negatives? If it wasn't you, and it wasn't a lab you have unwavering confidence in, it could be that your negs are fine.

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:50







  • 1





    @Knumber10 Do you have any tools to examine the negatives yourself? Do you feel the lab did a good job printing them? (ie: how confident are you that the overexposure happened on the negative?)

    – J...
    May 17 at 14:54






  • 2





    If you don't have a loupe and a light table, hold the negatives up to the sky. Can you see detail in the flowers that didn't make it into the prints?

    – TKK
    May 17 at 19:57







3




3





They all feel as though they're focussed slightly behind the main subject to me, so perhaps it's not entirely the exposure.

– Tetsujin
May 17 at 11:31





They all feel as though they're focussed slightly behind the main subject to me, so perhaps it's not entirely the exposure.

– Tetsujin
May 17 at 11:31




3




3





Are these scans of the print, scans of the negative, scans done by a lab ... ?

– xiota
May 17 at 13:13





Are these scans of the print, scans of the negative, scans done by a lab ... ?

– xiota
May 17 at 13:13




1




1





If these are prints, who developed the negatives? If it wasn't you, and it wasn't a lab you have unwavering confidence in, it could be that your negs are fine.

– J...
May 17 at 14:50






If these are prints, who developed the negatives? If it wasn't you, and it wasn't a lab you have unwavering confidence in, it could be that your negs are fine.

– J...
May 17 at 14:50





1




1





@Knumber10 Do you have any tools to examine the negatives yourself? Do you feel the lab did a good job printing them? (ie: how confident are you that the overexposure happened on the negative?)

– J...
May 17 at 14:54





@Knumber10 Do you have any tools to examine the negatives yourself? Do you feel the lab did a good job printing them? (ie: how confident are you that the overexposure happened on the negative?)

– J...
May 17 at 14:54




2




2





If you don't have a loupe and a light table, hold the negatives up to the sky. Can you see detail in the flowers that didn't make it into the prints?

– TKK
May 17 at 19:57





If you don't have a loupe and a light table, hold the negatives up to the sky. Can you see detail in the flowers that didn't make it into the prints?

– TKK
May 17 at 19:57










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















9














Seems like you're generally overexposing by maybe half to a full stop. You could just use the sunny 16 rule and stop down from what you get. Your results seem consistent enough to pull that off.



A better idea would be to buy an external incidence meter, such as the Minolta IVF. They run very cheap (<€100) and will, once you get the hang of it, make sure you always get a proper exposure. They're unaffected by reflections, and are therefore far superior to reflective meters such as the one in your camera.



Hope it'll work out!






share|improve this answer

























  • They're not necessarily over exposed. The lab is likely making adjustments for print.

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:12











  • Oh @xiota good point. I never take that into account since I scan myself.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 14:09











  • What about the EV value? Should I keep the aperture configuration and reduce the EV?

    – Knumber10
    May 17 at 14:57






  • 1





    What do you mean? The EV value is your exposure value and is calculated from the ISO and light. It will always output the same exposure, whether at f16 or f1. 4.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 16:05






  • 1





    In the case of overexposure, that would work yes. However, @xiota is making a very valid point here. You might be underexposing and the lab wrongly adjusting instead. Get another camera, and an incidence meter!

    – Tim Stack
    May 19 at 13:12


















6














The sunny 16 rule applies in direct sunlight. These images all appear to be shot on an overcast day or in shade. (Which was wise on your part, as this will generally produce much better looking images of flowers) Shooting with the sunny 16 rule in shade/overcast would cause underexposure. I would agree with @xiota that the lab is compensating for any incorrect exposure. I'm assuming based on the look of these images that you are shooting negative film Take a look at the negatives themselves. I'm guessing that they are very thin. (Compare them to other negatives that are correctly exposed, which will probably be much darker by comparison)



To answer your original question, it's pretty difficult to guess your way through exposure in overcast/shade light. @Tim Stack has the best idea for dealing with this. You could also bring your own light diffuser and intentionally shoot in direct sunlight with the diffuser between your subject and the sun. (Collapsible reflectors with removable covers are a great option) Once you figure out your exposure (probably 1-3 stops under the sunny 16 rule, depending on the distance between the diffuser and the flower) it should be as consistent as the sunny 16 rule itself as long as you keep the distance from the diffuser to the flower about the same. But if you're going to buy something for this purpose, an incident light meter is your best option.






share|improve this answer























  • hell, 40 bucks? I paid maybe 5 for mine from the chinese

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 20:24


















3














One "Grain of salt" point to keep in mind: A camera with an unreliable/out of tune shutter will offer headaches. Applying 'correct exposure' to a camera with an incorrect shutter speed or aperture control will not give you the expected results - If you still see errors in future photos after applying better exposure methods, then explore gear issues. [And remember that some shutter designs may allow correct timings for some settings, but be fast or slow on other settings...]



The first step to getting correct exposure on film is to acknowledge that it is a skill, and that it takes time to develop and refine. We very much don't want anyone getting frustrated and walking away from film thinking that they'll never learn.



The second step is to also acknowledge that the methods which work for some don't always work for everyone. So you will want to explore options for picking an exposure, and learn what works for you.



The third step is to remember that mistakes happen, even after you think you should probably know better, and that's totally okay. [At least that is my excuse for forgetting to change my meter's ISO setting the other week after I ran out of ISO 400 HP5 film, and switched to ISO 125 FP4...]




On to actual useful content:



As said in other answers, the images do show traits of under exposure and then over-compensation. Your lab might be able to help you out and redo the scans/prints, but there is only so much that can be done with negatives if they drift too far 'out of spec'.



  • You may be better off looking at these as experiments or lessons, and moving forward with your next rolls of film, instead of trying too hard to save these. There is little joy to be had in chasing 'fix it in post' on most images unless they hold some especially important value to you.

Sunny 16 works great for a general ballpark, and is pretty reliable to work with in black and white film, but may catch you up a bit more when working with colour film. And this is especially true if you're attempting to use it with colour reversal [slides] films, which are even less forgiving.



Switching to an active metering method, at least until you gain more confidence in "visual metering", would be advisable.




I would strongly advise photographers invest in an incident light meter, especially when using film. These are external meters that measure the light falling on the subject. You point it toward where the camera would be in the image [and remember to not cast a shadow on it, or wear overly reflective clothing...] so as to measure the light as it falls on the scene.



This removes the question of 'how much light does the scene reflect', and offers a far more consistent baseline to work off of.



[Personally I've enjoyed the small Gossen digiFlash 2 I've had for a few years, due to how compact and effective it is, but the price when new is a 'tad steep' for the interface.]



Consider looking at used meters for better deals.




Besides an incident meter, the next best options would be to use a digital camera to fine tune your exposure. Camera phones, and even dedicated light meter apps, can be useful here, and are far more practical than lugging a big DSLR along in addition to your film camera.




If you wish to get really advanced and detailed, then it is common to then reach for a Spot Meter, and use Zone System style metering to make sure you have 'exactly' what you're looking for in the highlights and shadows. But that is a very large subject with lots of strong opinions on the matter. [And many argue is best used for advanced black and white photography, and is less useful in general colour photography.]






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you very much for your advice.

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:37


















3














Lot's of great answers already here on exposure, so simply going to add: play to the strengths of your film.



You're using color negative film, no? All color negs handle underexposure...like absolute garbage...but tolerate overexposure very, very well. Up to 3 or 4 stops even! (https://petapixel.com/2018/02/05/test-reveals-exposure-limits-kodak-portra-400-film/)



Sunny 16 is a good ballpark - but if you think the lighting isn't quite that strong, don't be afraid to open up a stop of two as it's far better to err on this side than to underexpose!



Additionally, please check your negative for highlight and shadow detail. I recently asked a lab to cross process and push and then scan a roll and every.single.scan was overexposed - blown out even. I checked the negs and there was plenty of highlight detail in them, the scanner software probably just got confused on something (may have been the x-process) and made an exposure compensation error.



In my case, I'm rescanning at home anyway. In yours, I'd ask the lab to re-scan the images (if you find that the negs look good!).






share|improve this answer























  • Yes, I use color negative films, even expired one: from beginning to the last one is: Kodak Max 100 unknown expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again. I think I really should develop and scan on my own :-)

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:42






  • 1





    @Knumber10 while I think that everyone should do their own B&W processing at home, c-41 is something I’d leave to the lab (though there are at home kits). Scanning is a labor of love. If you don’t love it, it’ll drive you mad ;-). Test the waters before you invest too heavily.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:45






  • 1





    Also, keep in mind that aged film loses speed. Expired ISO400 film may actually now be ISO200. You wouldn’t know unless you did a test strip. Given color negs tolerance for overexposure, I’d simply downrate your expired film by a stop and go shoot.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:53


















1














I joined to answer this-



First, it looks as if you're actually underexposing. For instance your red flower against green has significant grain structure present- that's very common, especially as the lab is going to try and integrate the overall exposure to match an 'average' print.



What you need to do is get out the negatives and look at them. I'm realizing the words are hard here, but the green branches are also way too cyan. It also looks as if it was shot in overcast skies or later in the day/evening, which means the color temperate has probably shifted upwards to 7000k or 8000k. Sky blue is 9300k at noon in shade.



There's a bunch of things going on that's hurting you here. The quickest, and easiest, way to resolve this is to find a lab that can/does process 'chrome' film (E-6). Buy a roll. Find a subject, put your camera on a tripod, and grab a pen and paper. Shoot that subject (similar to what you have been doing) and go from whatever exposure to whatever exposure in 1/2 stops.



Say for instance you have ISO 100 Ektachrome. If you were in direct sunlight (I don't recommend that for flowers) you'd use 1/125'th at f16. (ignore advice right now that says to underexpose for more saturation- what we're doing is finding your 'correct' point). So take 1 photo at that exposure. Then adjust the shutter speed to 1/180th (if you have it), then 1/250th, then 1/380, then 1/500th... then start going down (more exposure)- 1/90th, 1/60th, 1/45th, 1/30th.



Printing photos from negatives (C41) is very hard- and now adays it's almost always done digitally, so you've got algorithms that are manipulating the scans to make 'good prints'.



When you get your slides back you'll see which ones look good and which ones are bad. The good ones- remember- you'll use that exposure going forth as your 'basis' for all future work.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1





    -1 for suggesting that the solution to OP's exposure problem is to switch films. Additionally, finding the "right" exposure on day 1's noon lighting does not have any direct impact on the proper exposure on day 2. Sure, day 1 can be a reference, but the lighting can change dramatically between days, times, and locations. Your suggestion will essentially just get a single good exposure of a subject and then burn the rest of the roll.

    – Hueco
    May 17 at 20:45











  • -1 seems pretty harsh to a new contributor with a great answer :(

    – mattdm
    May 17 at 23:29






  • 1





    @mattdm the portion of this answer that talks about lab corrections is money. However, suggesting that OP, who is having exposure problems, switch to a less forgiving film is just plain bad advice. So too is the advice to bracket exposure to find the perfect exposure for daytime for future use.

    – Hueco
    May 18 at 1:56











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Knumber10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108327%2fhow-to-choose-the-correct-exposure-for-flower-photography%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes








5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









9














Seems like you're generally overexposing by maybe half to a full stop. You could just use the sunny 16 rule and stop down from what you get. Your results seem consistent enough to pull that off.



A better idea would be to buy an external incidence meter, such as the Minolta IVF. They run very cheap (<€100) and will, once you get the hang of it, make sure you always get a proper exposure. They're unaffected by reflections, and are therefore far superior to reflective meters such as the one in your camera.



Hope it'll work out!






share|improve this answer

























  • They're not necessarily over exposed. The lab is likely making adjustments for print.

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:12











  • Oh @xiota good point. I never take that into account since I scan myself.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 14:09











  • What about the EV value? Should I keep the aperture configuration and reduce the EV?

    – Knumber10
    May 17 at 14:57






  • 1





    What do you mean? The EV value is your exposure value and is calculated from the ISO and light. It will always output the same exposure, whether at f16 or f1. 4.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 16:05






  • 1





    In the case of overexposure, that would work yes. However, @xiota is making a very valid point here. You might be underexposing and the lab wrongly adjusting instead. Get another camera, and an incidence meter!

    – Tim Stack
    May 19 at 13:12















9














Seems like you're generally overexposing by maybe half to a full stop. You could just use the sunny 16 rule and stop down from what you get. Your results seem consistent enough to pull that off.



A better idea would be to buy an external incidence meter, such as the Minolta IVF. They run very cheap (<€100) and will, once you get the hang of it, make sure you always get a proper exposure. They're unaffected by reflections, and are therefore far superior to reflective meters such as the one in your camera.



Hope it'll work out!






share|improve this answer

























  • They're not necessarily over exposed. The lab is likely making adjustments for print.

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:12











  • Oh @xiota good point. I never take that into account since I scan myself.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 14:09











  • What about the EV value? Should I keep the aperture configuration and reduce the EV?

    – Knumber10
    May 17 at 14:57






  • 1





    What do you mean? The EV value is your exposure value and is calculated from the ISO and light. It will always output the same exposure, whether at f16 or f1. 4.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 16:05






  • 1





    In the case of overexposure, that would work yes. However, @xiota is making a very valid point here. You might be underexposing and the lab wrongly adjusting instead. Get another camera, and an incidence meter!

    – Tim Stack
    May 19 at 13:12













9












9








9







Seems like you're generally overexposing by maybe half to a full stop. You could just use the sunny 16 rule and stop down from what you get. Your results seem consistent enough to pull that off.



A better idea would be to buy an external incidence meter, such as the Minolta IVF. They run very cheap (<€100) and will, once you get the hang of it, make sure you always get a proper exposure. They're unaffected by reflections, and are therefore far superior to reflective meters such as the one in your camera.



Hope it'll work out!






share|improve this answer















Seems like you're generally overexposing by maybe half to a full stop. You could just use the sunny 16 rule and stop down from what you get. Your results seem consistent enough to pull that off.



A better idea would be to buy an external incidence meter, such as the Minolta IVF. They run very cheap (<€100) and will, once you get the hang of it, make sure you always get a proper exposure. They're unaffected by reflections, and are therefore far superior to reflective meters such as the one in your camera.



Hope it'll work out!







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 17 at 9:11

























answered May 17 at 9:00









Tim StackTim Stack

736114




736114












  • They're not necessarily over exposed. The lab is likely making adjustments for print.

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:12











  • Oh @xiota good point. I never take that into account since I scan myself.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 14:09











  • What about the EV value? Should I keep the aperture configuration and reduce the EV?

    – Knumber10
    May 17 at 14:57






  • 1





    What do you mean? The EV value is your exposure value and is calculated from the ISO and light. It will always output the same exposure, whether at f16 or f1. 4.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 16:05






  • 1





    In the case of overexposure, that would work yes. However, @xiota is making a very valid point here. You might be underexposing and the lab wrongly adjusting instead. Get another camera, and an incidence meter!

    – Tim Stack
    May 19 at 13:12

















  • They're not necessarily over exposed. The lab is likely making adjustments for print.

    – xiota
    May 17 at 13:12











  • Oh @xiota good point. I never take that into account since I scan myself.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 14:09











  • What about the EV value? Should I keep the aperture configuration and reduce the EV?

    – Knumber10
    May 17 at 14:57






  • 1





    What do you mean? The EV value is your exposure value and is calculated from the ISO and light. It will always output the same exposure, whether at f16 or f1. 4.

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 16:05






  • 1





    In the case of overexposure, that would work yes. However, @xiota is making a very valid point here. You might be underexposing and the lab wrongly adjusting instead. Get another camera, and an incidence meter!

    – Tim Stack
    May 19 at 13:12
















They're not necessarily over exposed. The lab is likely making adjustments for print.

– xiota
May 17 at 13:12





They're not necessarily over exposed. The lab is likely making adjustments for print.

– xiota
May 17 at 13:12













Oh @xiota good point. I never take that into account since I scan myself.

– Tim Stack
May 17 at 14:09





Oh @xiota good point. I never take that into account since I scan myself.

– Tim Stack
May 17 at 14:09













What about the EV value? Should I keep the aperture configuration and reduce the EV?

– Knumber10
May 17 at 14:57





What about the EV value? Should I keep the aperture configuration and reduce the EV?

– Knumber10
May 17 at 14:57




1




1





What do you mean? The EV value is your exposure value and is calculated from the ISO and light. It will always output the same exposure, whether at f16 or f1. 4.

– Tim Stack
May 17 at 16:05





What do you mean? The EV value is your exposure value and is calculated from the ISO and light. It will always output the same exposure, whether at f16 or f1. 4.

– Tim Stack
May 17 at 16:05




1




1





In the case of overexposure, that would work yes. However, @xiota is making a very valid point here. You might be underexposing and the lab wrongly adjusting instead. Get another camera, and an incidence meter!

– Tim Stack
May 19 at 13:12





In the case of overexposure, that would work yes. However, @xiota is making a very valid point here. You might be underexposing and the lab wrongly adjusting instead. Get another camera, and an incidence meter!

– Tim Stack
May 19 at 13:12













6














The sunny 16 rule applies in direct sunlight. These images all appear to be shot on an overcast day or in shade. (Which was wise on your part, as this will generally produce much better looking images of flowers) Shooting with the sunny 16 rule in shade/overcast would cause underexposure. I would agree with @xiota that the lab is compensating for any incorrect exposure. I'm assuming based on the look of these images that you are shooting negative film Take a look at the negatives themselves. I'm guessing that they are very thin. (Compare them to other negatives that are correctly exposed, which will probably be much darker by comparison)



To answer your original question, it's pretty difficult to guess your way through exposure in overcast/shade light. @Tim Stack has the best idea for dealing with this. You could also bring your own light diffuser and intentionally shoot in direct sunlight with the diffuser between your subject and the sun. (Collapsible reflectors with removable covers are a great option) Once you figure out your exposure (probably 1-3 stops under the sunny 16 rule, depending on the distance between the diffuser and the flower) it should be as consistent as the sunny 16 rule itself as long as you keep the distance from the diffuser to the flower about the same. But if you're going to buy something for this purpose, an incident light meter is your best option.






share|improve this answer























  • hell, 40 bucks? I paid maybe 5 for mine from the chinese

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 20:24















6














The sunny 16 rule applies in direct sunlight. These images all appear to be shot on an overcast day or in shade. (Which was wise on your part, as this will generally produce much better looking images of flowers) Shooting with the sunny 16 rule in shade/overcast would cause underexposure. I would agree with @xiota that the lab is compensating for any incorrect exposure. I'm assuming based on the look of these images that you are shooting negative film Take a look at the negatives themselves. I'm guessing that they are very thin. (Compare them to other negatives that are correctly exposed, which will probably be much darker by comparison)



To answer your original question, it's pretty difficult to guess your way through exposure in overcast/shade light. @Tim Stack has the best idea for dealing with this. You could also bring your own light diffuser and intentionally shoot in direct sunlight with the diffuser between your subject and the sun. (Collapsible reflectors with removable covers are a great option) Once you figure out your exposure (probably 1-3 stops under the sunny 16 rule, depending on the distance between the diffuser and the flower) it should be as consistent as the sunny 16 rule itself as long as you keep the distance from the diffuser to the flower about the same. But if you're going to buy something for this purpose, an incident light meter is your best option.






share|improve this answer























  • hell, 40 bucks? I paid maybe 5 for mine from the chinese

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 20:24













6












6








6







The sunny 16 rule applies in direct sunlight. These images all appear to be shot on an overcast day or in shade. (Which was wise on your part, as this will generally produce much better looking images of flowers) Shooting with the sunny 16 rule in shade/overcast would cause underexposure. I would agree with @xiota that the lab is compensating for any incorrect exposure. I'm assuming based on the look of these images that you are shooting negative film Take a look at the negatives themselves. I'm guessing that they are very thin. (Compare them to other negatives that are correctly exposed, which will probably be much darker by comparison)



To answer your original question, it's pretty difficult to guess your way through exposure in overcast/shade light. @Tim Stack has the best idea for dealing with this. You could also bring your own light diffuser and intentionally shoot in direct sunlight with the diffuser between your subject and the sun. (Collapsible reflectors with removable covers are a great option) Once you figure out your exposure (probably 1-3 stops under the sunny 16 rule, depending on the distance between the diffuser and the flower) it should be as consistent as the sunny 16 rule itself as long as you keep the distance from the diffuser to the flower about the same. But if you're going to buy something for this purpose, an incident light meter is your best option.






share|improve this answer













The sunny 16 rule applies in direct sunlight. These images all appear to be shot on an overcast day or in shade. (Which was wise on your part, as this will generally produce much better looking images of flowers) Shooting with the sunny 16 rule in shade/overcast would cause underexposure. I would agree with @xiota that the lab is compensating for any incorrect exposure. I'm assuming based on the look of these images that you are shooting negative film Take a look at the negatives themselves. I'm guessing that they are very thin. (Compare them to other negatives that are correctly exposed, which will probably be much darker by comparison)



To answer your original question, it's pretty difficult to guess your way through exposure in overcast/shade light. @Tim Stack has the best idea for dealing with this. You could also bring your own light diffuser and intentionally shoot in direct sunlight with the diffuser between your subject and the sun. (Collapsible reflectors with removable covers are a great option) Once you figure out your exposure (probably 1-3 stops under the sunny 16 rule, depending on the distance between the diffuser and the flower) it should be as consistent as the sunny 16 rule itself as long as you keep the distance from the diffuser to the flower about the same. But if you're going to buy something for this purpose, an incident light meter is your best option.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered May 17 at 14:09









Phil AndersonPhil Anderson

1345




1345












  • hell, 40 bucks? I paid maybe 5 for mine from the chinese

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 20:24

















  • hell, 40 bucks? I paid maybe 5 for mine from the chinese

    – Tim Stack
    May 17 at 20:24
















hell, 40 bucks? I paid maybe 5 for mine from the chinese

– Tim Stack
May 17 at 20:24





hell, 40 bucks? I paid maybe 5 for mine from the chinese

– Tim Stack
May 17 at 20:24











3














One "Grain of salt" point to keep in mind: A camera with an unreliable/out of tune shutter will offer headaches. Applying 'correct exposure' to a camera with an incorrect shutter speed or aperture control will not give you the expected results - If you still see errors in future photos after applying better exposure methods, then explore gear issues. [And remember that some shutter designs may allow correct timings for some settings, but be fast or slow on other settings...]



The first step to getting correct exposure on film is to acknowledge that it is a skill, and that it takes time to develop and refine. We very much don't want anyone getting frustrated and walking away from film thinking that they'll never learn.



The second step is to also acknowledge that the methods which work for some don't always work for everyone. So you will want to explore options for picking an exposure, and learn what works for you.



The third step is to remember that mistakes happen, even after you think you should probably know better, and that's totally okay. [At least that is my excuse for forgetting to change my meter's ISO setting the other week after I ran out of ISO 400 HP5 film, and switched to ISO 125 FP4...]




On to actual useful content:



As said in other answers, the images do show traits of under exposure and then over-compensation. Your lab might be able to help you out and redo the scans/prints, but there is only so much that can be done with negatives if they drift too far 'out of spec'.



  • You may be better off looking at these as experiments or lessons, and moving forward with your next rolls of film, instead of trying too hard to save these. There is little joy to be had in chasing 'fix it in post' on most images unless they hold some especially important value to you.

Sunny 16 works great for a general ballpark, and is pretty reliable to work with in black and white film, but may catch you up a bit more when working with colour film. And this is especially true if you're attempting to use it with colour reversal [slides] films, which are even less forgiving.



Switching to an active metering method, at least until you gain more confidence in "visual metering", would be advisable.




I would strongly advise photographers invest in an incident light meter, especially when using film. These are external meters that measure the light falling on the subject. You point it toward where the camera would be in the image [and remember to not cast a shadow on it, or wear overly reflective clothing...] so as to measure the light as it falls on the scene.



This removes the question of 'how much light does the scene reflect', and offers a far more consistent baseline to work off of.



[Personally I've enjoyed the small Gossen digiFlash 2 I've had for a few years, due to how compact and effective it is, but the price when new is a 'tad steep' for the interface.]



Consider looking at used meters for better deals.




Besides an incident meter, the next best options would be to use a digital camera to fine tune your exposure. Camera phones, and even dedicated light meter apps, can be useful here, and are far more practical than lugging a big DSLR along in addition to your film camera.




If you wish to get really advanced and detailed, then it is common to then reach for a Spot Meter, and use Zone System style metering to make sure you have 'exactly' what you're looking for in the highlights and shadows. But that is a very large subject with lots of strong opinions on the matter. [And many argue is best used for advanced black and white photography, and is less useful in general colour photography.]






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you very much for your advice.

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:37















3














One "Grain of salt" point to keep in mind: A camera with an unreliable/out of tune shutter will offer headaches. Applying 'correct exposure' to a camera with an incorrect shutter speed or aperture control will not give you the expected results - If you still see errors in future photos after applying better exposure methods, then explore gear issues. [And remember that some shutter designs may allow correct timings for some settings, but be fast or slow on other settings...]



The first step to getting correct exposure on film is to acknowledge that it is a skill, and that it takes time to develop and refine. We very much don't want anyone getting frustrated and walking away from film thinking that they'll never learn.



The second step is to also acknowledge that the methods which work for some don't always work for everyone. So you will want to explore options for picking an exposure, and learn what works for you.



The third step is to remember that mistakes happen, even after you think you should probably know better, and that's totally okay. [At least that is my excuse for forgetting to change my meter's ISO setting the other week after I ran out of ISO 400 HP5 film, and switched to ISO 125 FP4...]




On to actual useful content:



As said in other answers, the images do show traits of under exposure and then over-compensation. Your lab might be able to help you out and redo the scans/prints, but there is only so much that can be done with negatives if they drift too far 'out of spec'.



  • You may be better off looking at these as experiments or lessons, and moving forward with your next rolls of film, instead of trying too hard to save these. There is little joy to be had in chasing 'fix it in post' on most images unless they hold some especially important value to you.

Sunny 16 works great for a general ballpark, and is pretty reliable to work with in black and white film, but may catch you up a bit more when working with colour film. And this is especially true if you're attempting to use it with colour reversal [slides] films, which are even less forgiving.



Switching to an active metering method, at least until you gain more confidence in "visual metering", would be advisable.




I would strongly advise photographers invest in an incident light meter, especially when using film. These are external meters that measure the light falling on the subject. You point it toward where the camera would be in the image [and remember to not cast a shadow on it, or wear overly reflective clothing...] so as to measure the light as it falls on the scene.



This removes the question of 'how much light does the scene reflect', and offers a far more consistent baseline to work off of.



[Personally I've enjoyed the small Gossen digiFlash 2 I've had for a few years, due to how compact and effective it is, but the price when new is a 'tad steep' for the interface.]



Consider looking at used meters for better deals.




Besides an incident meter, the next best options would be to use a digital camera to fine tune your exposure. Camera phones, and even dedicated light meter apps, can be useful here, and are far more practical than lugging a big DSLR along in addition to your film camera.




If you wish to get really advanced and detailed, then it is common to then reach for a Spot Meter, and use Zone System style metering to make sure you have 'exactly' what you're looking for in the highlights and shadows. But that is a very large subject with lots of strong opinions on the matter. [And many argue is best used for advanced black and white photography, and is less useful in general colour photography.]






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you very much for your advice.

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:37













3












3








3







One "Grain of salt" point to keep in mind: A camera with an unreliable/out of tune shutter will offer headaches. Applying 'correct exposure' to a camera with an incorrect shutter speed or aperture control will not give you the expected results - If you still see errors in future photos after applying better exposure methods, then explore gear issues. [And remember that some shutter designs may allow correct timings for some settings, but be fast or slow on other settings...]



The first step to getting correct exposure on film is to acknowledge that it is a skill, and that it takes time to develop and refine. We very much don't want anyone getting frustrated and walking away from film thinking that they'll never learn.



The second step is to also acknowledge that the methods which work for some don't always work for everyone. So you will want to explore options for picking an exposure, and learn what works for you.



The third step is to remember that mistakes happen, even after you think you should probably know better, and that's totally okay. [At least that is my excuse for forgetting to change my meter's ISO setting the other week after I ran out of ISO 400 HP5 film, and switched to ISO 125 FP4...]




On to actual useful content:



As said in other answers, the images do show traits of under exposure and then over-compensation. Your lab might be able to help you out and redo the scans/prints, but there is only so much that can be done with negatives if they drift too far 'out of spec'.



  • You may be better off looking at these as experiments or lessons, and moving forward with your next rolls of film, instead of trying too hard to save these. There is little joy to be had in chasing 'fix it in post' on most images unless they hold some especially important value to you.

Sunny 16 works great for a general ballpark, and is pretty reliable to work with in black and white film, but may catch you up a bit more when working with colour film. And this is especially true if you're attempting to use it with colour reversal [slides] films, which are even less forgiving.



Switching to an active metering method, at least until you gain more confidence in "visual metering", would be advisable.




I would strongly advise photographers invest in an incident light meter, especially when using film. These are external meters that measure the light falling on the subject. You point it toward where the camera would be in the image [and remember to not cast a shadow on it, or wear overly reflective clothing...] so as to measure the light as it falls on the scene.



This removes the question of 'how much light does the scene reflect', and offers a far more consistent baseline to work off of.



[Personally I've enjoyed the small Gossen digiFlash 2 I've had for a few years, due to how compact and effective it is, but the price when new is a 'tad steep' for the interface.]



Consider looking at used meters for better deals.




Besides an incident meter, the next best options would be to use a digital camera to fine tune your exposure. Camera phones, and even dedicated light meter apps, can be useful here, and are far more practical than lugging a big DSLR along in addition to your film camera.




If you wish to get really advanced and detailed, then it is common to then reach for a Spot Meter, and use Zone System style metering to make sure you have 'exactly' what you're looking for in the highlights and shadows. But that is a very large subject with lots of strong opinions on the matter. [And many argue is best used for advanced black and white photography, and is less useful in general colour photography.]






share|improve this answer













One "Grain of salt" point to keep in mind: A camera with an unreliable/out of tune shutter will offer headaches. Applying 'correct exposure' to a camera with an incorrect shutter speed or aperture control will not give you the expected results - If you still see errors in future photos after applying better exposure methods, then explore gear issues. [And remember that some shutter designs may allow correct timings for some settings, but be fast or slow on other settings...]



The first step to getting correct exposure on film is to acknowledge that it is a skill, and that it takes time to develop and refine. We very much don't want anyone getting frustrated and walking away from film thinking that they'll never learn.



The second step is to also acknowledge that the methods which work for some don't always work for everyone. So you will want to explore options for picking an exposure, and learn what works for you.



The third step is to remember that mistakes happen, even after you think you should probably know better, and that's totally okay. [At least that is my excuse for forgetting to change my meter's ISO setting the other week after I ran out of ISO 400 HP5 film, and switched to ISO 125 FP4...]




On to actual useful content:



As said in other answers, the images do show traits of under exposure and then over-compensation. Your lab might be able to help you out and redo the scans/prints, but there is only so much that can be done with negatives if they drift too far 'out of spec'.



  • You may be better off looking at these as experiments or lessons, and moving forward with your next rolls of film, instead of trying too hard to save these. There is little joy to be had in chasing 'fix it in post' on most images unless they hold some especially important value to you.

Sunny 16 works great for a general ballpark, and is pretty reliable to work with in black and white film, but may catch you up a bit more when working with colour film. And this is especially true if you're attempting to use it with colour reversal [slides] films, which are even less forgiving.



Switching to an active metering method, at least until you gain more confidence in "visual metering", would be advisable.




I would strongly advise photographers invest in an incident light meter, especially when using film. These are external meters that measure the light falling on the subject. You point it toward where the camera would be in the image [and remember to not cast a shadow on it, or wear overly reflective clothing...] so as to measure the light as it falls on the scene.



This removes the question of 'how much light does the scene reflect', and offers a far more consistent baseline to work off of.



[Personally I've enjoyed the small Gossen digiFlash 2 I've had for a few years, due to how compact and effective it is, but the price when new is a 'tad steep' for the interface.]



Consider looking at used meters for better deals.




Besides an incident meter, the next best options would be to use a digital camera to fine tune your exposure. Camera phones, and even dedicated light meter apps, can be useful here, and are far more practical than lugging a big DSLR along in addition to your film camera.




If you wish to get really advanced and detailed, then it is common to then reach for a Spot Meter, and use Zone System style metering to make sure you have 'exactly' what you're looking for in the highlights and shadows. But that is a very large subject with lots of strong opinions on the matter. [And many argue is best used for advanced black and white photography, and is less useful in general colour photography.]







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered May 17 at 16:36









TheLucklessTheLuckless

1,39526




1,39526












  • Thank you very much for your advice.

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:37

















  • Thank you very much for your advice.

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:37
















Thank you very much for your advice.

– Knumber10
May 19 at 12:37





Thank you very much for your advice.

– Knumber10
May 19 at 12:37











3














Lot's of great answers already here on exposure, so simply going to add: play to the strengths of your film.



You're using color negative film, no? All color negs handle underexposure...like absolute garbage...but tolerate overexposure very, very well. Up to 3 or 4 stops even! (https://petapixel.com/2018/02/05/test-reveals-exposure-limits-kodak-portra-400-film/)



Sunny 16 is a good ballpark - but if you think the lighting isn't quite that strong, don't be afraid to open up a stop of two as it's far better to err on this side than to underexpose!



Additionally, please check your negative for highlight and shadow detail. I recently asked a lab to cross process and push and then scan a roll and every.single.scan was overexposed - blown out even. I checked the negs and there was plenty of highlight detail in them, the scanner software probably just got confused on something (may have been the x-process) and made an exposure compensation error.



In my case, I'm rescanning at home anyway. In yours, I'd ask the lab to re-scan the images (if you find that the negs look good!).






share|improve this answer























  • Yes, I use color negative films, even expired one: from beginning to the last one is: Kodak Max 100 unknown expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again. I think I really should develop and scan on my own :-)

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:42






  • 1





    @Knumber10 while I think that everyone should do their own B&W processing at home, c-41 is something I’d leave to the lab (though there are at home kits). Scanning is a labor of love. If you don’t love it, it’ll drive you mad ;-). Test the waters before you invest too heavily.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:45






  • 1





    Also, keep in mind that aged film loses speed. Expired ISO400 film may actually now be ISO200. You wouldn’t know unless you did a test strip. Given color negs tolerance for overexposure, I’d simply downrate your expired film by a stop and go shoot.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:53















3














Lot's of great answers already here on exposure, so simply going to add: play to the strengths of your film.



You're using color negative film, no? All color negs handle underexposure...like absolute garbage...but tolerate overexposure very, very well. Up to 3 or 4 stops even! (https://petapixel.com/2018/02/05/test-reveals-exposure-limits-kodak-portra-400-film/)



Sunny 16 is a good ballpark - but if you think the lighting isn't quite that strong, don't be afraid to open up a stop of two as it's far better to err on this side than to underexpose!



Additionally, please check your negative for highlight and shadow detail. I recently asked a lab to cross process and push and then scan a roll and every.single.scan was overexposed - blown out even. I checked the negs and there was plenty of highlight detail in them, the scanner software probably just got confused on something (may have been the x-process) and made an exposure compensation error.



In my case, I'm rescanning at home anyway. In yours, I'd ask the lab to re-scan the images (if you find that the negs look good!).






share|improve this answer























  • Yes, I use color negative films, even expired one: from beginning to the last one is: Kodak Max 100 unknown expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again. I think I really should develop and scan on my own :-)

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:42






  • 1





    @Knumber10 while I think that everyone should do their own B&W processing at home, c-41 is something I’d leave to the lab (though there are at home kits). Scanning is a labor of love. If you don’t love it, it’ll drive you mad ;-). Test the waters before you invest too heavily.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:45






  • 1





    Also, keep in mind that aged film loses speed. Expired ISO400 film may actually now be ISO200. You wouldn’t know unless you did a test strip. Given color negs tolerance for overexposure, I’d simply downrate your expired film by a stop and go shoot.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:53













3












3








3







Lot's of great answers already here on exposure, so simply going to add: play to the strengths of your film.



You're using color negative film, no? All color negs handle underexposure...like absolute garbage...but tolerate overexposure very, very well. Up to 3 or 4 stops even! (https://petapixel.com/2018/02/05/test-reveals-exposure-limits-kodak-portra-400-film/)



Sunny 16 is a good ballpark - but if you think the lighting isn't quite that strong, don't be afraid to open up a stop of two as it's far better to err on this side than to underexpose!



Additionally, please check your negative for highlight and shadow detail. I recently asked a lab to cross process and push and then scan a roll and every.single.scan was overexposed - blown out even. I checked the negs and there was plenty of highlight detail in them, the scanner software probably just got confused on something (may have been the x-process) and made an exposure compensation error.



In my case, I'm rescanning at home anyway. In yours, I'd ask the lab to re-scan the images (if you find that the negs look good!).






share|improve this answer













Lot's of great answers already here on exposure, so simply going to add: play to the strengths of your film.



You're using color negative film, no? All color negs handle underexposure...like absolute garbage...but tolerate overexposure very, very well. Up to 3 or 4 stops even! (https://petapixel.com/2018/02/05/test-reveals-exposure-limits-kodak-portra-400-film/)



Sunny 16 is a good ballpark - but if you think the lighting isn't quite that strong, don't be afraid to open up a stop of two as it's far better to err on this side than to underexpose!



Additionally, please check your negative for highlight and shadow detail. I recently asked a lab to cross process and push and then scan a roll and every.single.scan was overexposed - blown out even. I checked the negs and there was plenty of highlight detail in them, the scanner software probably just got confused on something (may have been the x-process) and made an exposure compensation error.



In my case, I'm rescanning at home anyway. In yours, I'd ask the lab to re-scan the images (if you find that the negs look good!).







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered May 17 at 17:45









HuecoHueco

13.2k32861




13.2k32861












  • Yes, I use color negative films, even expired one: from beginning to the last one is: Kodak Max 100 unknown expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again. I think I really should develop and scan on my own :-)

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:42






  • 1





    @Knumber10 while I think that everyone should do their own B&W processing at home, c-41 is something I’d leave to the lab (though there are at home kits). Scanning is a labor of love. If you don’t love it, it’ll drive you mad ;-). Test the waters before you invest too heavily.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:45






  • 1





    Also, keep in mind that aged film loses speed. Expired ISO400 film may actually now be ISO200. You wouldn’t know unless you did a test strip. Given color negs tolerance for overexposure, I’d simply downrate your expired film by a stop and go shoot.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:53

















  • Yes, I use color negative films, even expired one: from beginning to the last one is: Kodak Max 100 unknown expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again. I think I really should develop and scan on my own :-)

    – Knumber10
    May 19 at 12:42






  • 1





    @Knumber10 while I think that everyone should do their own B&W processing at home, c-41 is something I’d leave to the lab (though there are at home kits). Scanning is a labor of love. If you don’t love it, it’ll drive you mad ;-). Test the waters before you invest too heavily.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:45






  • 1





    Also, keep in mind that aged film loses speed. Expired ISO400 film may actually now be ISO200. You wouldn’t know unless you did a test strip. Given color negs tolerance for overexposure, I’d simply downrate your expired film by a stop and go shoot.

    – Hueco
    May 19 at 14:53
















Yes, I use color negative films, even expired one: from beginning to the last one is: Kodak Max 100 unknown expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again. I think I really should develop and scan on my own :-)

– Knumber10
May 19 at 12:42





Yes, I use color negative films, even expired one: from beginning to the last one is: Kodak Max 100 unknown expired, Agfa Vista 200, Kodak Vision 2 250D, and Agfa Vista again. I think I really should develop and scan on my own :-)

– Knumber10
May 19 at 12:42




1




1





@Knumber10 while I think that everyone should do their own B&W processing at home, c-41 is something I’d leave to the lab (though there are at home kits). Scanning is a labor of love. If you don’t love it, it’ll drive you mad ;-). Test the waters before you invest too heavily.

– Hueco
May 19 at 14:45





@Knumber10 while I think that everyone should do their own B&W processing at home, c-41 is something I’d leave to the lab (though there are at home kits). Scanning is a labor of love. If you don’t love it, it’ll drive you mad ;-). Test the waters before you invest too heavily.

– Hueco
May 19 at 14:45




1




1





Also, keep in mind that aged film loses speed. Expired ISO400 film may actually now be ISO200. You wouldn’t know unless you did a test strip. Given color negs tolerance for overexposure, I’d simply downrate your expired film by a stop and go shoot.

– Hueco
May 19 at 14:53





Also, keep in mind that aged film loses speed. Expired ISO400 film may actually now be ISO200. You wouldn’t know unless you did a test strip. Given color negs tolerance for overexposure, I’d simply downrate your expired film by a stop and go shoot.

– Hueco
May 19 at 14:53











1














I joined to answer this-



First, it looks as if you're actually underexposing. For instance your red flower against green has significant grain structure present- that's very common, especially as the lab is going to try and integrate the overall exposure to match an 'average' print.



What you need to do is get out the negatives and look at them. I'm realizing the words are hard here, but the green branches are also way too cyan. It also looks as if it was shot in overcast skies or later in the day/evening, which means the color temperate has probably shifted upwards to 7000k or 8000k. Sky blue is 9300k at noon in shade.



There's a bunch of things going on that's hurting you here. The quickest, and easiest, way to resolve this is to find a lab that can/does process 'chrome' film (E-6). Buy a roll. Find a subject, put your camera on a tripod, and grab a pen and paper. Shoot that subject (similar to what you have been doing) and go from whatever exposure to whatever exposure in 1/2 stops.



Say for instance you have ISO 100 Ektachrome. If you were in direct sunlight (I don't recommend that for flowers) you'd use 1/125'th at f16. (ignore advice right now that says to underexpose for more saturation- what we're doing is finding your 'correct' point). So take 1 photo at that exposure. Then adjust the shutter speed to 1/180th (if you have it), then 1/250th, then 1/380, then 1/500th... then start going down (more exposure)- 1/90th, 1/60th, 1/45th, 1/30th.



Printing photos from negatives (C41) is very hard- and now adays it's almost always done digitally, so you've got algorithms that are manipulating the scans to make 'good prints'.



When you get your slides back you'll see which ones look good and which ones are bad. The good ones- remember- you'll use that exposure going forth as your 'basis' for all future work.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1





    -1 for suggesting that the solution to OP's exposure problem is to switch films. Additionally, finding the "right" exposure on day 1's noon lighting does not have any direct impact on the proper exposure on day 2. Sure, day 1 can be a reference, but the lighting can change dramatically between days, times, and locations. Your suggestion will essentially just get a single good exposure of a subject and then burn the rest of the roll.

    – Hueco
    May 17 at 20:45











  • -1 seems pretty harsh to a new contributor with a great answer :(

    – mattdm
    May 17 at 23:29






  • 1





    @mattdm the portion of this answer that talks about lab corrections is money. However, suggesting that OP, who is having exposure problems, switch to a less forgiving film is just plain bad advice. So too is the advice to bracket exposure to find the perfect exposure for daytime for future use.

    – Hueco
    May 18 at 1:56















1














I joined to answer this-



First, it looks as if you're actually underexposing. For instance your red flower against green has significant grain structure present- that's very common, especially as the lab is going to try and integrate the overall exposure to match an 'average' print.



What you need to do is get out the negatives and look at them. I'm realizing the words are hard here, but the green branches are also way too cyan. It also looks as if it was shot in overcast skies or later in the day/evening, which means the color temperate has probably shifted upwards to 7000k or 8000k. Sky blue is 9300k at noon in shade.



There's a bunch of things going on that's hurting you here. The quickest, and easiest, way to resolve this is to find a lab that can/does process 'chrome' film (E-6). Buy a roll. Find a subject, put your camera on a tripod, and grab a pen and paper. Shoot that subject (similar to what you have been doing) and go from whatever exposure to whatever exposure in 1/2 stops.



Say for instance you have ISO 100 Ektachrome. If you were in direct sunlight (I don't recommend that for flowers) you'd use 1/125'th at f16. (ignore advice right now that says to underexpose for more saturation- what we're doing is finding your 'correct' point). So take 1 photo at that exposure. Then adjust the shutter speed to 1/180th (if you have it), then 1/250th, then 1/380, then 1/500th... then start going down (more exposure)- 1/90th, 1/60th, 1/45th, 1/30th.



Printing photos from negatives (C41) is very hard- and now adays it's almost always done digitally, so you've got algorithms that are manipulating the scans to make 'good prints'.



When you get your slides back you'll see which ones look good and which ones are bad. The good ones- remember- you'll use that exposure going forth as your 'basis' for all future work.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1





    -1 for suggesting that the solution to OP's exposure problem is to switch films. Additionally, finding the "right" exposure on day 1's noon lighting does not have any direct impact on the proper exposure on day 2. Sure, day 1 can be a reference, but the lighting can change dramatically between days, times, and locations. Your suggestion will essentially just get a single good exposure of a subject and then burn the rest of the roll.

    – Hueco
    May 17 at 20:45











  • -1 seems pretty harsh to a new contributor with a great answer :(

    – mattdm
    May 17 at 23:29






  • 1





    @mattdm the portion of this answer that talks about lab corrections is money. However, suggesting that OP, who is having exposure problems, switch to a less forgiving film is just plain bad advice. So too is the advice to bracket exposure to find the perfect exposure for daytime for future use.

    – Hueco
    May 18 at 1:56













1












1








1







I joined to answer this-



First, it looks as if you're actually underexposing. For instance your red flower against green has significant grain structure present- that's very common, especially as the lab is going to try and integrate the overall exposure to match an 'average' print.



What you need to do is get out the negatives and look at them. I'm realizing the words are hard here, but the green branches are also way too cyan. It also looks as if it was shot in overcast skies or later in the day/evening, which means the color temperate has probably shifted upwards to 7000k or 8000k. Sky blue is 9300k at noon in shade.



There's a bunch of things going on that's hurting you here. The quickest, and easiest, way to resolve this is to find a lab that can/does process 'chrome' film (E-6). Buy a roll. Find a subject, put your camera on a tripod, and grab a pen and paper. Shoot that subject (similar to what you have been doing) and go from whatever exposure to whatever exposure in 1/2 stops.



Say for instance you have ISO 100 Ektachrome. If you were in direct sunlight (I don't recommend that for flowers) you'd use 1/125'th at f16. (ignore advice right now that says to underexpose for more saturation- what we're doing is finding your 'correct' point). So take 1 photo at that exposure. Then adjust the shutter speed to 1/180th (if you have it), then 1/250th, then 1/380, then 1/500th... then start going down (more exposure)- 1/90th, 1/60th, 1/45th, 1/30th.



Printing photos from negatives (C41) is very hard- and now adays it's almost always done digitally, so you've got algorithms that are manipulating the scans to make 'good prints'.



When you get your slides back you'll see which ones look good and which ones are bad. The good ones- remember- you'll use that exposure going forth as your 'basis' for all future work.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









I joined to answer this-



First, it looks as if you're actually underexposing. For instance your red flower against green has significant grain structure present- that's very common, especially as the lab is going to try and integrate the overall exposure to match an 'average' print.



What you need to do is get out the negatives and look at them. I'm realizing the words are hard here, but the green branches are also way too cyan. It also looks as if it was shot in overcast skies or later in the day/evening, which means the color temperate has probably shifted upwards to 7000k or 8000k. Sky blue is 9300k at noon in shade.



There's a bunch of things going on that's hurting you here. The quickest, and easiest, way to resolve this is to find a lab that can/does process 'chrome' film (E-6). Buy a roll. Find a subject, put your camera on a tripod, and grab a pen and paper. Shoot that subject (similar to what you have been doing) and go from whatever exposure to whatever exposure in 1/2 stops.



Say for instance you have ISO 100 Ektachrome. If you were in direct sunlight (I don't recommend that for flowers) you'd use 1/125'th at f16. (ignore advice right now that says to underexpose for more saturation- what we're doing is finding your 'correct' point). So take 1 photo at that exposure. Then adjust the shutter speed to 1/180th (if you have it), then 1/250th, then 1/380, then 1/500th... then start going down (more exposure)- 1/90th, 1/60th, 1/45th, 1/30th.



Printing photos from negatives (C41) is very hard- and now adays it's almost always done digitally, so you've got algorithms that are manipulating the scans to make 'good prints'.



When you get your slides back you'll see which ones look good and which ones are bad. The good ones- remember- you'll use that exposure going forth as your 'basis' for all future work.







share|improve this answer








New contributor



purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor



purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








answered May 17 at 17:54









purduephotogpurduephotog

191




191




New contributor



purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




purduephotog is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









  • 1





    -1 for suggesting that the solution to OP's exposure problem is to switch films. Additionally, finding the "right" exposure on day 1's noon lighting does not have any direct impact on the proper exposure on day 2. Sure, day 1 can be a reference, but the lighting can change dramatically between days, times, and locations. Your suggestion will essentially just get a single good exposure of a subject and then burn the rest of the roll.

    – Hueco
    May 17 at 20:45











  • -1 seems pretty harsh to a new contributor with a great answer :(

    – mattdm
    May 17 at 23:29






  • 1





    @mattdm the portion of this answer that talks about lab corrections is money. However, suggesting that OP, who is having exposure problems, switch to a less forgiving film is just plain bad advice. So too is the advice to bracket exposure to find the perfect exposure for daytime for future use.

    – Hueco
    May 18 at 1:56












  • 1





    -1 for suggesting that the solution to OP's exposure problem is to switch films. Additionally, finding the "right" exposure on day 1's noon lighting does not have any direct impact on the proper exposure on day 2. Sure, day 1 can be a reference, but the lighting can change dramatically between days, times, and locations. Your suggestion will essentially just get a single good exposure of a subject and then burn the rest of the roll.

    – Hueco
    May 17 at 20:45











  • -1 seems pretty harsh to a new contributor with a great answer :(

    – mattdm
    May 17 at 23:29






  • 1





    @mattdm the portion of this answer that talks about lab corrections is money. However, suggesting that OP, who is having exposure problems, switch to a less forgiving film is just plain bad advice. So too is the advice to bracket exposure to find the perfect exposure for daytime for future use.

    – Hueco
    May 18 at 1:56







1




1





-1 for suggesting that the solution to OP's exposure problem is to switch films. Additionally, finding the "right" exposure on day 1's noon lighting does not have any direct impact on the proper exposure on day 2. Sure, day 1 can be a reference, but the lighting can change dramatically between days, times, and locations. Your suggestion will essentially just get a single good exposure of a subject and then burn the rest of the roll.

– Hueco
May 17 at 20:45





-1 for suggesting that the solution to OP's exposure problem is to switch films. Additionally, finding the "right" exposure on day 1's noon lighting does not have any direct impact on the proper exposure on day 2. Sure, day 1 can be a reference, but the lighting can change dramatically between days, times, and locations. Your suggestion will essentially just get a single good exposure of a subject and then burn the rest of the roll.

– Hueco
May 17 at 20:45













-1 seems pretty harsh to a new contributor with a great answer :(

– mattdm
May 17 at 23:29





-1 seems pretty harsh to a new contributor with a great answer :(

– mattdm
May 17 at 23:29




1




1





@mattdm the portion of this answer that talks about lab corrections is money. However, suggesting that OP, who is having exposure problems, switch to a less forgiving film is just plain bad advice. So too is the advice to bracket exposure to find the perfect exposure for daytime for future use.

– Hueco
May 18 at 1:56





@mattdm the portion of this answer that talks about lab corrections is money. However, suggesting that OP, who is having exposure problems, switch to a less forgiving film is just plain bad advice. So too is the advice to bracket exposure to find the perfect exposure for daytime for future use.

– Hueco
May 18 at 1:56










Knumber10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Knumber10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Knumber10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Knumber10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108327%2fhow-to-choose-the-correct-exposure-for-flower-photography%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Grendel Contents Story Scholarship Depictions Notes References Navigation menu10.1093/notesj/gjn112Berserkeree

Area configuration aggregation error after install Porto themeMagento 2.1 CE Installed but front/backend not loading/workingCSS not loading on page within Magento 2 pageCannot install module in Magento 2no commands defined in the “setup” namespace. in Magento2Magento 2: Static files are present but shows 404Why do i have to always run the commands to clean cache in Magento 2.1.8?Failure reason: 'Unable to unserialize value.'Error 500 after magento migrationIn production mode the site does not loadMagento 2 : Error 500 after installing

Middle Expansion Olielle Resaix Definition: Uttering songs of triumph shouting with joy triumphant exulting Sejunction Journal 붙다 달 고급 품목 외출 The stretch trades the screeching tin. Definition: The act of speaking with a drawl a drawl Cough Sand Definition: An uproar a quarrel a noisy outbreak Shake Iron Publicize Horse House Baby 사과 Resaix Flaggy Jelly Temporary Unequaled Puppet A drop in the bucket Shrew 성격 회원 성질 미팅 The burn frames the tacky quality. Materialistic The smoke reduces the way. Yammoe Nondescript Cheek 얼굴 배 약하다 날리다 타다 The illegal country shows the iron. Help Rule Drearien Smoke Teaching Meaty Wasp Abraham Lincoln Jaws 진심 수리하다 Size Cork Idea Convert Think Lark John Lennon 거울 청소 군 추천하다 아이스크림