Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Overexposure (was:OT: Film grain



Absolute density of a C-41 neg doesn't build nearly as quickly as
other film types, which is one of the reasons it has such exposure
latitude.  The range of densities *in the film* itself is less than
chrome and conventionally processed B&W negs, but (and here's the
kicker) C-41 film is capable of recording a greater range of subject
luminosities also.  More information "compacted" (if you will) into a
shorter space.  Which (in theory) makes it a good film for CCD
scanners.  So highlight details even in +1 shots taken in direct sun
(except for speculars of course) should exhibit full detail in a good
CCD scan.

Personally I agree with Roger Miller about correct exposure, and want
to emphasize that the differences in grain structure vs exposure
increases are going to be pretty subtle except where C-41 film veers
toward underexposure.  Think of the manufacture's rating as the
minimum needed to get good full range results.  Overexposing by one
stop, even with exact exposure controls, is still a good idea, even
though the gains may be minimal.  Actually, in practice I usually
overexpose by only 2/3 stop as I feel most of the quality gain has
accrued by that point.  If I need the speed more than the quality
however, I shoot at the rating.

I've yet to shoot and scan Portra, but I've heard it's great stuff.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Allen <ktrout@hotmail.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 10:21 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Overexposure (was:OT: Film grain


> Dave King" wrote:
>
> >...it's not really "overexposing" the film to rate it one
> > > to two stops slower than the manufacture's recommendation.
>
> This might work particularly well in a studio environment, but I'm
wondering
> how it would work in direct sunlight. I'm tempted to try it, to get
better
> shadow definition.
>
> Certainly, one could expect the grain to be less, but would the
trade-off be
> burned-out highlight details?
>
> Best regards--LRA
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.