I would have loved to see it done by half or third stops. And the color not warmed. Ektachrome is utterly unique; old Ektachrome liked about 1/3 - 1/2 underexposure to punch up the color.
This kind of reminds me of how Dean Collins spoke about underexposing E6 slide film half a stop to be able to push it up to one stop in development. Combine this with having a reference roll in a separate magazine and overdevelop this a half stop. After assessing the results of the reference roll, you develop the actual working rolls at box speed, overdevelop a half or full stop for desired results. End results is a roll at -½, ±0 or +½. It makes me wonder what he would say about how to best expose and develop slide film intended for scanning, and how to best scan for further development of the digital file in Lightroom. I reckon there is some merit using the process described above as much of what Dean Collins shot ended up in magazine print in one way or another and involved further steps to get the final product.
On reversal film the silver density is high on the shadows. So in fact its like over exposing a negative film. Having said that, saying that shadows have no information is rather misleading as it is not the thin part of the film.
Kyle McDougall it would also be cool to know specific zone values within the image. Like the grass under the shadow and the red bricks. That way we could have a sense of how well the film performs interpreting the colours and the texture it records.
Speaking only from my experience, I've found that slide film has a lot more dynamic range when scanned to a raw file format instead of JPEG or TIFF (seems like these are TIFF files). I can usually get a few stops of highlight and shadows out of contrasty emulsions like Velvia 50 before I see obnoxiously bad digital sensor noise when I scan with a digital camera on a copy stand and using a light box. It's not going to miraculously save a poorly exposed image, but I've pulled out more highlight and shadow detail than one might expect from a notoriously difficult to expose medium.
Second this, I’ve underexposed Velvia by a stop or 2 before and was able to scan it in and it was perfectly usable when using a digital camera. You can “overexpose” the underexposed film, there’s a bit of a color shift but easily corrected with photoshop curve took
Uhm... I don't wanna sound mean, but there was not that much to find out. 1 minute of googling could tell you that TIFF is a lossless compression, but it still is a compression. No wonder raw it's better for editing
Slide film is kind of unforgiving, it can be temperamental to shoot, especially in high contrast subjects. I liked that you pushed it to the limits. In reality shooting at full stops is a bad practice, but I liked your test. Best practice is shooting in 1/3 or 1/2 stops over/ under. Dean Collins has a video about exposure control through development for slide film. You have much greater control of what the film shows vs. what your mental picture/interpretation, The most It takes is some testing/experimentation to dial the process in but it gives you another tool to have. It is really easy to do if you process film yourself. I will say this: you have to have a lab that monitors its process control rigorously, it can make a simple exposure error into something unusable A truly professional lab can do these little push/ pulls correctly. Once thing I noticed was that it was scanned on a flex tight, good scanner, but falls short compared to a proper drum scan. Of course the caveat there is drum scans are 1)e expensive, 2) have a long turn around time, 3) are very subject to the scanner operators skills and pride in their work. It varies greatly, I'm debating on getting one hour use at home to give me total control from start to finish to s satisfy my OCD. I had a shot that was badly underexposed and only the drum scann could pull the shadow detail out to save the shot. Resolution usually speaks for itself too. Remember all of these were developed at normal time too. With a few process changes it would be a different story. Overall it was a great testl pushing it as far as possible. Good job.
Just watched this and Madison's comment here made me realise I've been listening to your podcast and watching your videos without realising they were both the same you haha :)
That was wonderful, thanks Kyle! Big thing I noticed here was how much nicer the sky was on the under-exposure. The normal and + exposures had just maybe an ok sky. Has me thinking I should use my ND grad filters more then I was with slide (and/or a CP depending on where the sun happens to be).
Yep, I’d agree Tim. Tough scene to expose for with it being such high contrast. Without those deep foreground shadows, a little less exposure would have been perfect.
Just what I needed now! I'm currently experimenting with a bunch of expired slide film. Developing them first in Roodinal, then fogging and devloping them in C41 chemichals. So far I had reasonable sucess, but your video gave me some point of reference. There's not that much experimantion with slide film on youtube...
Can you explain your process a little more and share results? I'm curious. I shoot a lot of slides and develop them at home, but trying new things won't hurt.
I first develop them in 1-100 Rodinal for an hour (stand development) to get the negativ. Then I fog the film to expose the yet undeveloped film. After drying I use the C41 chemicals to process the fogged Film. The chemicals activate the dyes in the fogged (not yet developed parts) and bleach away the silver in the film. The Results aren't perfect and show color-casts and sometimes problems with too dark/bright slides. But I can mostly correct for it in scanning. The last image I posted on Instagram (@annanasauflauf) is developed in this process. You can search online for more detailed instructions, but those are the basics.
I now see why they said to me, in film it's better to overexpose than underexpose, while in digital is the other way around. Still even with a bit overexposed sky , the +1/+2 are giving the result I want for my job. Thanks Kyle. This was the video i wanted to see these days.
In *negative* film it's better to overexpose. For slide film it's the exact opposite. Treat slide film the same as digital - try to get it spot on, but when in doubt, give it 1 or 2 thirds underexposure. In this video there is no 'true white' in the image. But if there would've been a bright white object, it would show up as completely transparent on the slide. You'd look right through the film.
If you're worried about shadow detail, slide film is not for you lol. With a camera scan you can get a LOT out of shadows though if need be. And it's pretty amazing how well E100 holds up to +3 over exposure, there's actually still detail there.
Really like Ektachrome, I much prefer the way it looks through a viewer and projected than scanned however, I felt mine almost had digital colours when scanned, another good vid 👍🏻
Nice one Kyle. Putting in the hard work, sacrificing some film and helping everyone gain a practical sense of how to deal with slide film exposure. Looking forward to the next vid as usual!
Far more latitude than most people give it credit for. I quite like metering for the highlights in a scene with a lot of green and blue so that slight bit of underexposure makes them a bit deeper. Especially the greens, I love putting extra blue into my greens to deepen them.
I’ve had very little experience with Ektachrome. I used to always use Kodachrome Which I loved. I used to expose them about a half stop under to bring out more intense colors.
Thank you - great work, as always! In my experience, you can use reversal film even 2 or more stops underexposed if you adjust for the density during scan.
Great to see another exposure test, Kyle. It has been a while. Hope the UK is treating you ok. Pretty strange times... If you ever come to Yorkshire for a photo shoot, give me a shout! :-)
Super interesting, thanks Kyle. Interestingly, this looks _a lot_ like what I would expect from digital! I've heard people say slide film is like digital before, and this definitely confirms it for me.
Thanks for doing this video! Other slide films would be interesting to review as well. Ektachrome is my primary in documentation but I was amazingly surprised by my luck when pulling Provia by 1 stop, very nice results. I haven’t tried pushing or pulling Ektachrome.
I watched a video the other day that showed Ektachrome pushed by one stop and (I'm saying this loosely) apparently the colour rendering is somewhat close to what Kodachrome used to produce.
I was not a professional film shooter back in the days of Kodachrome so I can not speak definitively about it either but I can imagine there being a lot of truth to that based on the results I’ve gotten from Ektachrome. Thank you for the comment, I’ll have to find that video you mentioned. @@Nyiera
I used to stitch 6x7 slide images by overexposing and underexposing by one stop, for sunsets at the Grand Canyon it worked very well. For evenly light landscapes or landscapes with a 0.5 difference, the best way was to set the GS1 to mirror lock up, F10 and normal exposure with Velvia 50
Excellent Kyle, I used to shoot lots of Ektachrome back in the 70s and 80s because I could process it with E6 at home very easily but I suspect this is a beast of a different colour but that was very helpful so thanks.
Hey man, I'm curious what camera you're using for video, it looks like an alexa, but you're vlogging with, so I'd assume it's blackmagic but it looks so good.
Mentioned at the start that I warmed all of the images up because the scans were quite cool. Must have accidentally pasted over a small shadow adjustment as well, but it’s the same on every image, and minimal.
If you look at a slide on a projector or light table, you may be able to see shadow details more cleanly than they are rendered in your digital scans. The blackest blacks on a slide are designed to block much of the light from a high intensity projector lamp, so many flatbed and lab scanners have a hard time in those dense areas. Drum scanners fare better, but the cost of drum scans is usually exponentially higher. I get the feeling a good digital camera copy stand setup may be able to produce superior results to some other commercial solutions. But if dynamic range is so important to you, you might just take that same digital camera and use it outside instead. All this is to say, I love slides (and E100 actually performs very well in difficult lighting for a slide film. I like to push it 1 or 2 stops sometimes). Just expose (and compose) for the light, and let the shadows fall away. Mount your slides and see them projected. A scan will never compare.
That was a pretty challenging scene to shoot, even with negative film! Honestly, if you want to capture this scene with good shadow detail without blowing out highlights, a digital camera is the way to go.
Every time I watch your videos in front of your setup I hear your mac's fans and feel like mine is running hot, gotta get them checked bro ahhahahha. Anyways thanks for the video. That was very helpful and please continue making more. You inspire man!
My experience with slide film in general (exclusively Fuji), is that 1 or 2 stops of underexposure is completely fine as long as you're projecting it - not scanning it. The projected picture is darker, but i feel like the information in the shadows just doesn't disappear. Have you (or anyone else) tried to project Ektachrome shot in this way?
I never liked the original Ektachrome film back in the day course it always had a greenish / yellowish cast to it. Professional colour slide film from Kodak (Ektachrome 100s, 100SW, 100VS) however was a whole different matter. Almost non - existent grain and amazing colours. All do you still had to nail that exposure perfectly 😁
Kyle, problem with shadows is caused by SCANNER! It's limited dynamic range. Drum scanner can "see" much better in shadows, so from my experience -2EV for Velvia RVP50 is OK, in case you use a drum scanner. Thanks.
I understand why you're judging E100 by digital sensor standards (exposure for details in shadows, etc.). But having shot with Ektachrome in particular since the late 1960s, perhaps I can suggest a different way to think about using the film? In the film-only days, as I recall, the general rule shooting chromes was to meter for highlights and let shadows go. Some of us were heavily influenced by Pete Turner's work, and would expose chromes at 1/3 to 1/2 stop under to boost saturation and contrast. In fact, that's still how I shoot chromes. Your test suggested that outcome at a full stop under. Perhaps it would be more useful to use transparency emulsions in particular for their strengths -- color, saturation and possibly contrast -- while living with their shortcoming, lack of latitude. As your other useful film exposure tests have shown, a contemporary photographer used to digital capture would probably be more comfortable shooting most of today' attractive c-41 films. I enjoy your channel, thanks very much for producing such consistently compelling videos.
Given this was a high contrast sunny day, you would probably not choose to shoot Ektachrome without a Grad. As you bracketed using a tripod, how about merging some of the images in LR as this is often done using digital images to increase dynamic range. I know this "wastes" film but some photographers bracket slide film due to the limited range as shown here. Thanks for the video, very educational.
1+ overexposure actuality looks better imo. I was wondering if it was a good idea to overexposed slide film slightly like you might often do with color negative, guess I got my answer: perhaps.
I heard from a professional from the old days...With slide film, expose for the highlights and don't muck about with the shadows. Enjoy the contrast if it's there. You might lose some information to the shadows, but not EVERY shadow is important to show its detail.
Hi Kyle. I just wondered if you could clarify how you metered in the first instance. I heard you mention something about metering for the sun (maybe I misheard that) but just wondered if you spot metered a particular area then added compensation (e.g. for the brightest highlights) or whether it was an average of the composition.
I scan slide to a 64bit HRD raw DNG file (with Silverfast multi-exposure) using opticfilm 120pro. Then open this DNG file by Photoshop camera raw. The image has a lot of dynamic range. The final results is very good and better than Tiff.
That's a whole other can of worms called pushing and pulling, and it affects overall brightness as well as contrast. As a general rule you aren't going to get more dynamic range from a slide than from standard development and accurate exposure at box speed. Even if you pull(reduce development), you may reduce contrast but you will increase density across the entire image, making noisier scans. Your highlights will still pretty much clip at the same point, too.
Very informative and helpful! My thing is to use freezer stored expired 120 Ektachrome film and I am very happy with the results I get from my photo sessions where I shoot the film at stock iso! Thanks for the video!
It held up quite well! I would really like to see you try this with Provia. I think that has a slightly higher latitude than Ektachrome. I usually expose Ektachrome for highlights, which looks about the same as your "1 stop under" photo. I don't mind crushing shadows, but I usually get plenty of detail anyway. Too bad it's so expensive :-)
Actually ektachrome is supposed to blow out all the fuji film in the latitude department, Provia is even worse than ektachrome you basically expose it at box speed and dont do any stops and you will get a decent to excellent image anything else and you might as well just throw any images out.
@@pilsplease7561 I'm not too familiar with Provia 100, but the old 400 version had much more latitude than Ektachrome. You could comfortably under- and overexpose that film without erasing any detail. I know, I still use it! I guess the 100 version is very different, then? Velvia is notorious for not having any latitude, but I haven't heard that about Provia before.
@@thedondeluxe6941 Yeah velvia 50 is bad you get no latitude at all, and you will mess up images no matter how careful you are at least some images on a roll will come out ruined.
@@thedondeluxe6941 Provia has very little latitude basically half a stop either direction tops. But its more than velvia. And ektachrome is advertised as having as much as 6 stops which is kind of marketing bullshit.
@@pilsplease7561 Yeah, Ektachrome definitely does not have 6 stops! I still use my old stash of Provia 400X from my freezer, but that is sadly discontinued now. It's really great, you can basically just treat it like any basic colour negative film. The latitude isn't as good as Portra of course, but it easily matches Ultramax, Gold and the consumer stuff. Works great for cross processing too. Too bad they stopped making it :-( You could even push process it up to 1600 with great results. I think that was the best slide film ever made.
Aren't you more testing the latitude of the scanner used to scan the film, rather than the actual latitude of the film? If you were actually testing the latitude of the film you'd be changing the development time.
changed development time needs to apply to the whole roll, in which case u also need to know it is under/overexposed in order to push and pull, that would be a test showing how well slide film handles being pushed or pulled intentionally. This is more so to show that if you screwed up and accidentally exposed wrong, if it could be saved in post, without knowing this until AFTER developing in the darkroom/sending out your film to a lab, which happens pretty regularly in real world photography, since metering can be difficult. I think the main goal here was to see how true common beliefs of slide film were. The scanner does affect this yes, but the negatives clearly will have less information within them and im sure he is using quite a professional scanner with a good latitude
@@graydeotto2820 It's very much dependent on the bit-depth and latitude of the scanner itself - that's my point. I appreciate that the goal is to see what could be saved in post - but that isn't so much dependent on the film stock but rather the way it has been digitised. As with any analogue to digital conversion, information will be lost, it's just a matter of how much is perceptibly lost.
@@izzieb You might be able to test it even more precisely by printing the image (with an enlarger), this way for each stop of change you can light the paper for a longer amount of time. It will require way more time (And likely money) to make a video that way though
Izzie it doesn't matter what scanner or technique you employ - the slide/negative either contains the information or it doesn't. This is very much testing the latitude of the filmstock
Knowing that slide film does not have much latitude I would have bracketed in smaller stops, not going more than one under or over. In your test scene you got no bright colors with textures, if you had a white textured surface, with one stop over that would have lost all details.
1. I would never over-expose slide film more than 1/3 or max 1/2 stop, just for special effect. Not even for just a test. 2. I would never under-expose slide film more than 1 stop, to enhance perhaps color saturation, depending on the scene. A test with these max on both sides with 1/3 increments would be meaningful for a test. Above these max, it is just a waist of film, and the shots will go to the bin. That's just me. Free to waist film when you know the results before hand with this medium. This is for any as slide film stock.for me, nothing to learn there. Also, Slide film cost a lot of $$$ nowadays. 3. Ektachrome is already a warm film, compared to Fuji Velvia, or Provia, that I like a lot, no need for me to add any waringSaid that I still like your other videos. We should keep film alive.
