Noob, what film for what? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Tim k

16-Feb-2008, 18:19

anchored

16-Feb-2008, 19:06

Film is not film... each type renders color different than others... each type has its strength and weaknesses... each type does better at some things than at others.

If you're a beginner, I would suggest NOT to start with Velvia, or for that matter any slide film. The reason for this is the latitude of films... most slide films require the exposure to be just about dead-nuts on (within 1/2-stop plus/minus), whereas most negative films gives you about 1-1/2 stops plus/minus of latitude to obtain usable images. I would suggest starting with negative films if you're looking for something useful right off the bat. Velvia provides wonderful images IF the lighting is just right, IF very high saturation levels are needed, IF the exposure calculations are dead-on, and, IF the shadows aren't too deep in the scene.

You're just about right with the procedures.... shoot the film, develop the film, review the film, have the best images scanned, edit the images in PhotoShop (or others), save the image to disk, then have printed. And... be sure to save the straight unedited images!

Maretzo

16-Feb-2008, 19:14

I would start with at least 20 sheets of cheap B&W. Procedures are unforgiving: forget to remove the dark slide, shutter still open, lack of sharpness, etc. will easily eat your first tries. If your camera is not brand new, there could be problems with leaking bellows, inaccurate shutters, etc. etc.
Believe me, I went through all that, not so long ago!:o

Capocheny

16-Feb-2008, 19:17

I am going to be using 4x5. First I would think I should practice with something cheap and forgiving, because I'm probably going to screw up most of it. But my long range goal is to be able to get a large, high quality color print on the wall. My interest is primarily landscapes. I don't intend to do the processing myself .

Here's what I think I know; Use Velvia slide film (do they still call it slide film in 4x5?) then, have the developed film scanned, and then print digitally. Am I close?

Tim K

Hi Tim,

If you're just starting out with 4x5, I'd suggest shooting B&W instead... the cost of of using transparency film is going to be higher.

Then, after you've gotten the hang of using your 4x5, switch to color at that point.

Yes, once you have the transparency you like, then, you can have it scanned and printed. Alternatively, shoot with color negative material and have it printed sans digital.

Lastly, in high-contrast situations, look at using Provia instead of Velvia.

Just my 2 cents worth. :)

Cheers

Gordon Moat

16-Feb-2008, 19:29

You could start with transparency films, take lots of notes, and learn from your mistakes. I would suggest if you go this route, buy some short dated or recently expired (hopefully refrigerated) film instead of getting new film. While negative films will allow more latitude for errors, I don't see much value in allowing more errors. A good set of notes, and transparency film will show errors in a very unforgiving manner. That probably sounds harsh, but it gives you another choice.

You could also get a Polaroid 405 pack film holder (back), and use Fuji FP100C and FP100B. That way you test your exposure settings. These are still more forgiving films than transparency films, but still good learning tools. This is also the fastest way to see what you are doing, right or wrong.

In film choices, I am likely an oddity here at LF Forums, in that I only use two 4x5 films. One is Kodak E100VS, and the other is Fuji Astia 100F. I have used others in the recent past, but I prefer these two, despite they are quite different.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Ted Harris

16-Feb-2008, 19:33

Gordon mentioned Astia and that is what I would recommend for starters as it is, IMO, the most neutral of the transparency film available today.

Terence McDonagh

16-Feb-2008, 21:21

There is a LOT of outdated 4x5 Velvia, Provia, etc on eBay right now.

Jim Becia

17-Feb-2008, 07:49

Tim,

I'm going to disagree with many here and this is why. (Now I am going to make an assumption that you have shot film before in another camera, but even if you haven't, I would still shoot a slide film based on your desire to shoot color landscapes.) Shooting a b&w film will teach you very little in exposing a Velvia or Velvia like film. Both b&w film and color negative films are more forgiving, I'm not sure how that helps you expose Velvia. With a slide film, you will see your exposure mistakes very clearly and you will learn from them. That will not be as clear with b&w and other
color negative films and that will not help you learn how to use Velvia. You will most likely screw up using the camera, however, the type of film you use will be irrelevant. There are many places selling shortdated Velvia 100F in both Quickloads and sheet film that is very reasonable. I would rather practice with a film that I would like to learn to use (or at least something close to it) than with a b&w or color neg film. What's very clear about using a slide film, is that you will clearly see any mistakes in exposure. And yes, you will make many mistakes in the use of your
4x5. Heck, after 8 years, I still make some of the dumbest ones occasionally. But my personal opinion would be use a slide film. Jim

jetcode

17-Feb-2008, 07:57

That's like going to Big Beach in Maui and not getting in because of the danger signs. It's just film and if the OP decides to want Velvia why shouldn't he start there? All slide film is tight when it comes to exposure and what better way to face reality then with the film of choice? I started with slide film long before color negative and survived.

Film is not film... each type renders color different than others... each type has its strength and weaknesses... each type does better at some things than at others.

If you're a beginner, I would suggest NOT to start with Velvia, or for that matter any slide film. The reason for this is the latitude of films... most slide films require the exposure to be just about dead-nuts on (within 1/2-stop plus/minus), whereas most negative films gives you about 1-1/2 stops plus/minus of latitude to obtain usable images. I would suggest starting with negative films if you're looking for something useful right off the bat. Velvia provides wonderful images IF the lighting is just right, IF very high saturation levels are needed, IF the exposure calculations are dead-on, and, IF the shadows aren't too deep in the scene.

You're just about right with the procedures.... shoot the film, develop the film, review the film, have the best images scanned, edit the images in PhotoShop (or others), save the image to disk, then have printed. And... be sure to save the straight unedited images!

jetcode

17-Feb-2008, 07:59

There is a LOT of outdated 4x5 Velvia, Provia, etc on eBay right now.

minus the potential color shift this is a good way to start however if you are going for keepers fresh film guarantees color accuracy

Jim MacKenzie

17-Feb-2008, 08:21

I agree that shooting B&W will teach you nothing about shooting colour transparency film.

It will, however, teach you how to use a large format camera, and that is the big issue here.

Large format is a lot different from smaller formats. It requires a lot of fussiness. :) Lowering the cost of learning is a good thing. When colour transparency film costs dollars a sheet, being able to make a mistake for only 50 cents is a good thing.

I suggest you get some inexpensive black and white film, like Foma 100 (or its no-name equivalent, Arista.EDU Ultra from Freestyle Photo in California). Learn how to use your equipment. Then, when you are confident that you more or less know what you are doing, get your transparency film and have at it.

John Kasaian

17-Feb-2008, 08:23

First, thanks for the advice in my last "stupid question" post I made, you guys are great.

I'm trying to sort things out, one thing at a time. I am just about to the point where I'm actually going to order some film. After looking around a little I'm overwhelmed with the options.

I am going to be using 4x5. First I would think I should practice with something cheap and forgiving, because I'm probably going to screw up most of it. But my long range goal is to be able to get a large, high quality color print on the wall. My interest is primarily landscapes. I don't intend to do the processing myself .

Here's what I think I know; Use Velvia slide film (do they still call it slide film in 4x5?) then, have the developed film scanned, and then print digitally. Am I close?

Thanks again guys
Tim K

What are the advantages to transparency film over print film for your intended application?
I'm just curious since print film is apparently more forgiving. If ciba chrome was still viable I could see the advantage of transparencies, unless you prefer the ultra saturated colors of Velvia.
Perhaps maybe print film would be a better choice unless of course you are devoted to Velvia.

Brian Ellis

17-Feb-2008, 10:01

I met a guy who worked for Morley Baer as an assistant and who learned LF photography from him. When he started out Morley required him to spend a week or two with no film in the camera, just learning to compose, focus, use movements, and learn by looking at the ground glass. Very inexpensive, very useful.

I'd suggest doing something like that before exposing any film, if you haven't already, but once you feel comfortable with your camera I'd just start with the film you plan to eventually use. No sense IMHO in spending time learning how to meter and expose negative film when you'll ultimately use slide film. You're going to be spending a serious amount of money buying 4x5 color slide film and having a lab process it, even more if you plan to have someone else do the scanning, and a whole lot more if you also plan to have a lab make the prints. So what you spend while learning will be a relative drop in the bucket. Just be sure to keep good notes. Hopefully you've used Velvia in a smaller format and have a pretty good idea how to expose it. If not you might consider learning that with 35mm set on manual and using the meter you plan to use for 4x5. I don't know anything about slide film but I assume you can buy the same Velvia in 35mm as well as 4x5.

You can cut down on your mistakes by compiling a check list of each step to take from the time you remove the camera from the bag through returning it to the bag. That way you'll avoid the common dumb mistakes like forgetting to close the shutter before removing the dark slide (my all-time personal favorite), forgetting to set the aperture after focusing with it wide open (a close runner-up), etc. etc.

Bruce Watson

17-Feb-2008, 11:08

Tim,

I hate to say it, but you probably don't know enough yet to make a film choice. It's like trying to figure out what swimming stroke to learn first without getting in the water.

So, in the face of this, the thing to do is get in the water in the least "dangerous" way. And that would be B&W. Why?

1) The big reason is, the more you shoot the better you get. And B&W, being less expensive, will let you, even encourage you, to shoot more. It's easier to take a chance, to shoot something just to see if it turns out the way you think it might, if it doesn't cost you as much to do it. Even if it's not the money, there are psychological benefits.

2) The first shots you make aren't likely going to be keepers anyway. Your "hit rate" will start out low and get better as you shoot more.

3) There are dozens of ways to burn a piece of film -- a proper exposure is just one of them. I'm talking about loading film in a film holder improperly, pulling the darkslide with the shutter open, etc. No point spending more than you have to for these learning experiences.

4) There are lots of ways to meter and decide on exposure settings. One way to learn is give it your best shot, then bracket around it to see which one is best (requires that you keep good notes of course). And it's best to learn this stuff without spending a fortune.

There are more, but I'm sure you see where all this is heading.

What hasn't been discussed is what you are trying to accomplish with your photography. But this will come to you as you learn what you can (and can not) do with a view camera. As you become more competent with the craft your vision will gel and you'll have a better idea of what kind of a workflow will do what you want. You may end up wanting to print in a darkroom. You may end up wanting to scan and print digitially. You may end up working with clients and art directors and farming out most of the processing. And these decisions will have a big impact on what film you use...

Eric Leppanen

17-Feb-2008, 11:31

If you already own or have access to a 35mm film camera, you can relatively cheaply try out and practice with a variety of film types to see what you like. Just dial in the exposure settings using results from your handheld meter (rather than the cameras automatic exposure controls) and write down in your field notes what you did with each frame, and why. You will quickly find out what films and techniques work, and which do not for your type of shooting. This is by far the cheapest and quickest way to learn how to properly expose film IMHO.

Velvia is a very high contrast film, and does not work well with high contrast lighting. If you are a landscaper, for example, and you only shoot during the first few minutes after sunrise or before sunset, or only in overcast, or only in shade (using color compensation filters, that's another story), or only where lighting is completely uniform (no significant shadows) then Velvia is fine. Otherwise Velvia will either blow out highlights and block out shadow areas due to excessive contrast. Astia is the least constrasty slide film (albeit with a relatively accurate color rendition that looks boring compared to a color saturated film), and Provia is "in-between" (more color saturated than Astia while less contrasty than Velvia). If you wish to shoot during the harsh lighting of the mid daylight hours, then no chrome film will fare particularly well, and you are best off shooting low-contrast color neg (Pro 160S, Portra, etc.) which has much greater exposure latitude than slide film (at a cost of reduced color saturation).

Since digitally scanning and printing is effectively the only way to make color prints anymore (few labs still make analog color prints, aside from proofs), film stock selection is less critical than it once was. A good Photoshop operator can do a reasonable job at making Provia look like Velvia, etc. So many folks standardize on a general purpose "middle of the road" film and make desired saturation/contrast adjustments during post processing. West Coasting Imaging (one of the largest fine art digital labs in the U.S.) recommends Provia as such a general purpose film, a good compromise between contrast/color saturation (which can give a photograph a strong sense of drama and texture) and practicality. Personally, I like matching film type to lighting and don't mind carrying several film stocks (lately Velvia/E100VS, Provia, Portra) so that I can pick the one ideal for each shot.

B&W film has the additional advantage of varying contrast via pushing and pulling (less feasible with color film due to color shifts), so usually only one B&W film stock in needed. But that is an entirely different ballgame from color shooting.

Tim k

17-Feb-2008, 12:03

Wow, too much good info, thanks guys.

I have shot film, but in 35mm, but its been years. Back when we were excited to get an exposure meter "in" the camera. Then came the megapizzel race, but thats another story.

I have never shot Velvia, nor am I set on it, its just what I see used a lot. I find when doing my digital stuff, I tend to like just a little more saturation than neutral. What I have shot in the past was mostly slide film, the yellow box stuff from the drugstore. Bruce, you are right, I dont know enough now to pick a film. But I got to put something in the lil bugger sooner or later.

So,......
I like the 35mm idea for trying different film.
I also like the cheap idea for figuring out the new format. Good arguments on both sides. Still not sure which way to go there.
Question is, in regard to hitting the exposure spot on, is Velvia or any of the other current slide film for that mater, more critical than the Kodak stuff I have shot in years past?

Thanks again guys
Tim K

Gordon Moat

17-Feb-2008, 13:00

. . . . .
Question is, in regard to hitting the exposure spot on, is Velvia or any of the other current slide film for that mater, more critical than the Kodak stuff I have shot in years past?

Thanks again guys
Tim K

I have shot Kodak E100VS two to four stops over, just to see what sort of effect I could get. Sure, you still get an image, but the clear areas of the film just end up as large white areas on any print . . . so you could be way off, but unless you want an odd effect, you better be accurate.

In general, 4x5 (and most 120 or 35mm) transparency films turn out better results within about 1/3 stop of exact. In other words, you can be in error about 1/3 stop over or under exposure, and still get a usable image. My own methods mean being precise, shooting the film at the exact ISO 100 (as opposed to rating it differently), and only altering that for creative effect. Some transparency films still work fine at 1/2 stop over exposure, though you would do this more to try getting more shadow details, at the risk of maybe too light highlight areas. Generally it is not a good idea to under expose transparency films much more than 1/3 stop, unless you want some particular creative effect.

I have found that of the two films I mostly use in 4x5, that Kodak E100VS is a little more forgiving than Fuji Astia 100F. However, there is no value in being inexact with exposure and transparency films. The general rule when you are not so sure about the exposure, is to take two readings and bracket exposures between the high and low readings; so that might be two shots, or it might be five, or something like that. As mentioned before, take lots of notes, and you will develop a feel for when certain over, under, or exact exposure will best fit a particular scene.

One thing you can do with 35mm transparency film. Go to a scene like you might want to photograph with your 4x5. Take an exposure reading to find an exact point. Now go four stops under, take one shot, change your camera settings for the next shot, either 1/2 or 1/3 different, then take another shot. Continue to do this through the exact exposure point, and keep going in those 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments until you get to four stops over exposed. Finish off whatever shots remain on the roll with whatever. Then take that to your lab, and have them only process the film without mounting in slide holders, and tell them not to cut the roll. When you get the film back, you can see the frame numbers, and you can see the effects of under to over exposure. This will then become your guide to using that film. I would also suggest doing this test in the mid part of a day, so that your light remains fairly constant.

If you get past all this, and later want to try something unusual, like night exposures, or artificial lighting, or more creative effects, then come back and ask more questions. Start under daylight conditions, and give yourself the easiest entry into using transparency films. The benefit will be that when you take your film to the lab for a print, you can tell them you want the print as close as possible to the transparency; this I think is the immediate benefit for lab users over colour negative.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Clay Turtle

17-Feb-2008, 13:01

My vote would be the b&w film . . . cheaper if you process your own film (good way to learn about processing) & you are going to make mistakes. Learn to shoot the format first then you can worry with getting the exposure right on the money. Chrome is good if you want to check yourself? your meter? your shutter speed? etc. specially if you bought used eqipment and just want to check that these functions are in the ball park.
Oh, thanks for the tip on film types . . . it was useful to me so I glad you put it forth.

rwyoung

18-Feb-2008, 08:07

Clay Turtle

26-Feb-2008, 05:27

Unless I missed it some where in these posts, you could also substitute B&W photo paper for the film. Nearly the cheapest option, even if you have to buy some trays, jugs and chemicals. You can test cameras, lenses, shutters etc with it cheap. You can learn and practice LF movements cheap. You can get some film holder loading practice under safelight (of course later you will need to be able to work in 100% dark with the "real" film).

What you won't get is a lot of terribly great experience with exposure adjustments because the photo paper spectral response is seriously skewed versus "real" film. Oh, I totally agree, I have heard of doing paper negatives & even ru on to a guy doing set ups with "period clothing" (you know the stuff like they dressed up Marine recruits in so they had a shot of you in your dress blues, they were backless with ties) & shooting paper negatives which he contact printed. As the greats of yesteryear shot (developed & printed) a select film principlely, I burn a lot of any film I am considering using. With all the film of today, I believe in getting a feel for the emulsion which being analog by nature means shooting at extremmes as well as normal conditions.

Tim k

23-May-2008, 08:39

Ok, I have been making progress, but the more I think I learn, the more I know I don't know.

First, I have decided to focus mainly on Provia. I have bought some in smaller formats to play with, and have taken a few 4x5 shots to test my stuff. Geeze you guys are right, this stuff is fussy. I don't have a problem with that, I just need some more seat time.

What I think I know, I have learned from reading all I can on the net. What I cant seem to find is a definitive source for information on the film. I have read that the EV range is only 5 stops, but I cant seem to find any hard data to support that. I have downloaded the prof. Fuji film guide, where there are some graphs, with some log data that I totally don't understand. So, am I on the right track here?

Second, it is starting to sound like Provia is only going to be good for a few minutes in the am and pm. I am now thinking I might want to carry along some color negative for the greater latitude, for more contrasty things.

My end goal has not changed; large color print on the wall, primarily landscape.

So, what do you think, should I take up pottery, or coin collecting?

TimK

Murray

23-May-2008, 08:48

I bought a lot of expired chrome film in various formats because is looked cheap.

The processing is not. Some day I'll do some cross-processing :O)

I have heard 3 stops latitude on some chrome film.

Gordon Moat

23-May-2008, 10:05

What you can do to get a practical test of transparency film is to do a wide range bracket using 35mm or 120 rollfilm. You would underexpose by 3 or 4 stops, continue through to even exposure, then finish by overexposure of 3 to 4 stops. Your bracket choice can be 1/3 steps, 1/2 steps, or full steps. As you might imagine, using 35mm film gives you room for more steps.

Then take the film to the lab, and tell them just to process the film. Do not cut nor mount the transparency film into slides. The reason is that you want to be able to see the numbers of the frames, and you want to more easily compare successive frames.

When you look at the overexposed frames, you might find that there is still some detail. What to look for is the minimum acceptable level of detail. Then look at the underexposed frames, and choose what you feel is the minimum acceptable level of detail. Between those two selections, count the number of stops of exposure to find a maximum acceptable range. This is very different than theory; you could expose many transparency films up to six stops over and still have an image, but you probably would not find the results acceptable.

Anyway, this is just a way to find a personal working range. Obviously not scientific, but it gives you a simple method to get an acceptable working range. You can repeat this procedure with any transparency film.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Tim k

23-May-2008, 12:53

Gordon, are you suggesting that the subject be just anything, or a grey card?

Gordon Moat

23-May-2008, 13:57

I would suggest something you would normally want to photograph, because I think the results can be more useful. You could pick an outdoor scene with lighting similar to the time of day you would be able to take photos.

If you want to add a Kodak Q-13 or similar colour or greyscale target into the scene, that would be something else you can try. This can also help if you are scanning film later, since it would give you a basis for adjustments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Clay Turtle

31-May-2008, 11:42

What are the advantages to transparency film over print film for your intended application?
I'm just curious since print film is apparently more forgiving. If ciba chrome was still viable I could see the advantage of transparencies, unless you prefer the ultra saturated colors of Velvia.
Perhaps maybe print film would be a better choice unless of course you are devoted to Velvia.
Yes cibrachrone is still around but it was bought by Ilford, run search as it was linked to some photoprocessers in another thread. Primarily the main advantage with chrome vs negative print is in scanning. I been shooting a 50 pack of Astia so it is very close to negative film & Tim K; shoot chrome when scene has the latitude, if not then shoot negative film then when it is really bright with deep shadow then B&W. That way you can shoot any time day or night. Shoot alot of chrome but I still go back to b&w when I make a change in my outfit . . . just to develope a feel for those changes. Besides it nice not to have to wait for the film to return from processing.

Tim k

31-May-2008, 19:29

Clay, your advice is exactly what is starting to sink into my remaining functioning brain cells.
My understanding is 4-5 stops for chrome, and I understand more for color negatives, but I am having a hard time coming up with clear cut consensuses as to how many stops I might expect from color negatives.
I have done a little testing with provia, but have yet to purchase any color negative film.
Thanks

Clay Turtle

3-Jun-2008, 10:02

Glad to be of service but as I am of the old school, we were given the basic 1 stop latitude for slide (-1 =>+1), 2 stops for color negative & 4 stops for b&w. As others have stated each emulsion has it's own charracteristics and as film has changed greatly even in the more recent past, the wid variety of film produces a profusion.
Now to really mess with your head . . .

Clay Turtle

3-Jun-2008, 10:24

Glad to be of service. Now to really mess with your head . . . Sorry had to down size file to upload. A real good friend that I went to photo school with, once while I was visiting him brought out a photo.
He was into studio work so he showed me a photo of a slinky long legged type.
Now, he reminded me that (photographically) there are 3 primary colors that make up white light as we had been taught. His set up included 2 lights bounced off silver umbrellas, each producing strong-side lighting aspect. Now each light had 1 of the 3 colors which was easily recongnized by the color tint on the side of the legs but the torso appeared to be lit with white light so he asked "Where did the other color come from to produce white light?"
I thought about it for a while then said "You dailed it in on the enlarger."
The photo is a double expsure with Astia 100 (chrome).
PS the second exposure (Vinoy Basin) was supposed to be a sunrise but an overcast sky didn't produce a glowing sunrise as I was seeking to use the red shift exposure to highlight the green & yellow of the flowers & vine.

Tim k

3-Jun-2008, 15:19

Clay, I've read your post very carefully, a couple of times.

So what your saying is I really don't have any idea what I'm doing. But I liked the part about slinky long leg....

TimK

Clay Turtle

4-Jun-2008, 10:40

I had done some late evening time exposures which turn out . . . good at least as far as the slide film was concerned but when I scanned it to my chagrin, that which was clearly visible on film didn't turn up in the scan? I went looking for answers, one of which was I should check on the reciprocity of the film, which I had not done. In down loading the film characteristic file for the film I was presently shooting, I noted that the Velvia 50 had an asterisk, which checking the footnotes made a statement in effect that 10 exposures seemed to be the limit (using flash). I had been shooting these low light photos as preliminary for a multiple exposure (or a series of exposures) so this caught my attention. Prior experience I had with multiple exposures had been with the 35mm which I though, ya you know it would be hard to get 10 exposures on a 35mm format without overlapping! I had done a couple of multiples with the 35mm & my personal best was about 4 or 5 before overlapping exposures had blown out (cleared) such areas but what about the 4x5? I mean, the film area of the 4x6 is roughly the same as 12 of the 35mm format. As the statement had not specified format I started to wonder why they had specified this limit on Velvia 50 and not stating a thing about Astia or why hadn't there been an indication of format?
1) As you indicated a preference for slide film then Astia is so close in latitude that it is almost scary.
2) May be the problem wasn't related to format at all but the characteristics of the film? Previsualization of shot, hm . . . what effect color of light play in it, ah make exposure with differing color sources! The film emulsions ability to separate of color (reaction of separate layers to specific wavelengths). Ah maybe shooting the small format had mislead me into misunderstanding?
Post exposure visualization: Ah, I didn't get the red shifted light source so both shots were early to mid morning, in essence white light. This aspect of film is related in principle to another aspect of cinematography . . the commonly used blue screen used to stage action sequences depicting superhuman abilities . . ?
Ah, yes that does seem to make things a little more sensible.

Gordon Moat

4-Jun-2008, 10:54

Blue screen or Green screen (Chromakey) in motion imaging functions in that it is an easy to remove background. This is not similar to blue pens that use to be used on lay-up cameras in commercial printing, especially that each neg was actually more like B/W films.

Images on the film that don't show up in scans can mean you are attempting to capture beyond the abilities of your scanner, or that your monitor cannot show you certain parts of the scan. To check scanned information on your monitor beyond what you can see, use the colorpicker (eyedropper) tool in PhotoShop; hold down the shift key when using that to place colour information points; you can read the numbers on the info palette and see if there is anything there.

Data I have for Astia 100F indicates no exposure compensation needed for up to 8 multiple exposures. Remember that the entire film area is exposed each time; size of the film has nothing to do with number of possible multiple exposures. If you need to go beyond eight (8) multiple exposures, I would suggest doing that on more than one piece of film; then scan and later combine the two shots to make a composite of all multiple exposures.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Clay Turtle

6-Jun-2008, 05:06

Thank you Gordon, Yes, I did post the scanner not picking up the details in the digital section & was informed that the problem was in my scanner. (I saw it on the film so I expected it to be on the scan . . . quite different from enlarging where (especially in b&w were faint traces that you can hardly see can be printed) Actually I am planning a series of shots with the Short-Bender but none will probably go beyond a double exposure.It just prick my curiosity when I saw the footnote & I don't use a flash often & never did a multiple exposure with one. But when I started thinking on it I started to think in terms of emulsion (color) layers. I guess what I was trying to point out was that the same aspect that makes shooting chrome the roughest of the 3 film types also makes it the easiest of the use for multiple exposures.We tend to see characteristics like that as being negative aspect, instead of accessing it as a neutral. Similarly, I posted a statement on my technique for film processing in a can (tank) I started thinking about the differences between roller & immersion . . . you get so used to doing things sometimes you can forget the reason, like we get critical about processing time but you think about processing time doesn't stop when you dump the developer, it ends after the film is immersed in the stop. If you sit the tank aside while you reach over & get the stop then that is actually part of the development time.