Camera

Back to Camera...

Stops when over and under exposing 35mm (4 replies and 3 comments)

Alex2II2
1 month ago
Alex2II2 1 month ago

Hi Roger,

I hope you're well.

Just wondering, as I'm about to go and shoot some under and over exposure tests on 35mm - If for example I wanted to go 2 stops under, and my meter read 2.0 at correct exposure, would you then expose at 4.0 or would you see it to be 'safer' to light so the meter read 4.0 then expose at 8.0?

I'm wondering even though I'd be under exposing, is it still best to try and give the negative more light to work with?

Also, this will probably be related to your answer to the question above, but any tips on maintaining shallow depth of field when under exposing? Would it be as simple as using ND .6 to cut the 2 stops as opposed to setting the lens to two stops under?

Thanks

Alex

Roger Deakins
1 month ago
Roger Deakins 1 month ago

I don't see a reason to be shooting with higher f stops unless you are going for greater depth of field. Unless 'safer' means safer for the focus puller!

If you use an ND6 and shoot at 2.0 you will have a shallower depth of field than shooting clean at a 4.0. I usually like to light to the exposure I am want rather than use an ND because I would rather not have the glass in front of the lens but it is necessary sometimes when you can't control your light level any other way. You could, of course, always change the angle of the shutter and reduce the exposure that way!

shenzo
1 month ago

Ha interesting! Wouldn't the shutter speed need to stay around 172/180 degrees though for a 'pleasant' motion blur? How far could you go without making it too 'jittery'?

skytrainfilms
1 month ago

Hi Roger,
New to the forum so apologies if this isn't the right place for this question.
I noticed in a reply to a post on using the Cooke s4’s vs the arri master primes that you mentioned shooting wide open for most of ncfom.

With so much emphasis today on more k’s and resolution was it a difficult decision to shoot ncfom largely wide open at the expense of image sharpness?
Thank you,
Chris Zuhdi

Alex2II2
1 month ago
Alex2II2 1 month ago

So when you say light for the exposure you ‘want’...For arguments sake: if I want to be 2 stops under, light for 2.0 and put 4 on the lens?

If I wanted to be 2 stops over, Light for 4.0 and put 2.0 on the lens?

And yes, I’m interested in your thoughts about when changing shutter angle would be preferable? 

Thanks Roger!

Roger Deakins
1 month ago
Roger Deakins 1 month ago

Changing the shutter angle is something I don't often do because the motion becomes different. So, whether you do that or not depends on what movement there is in the frame.

If I want a shot to be 2 stops under and I also want a shallow depth of field I will light to shoot at a 2.0. I use an analogue Gossen light meter so that is pretty easy for me to see on the dial. Very old fashioned, I know, but I believe in simplicity.

Alex2II2
1 month ago

Thanks as always!

Roger Deakins
1 month ago
Roger Deakins 1 month ago

I wouldn't say the image sharpness suffered shooting with the lenses wide open. The depth of field was shallower but the overall sharpness of a Cooke S4 at a 2.0 would be pretty much identical to the same lens at a 2.8. The very minor difference, if any, would be at the corners of the frame, which would be even less visible within a night shot.

Back to Camera...