Testing Different Negative Stocks, Here's How I Would Do It, What Do You Think???

[Alex]

Lets say you were doing a night time exterior shoot, and you wanted to test the 200T, 500 and the 800 negative stocks to see which stock worked the best in for your lighting conditions.

Would the following be a good way to test the different negative stocks?

Do one set-up, and then rate the film's ASA at 800 for all three negative stocks.

Then repeat the set-up, only now rate the film's ASA at 500 for each of the three negative stocks.

Then repeat the set-up for a third and final time, and now rate the film's ASA at 200 for each of the three negative stocks.


This will create 12 distinct set-ups to compare.

Does 800 ASA film look better than 500 ASA film when both films are rated at 800?

Does 800 ASA film look better than 500 ASA film when both films are rated at 500?

Does 800 ASA film look better than 500 ASA film when both films are rated at 200?

Does 800 ASA film look better than 200 ASA film when both films are rated at 800?

Does 800 ASA film look better than 200 ASA film when both films are rated at 500?

Does 800 ASA film look better than 200 ASA film when both films are rated at 200?

Does 200 ASA film look better than 800 ASA film when both films are rated at 800?

Does 200 ASA film look better than 800 ASA film when both films are rated at 500?

Does 200 ASA film look better than 800 ASA film when both films are rated at 200?

Does 200 ASA film look better than 500 ASA film when both films are rated at 800?

Does 200 ASA film look better than 500 ASA film when both films are rated at 500?

Does 200 ASA film look better than 500 ASA film when both films are rated at 200?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 01, 2003 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Forum-405 ]</font>

[Greg Crawford]

To teckno for me man...I only compare a couple of films at a time.

1. Grain.
2. Sharpness
3. Film Speed
4. Contrast.
5. Color Saturation
6. Color bias

Sometimes push and pull ability. Sometimes I will shot a roll just to see if I like it, then start comparing after the fact. To much science is a bad thing ....man.

[img]graemlins/smarty.gif[/img]

[Alex]

Hopefully it sounds more complicated than it really is. The idea is to check one cartridge each of 800, 500, and 200 ASA negative.

Three identical (as possible as that can be) takes are done, after each take, the cartridge is switched with a new one.

Repeat the process with a new set-up after every third take. [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]

[Mike Buckles]

This is assuming you can override the camera's automatic ASA setting, which most super 8 cameras can't..is there a way to override on , say, your average camera?

[Alex]

Well, fortunately, it's simpler than that.

You can rate any film whatever ASA you want by changing your f-stop. By setting the ASA on the light meter the resulting f-stop will give you the ASA rating you want to designate for your film.

One could say that everytime you choose an f-stop when you are filming, you are assigning an ASA value to the film stock via your f-stop choice.

[Mike Buckles]

Is there a formula for that? I've tried changing fstops on Kodachrome before, with dismal results....either washed out or too dark.

[Alex]

Back in the day of the sundial, Cameras came with little insignias on them for where to set the f-stop.

With Kodachrome 40, (aka 25 for outdoors) you would be around an f11-f8 split in bright sunlight, F5.6 in shadowy but bright areas, F 2.8 in darker areas where sunlight was present but very indirect.

A light meter can help you decide what to "rate" your film at. The purpose of my test would be to see if negative film works better as a lower ASA underexposed, or Higher ASA overexposed kind of a test.

The general theory is that you overexpose negative by 2/3 to one f stop so you get a thicker negative.

But what about the higher ASA film stocks?

[vt220]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="verdana, sans-serif">Originally posted by Forum-405:
But what about the higher ASA film stocks?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

i usually rate 500T at about 320 or so. better blacks.

[Alex]

Yes, I remember that one from film school.

That may be a good shortcut answer to the proposed test.

200 ASA film underexposed by 2/3 of a stop probably won't look as good as 500 ASA film overexposed by 2/3 of stop. (the effective ASA rating being 320 in both instances), but then again, I'd rather do my own tests because I think I do a good job of testing ideas.

[Greg Crawford]

The negative stock gives you a couple more permutations to ponder. Run nearly the same test over exposing and under developing by one stop then try it for two. This will give you a lower contrast softer and in some case more pastel look, with the right subject mater.

Try underexposing the film and over developing ....for a harsher look. In black and white you would get a look like the film Pie. Sorry My keyboard does not have the symbol for pie.

You might also want to try a couple of your favorite films run with the bleach bi-pass currently being offered at everyone favorite lab Super 8 Sound. Maybe Yale is offering this now. it gives you a desaturated and lower contrast look. Check out Foto-Kem's web site for examples, though they do not Handel Super 8.

For some, It's non-of-the-above, stay with the tried and true and use one film and one film only till you understand it inside out........na that sounds boring!