Posted 05 September 2009 - 09:15 PM
For our film we're shooting B&W Reversal (16mm) and planning an HD master as a final output. I had heard that reversal likes to be a little overexposed. Is that correct? I've shot reversal before but its been a while.
Posted 05 September 2009 - 10:06 PM
One more post and I'll be done~
For our film we're shooting B&W Reversal (16mm) and planning an HD master as a final output. I had heard that reversal likes to be a little overexposed.
too much exposure and you end up with clear film for your highlights. B&W reversal has very little latitude.
Posted 06 September 2009 - 03:16 AM
Common wisdom says the opposite - reversal should be slightly underexposed (around 1/3 stop) for more density and to protect the highlights. Reversal behaves a lot like video - once the highlights blow out, they are gone. No detail left, just clear film. Basically, you should try your best to nail your exposures perfectly and keep all important detail within the tonal range of the film, like -2 to +1. Otherwise, you will lose detail in the shadows and highlights.
I had heard that reversal likes to be a little overexposed. Is that correct?
Posted 06 September 2009 - 05:34 AM
I'm aware of the common knowledge of slightly overexposing neg and slightly underexposing reversal. But I have to say that I have a ton of experience shooting Tri-X 7266 16mm (one of my favorite stocks) and I really prefer the contrast I get when I overexpose by 1/2 stop. Yes I might be loosing a bit in the highlights but it just looks "right" to me with that stock... very contrasty. When the exposure is slightly under I find the image very flat. I would never shoot Tri-X if I wanted to preserve all the highlight/shadow detail btw. That's part of the beauty to me of B/W reversal.
Posted 08 September 2009 - 07:19 AM