Before the rush

Before the rush
by evan-pak

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Hot answers tagged


Film is not brighter, it has different tone curve. In your examples highlights and shadows from negative are translated differently to the print than digital. With traditional films like the HP5 the curve is S-shaped. Also, with the black and white example, each film has certain tonal response to different colors, your digital conversion to bw has a ...


There is the potential for variations in many of these steps, but the first one that jumps out at me is that you used the same ISO, aperture, and shutter speed for both exposures. Also, answering your question in a comment on Rafael's answer, "The thing that bothers me is that the exposure meter on the analog camera was showing that the image is too bright ...


There is some latitude with regard to ISO sensitivity. Digital cameras often are less sensitive than the rated "base" sensitivity. The manufacturers tend to round up because it can make test results look better than they actually are. With film the manufacturers tend to round the sensitivity down. With either film or digital the response curve from the ...


They could simply not have the scanner calibrated, or they have some arbitrary values. You need to analize the negative and check if it is really that overexposed. But also take into account that even between film manufacturers the look has diferent results.


Sorry if I missed this and someone has already pointed it out, but here goes. In an attempt to make your camera seem better than it is (or other reasons I don't know), manufacturers often don't accurately set the ISO. When your 5d mk3 says it's at 100 ISO, it's actually at about 80, you can see the measurements here:


Your film was overexposed. The B&W at 400 ISO, f/1.8 and 1/1000s you would have an exposure value around 9.6. The color at 200 ISO, f/1.8 and 1/1000s would give you an EV of 10.7. The 1 stop more dynamic range on the digital allowed for slightly better compensation in the processing. Had you done a 1 stop pull on the film your results may have been ...


The digital camera has a higher dynamic range than the film; as a result, film will not be able to show the bright and the dark areas with the same details as the digital camera. In this case, you lost the details in the bright areas, they have started to burn out. If the development would have been done slightly darker, the brighter areas would look ...


At a high level, this is an EXIF value that represents the APEX average luminance value of a scene. Luminance, in this case, is basically the intensity of light travelling travelling towards the camera. This is why it's typically positive for a daytime shot, because there is much more light present, reflecting off of the surface of the subjects. The EXIF ...


I suspect operator error is always much more likely than a hardware defect. Possibly the lighting is NOT the same in both instances. You did not mention the lighting, so it seems reasonable to first of all to assume this is the problem. Any darker scene will require more exposure. Tell us how the lighting is known to be the same light level in both cases? ...


One other point, is the camera spot metering or using some other metering? It could be that the "brightness" meter is focusing on one part of the picture than the rest or related.


What it looks like from your comments is that the software you are using is not taking into account your display and simply sending the image-data (either from the embedded JPEG or after RAW interpolation) as is. The result is that images look dark which just says that your display has a darker tone-curve than is usual. Firefox and Chrome correct for this ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible