Exposing for negative film

[gad-westy]

I've been dabbling with film for a while now but only recently started taking it more seriously. I seem to have been working in a manner more appropriate to digital in that I'll expose a scene in the same way, mainly concentrating on the highlights. Getting some nice stuff with even lighting but high contrast scenes are usually looking way under exposed. A few things I've read on here lately have me questioning my technique. Should I be worrying about the shadows and pay less attention to the highlights? I'm mainly shooting Ilford B&W on 35mm and Kodak Ektar colour on 120.

 

[FujiLove]

Hi Graham - I'm also finding manual metering for film a bit of a mystery. A lot of people say, "expose for the shadows", when it comes to film, but I have to confess to not understanding how to practically do that. I've been using my hand held meter and either taking an incident reading if I'm close enough, or a reflected reading for landscapes. I plug that into the camera and it seems to come out okay. Whether that's by design or luck, I have no idea! Also some people say colour negative film should be over exposed a little for best effect, but again, practically I'm not sure by how much and how this relates to, "expose for the shadows". Also, does exposing for the shadows apply also to B&W film (or only B&W film?)

 

[skysh4rk]

I've been dabbling with film for a while now but only recently started taking it more seriously. I seem to have been working in a manner more appropriate to digital in that I'll expose a scene in the same way, mainly concentrating on the highlights. Getting some nice stuff with even lighting but high contrast scenes are usually looking way under exposed. A few things I've read on here lately have me questioning my technique. Should I be worrying about the shadows and pay less attention to the highlights? I'm mainly shooting Ilford B&W on 35mm and Kodak Ektar colour on 120.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't even check the highlights at all with negative film unless it's a seriously contrasty scene.

For most photos, I usually shoot my subjects backlit, so I just point my light meter in the direction of the camera in the same light as the subject, take a reading, and I'm done.

 

[steveo_mcg]

I depends what you meter with, but generally speaking I'll (try) to aim to aim the camera or spot meter at a darker part of the scene and use that for my exposure and let the rest of the zones fall where they may. I can't think of any frames where the highlights have been completely blown even a full moon still had a little left.

 

[donut]

for black and white film i tend to expose for the shadows .with an incident light reading you set the camera to what it tells you ,for a reflective light reading ,point the meter/camera at the shadow area in the scene and set the camera to that. when a film is developed it builds up density (and therefore image ) where it has been exposed to light ,so that means it builds or starts making an image where the shadows are in the scene ,so you get detail in that area , now the lighter areas are going to be even more dense , but they still have detail in them ,but to get them to show you would have to burn them in ,

 

[FujiLove]

for black and white film i tend to expose for the shadows .with an incident light reading you set the camera to what it tells you ,for a reflective light reading ,point the meter/camera at the shadow area in the scene and set the camera to that. when a film is developed it builds up density (and therefore image ) where it has been exposed to light ,so that means it builds or starts making an image where the shadows are in the scene ,so you get detail in that area , now the lighter areas are going to be even more dense , but they still have detail in them ,but to get them to show you would have to burn them in ,

So are you saying that if I take an incident reading, then I will be automatically 'exposing for the shadows'? But a reflected reading needs to be adjusted - specifically pointed at the shadow area - to create roughly the same exposure?

On a side note, I was looking through a load of Anton Corbijn's black and white photos this morning (Google 'anton corbijn' and look at the images). His work is fantastic, iconic and...has almost no shadow detail!

 

[abdoujaparov]

One a side note, I was looking through a load of Anton Corbijn's black and white photos this morning (Google 'anton corbijn' and look at the images). His work is fantastic, iconic and...has almost no shadow detail!

Count me in as someone who thinks shadow detail is (often) over-rated. I'm currently in love with the industrial photos of Maurice Broomfield, and many of them have large blocks of featureless black - but god, they're dramatic.

 

[FujiLove]

In fairness to the whole lack of shadow detail thing, I guess the idea is to produce a negative that has the detail, then you have the option in the darkroom to preserve that detail or boost the contrast and create the black shadows. If you don't capture the detail in the first place you are stuck with that deep black regardless.

Thanks for the tip about Maurice Broomfield. I'll have to check out more of his work.

 

[Steve Smith]

With negative film, it's better to give too much exposure than too little.

If you concentrate on the highlights, you will likely be under exposing.

Don't worry about over exposing too much. Unlike digital, the highlights will still be recorded on the film.


Steve.

 

[AshleyC]

the thing with a roll is that all the shots will be developed in the same way and the whole process is part exposure and part development. The "expose for the shadows develop for the highlights" only really works when you can manage the development for each image as each one may require different dev times. If you're going to worry about shadow detail then you need a good spot meter and an understanding of the zone system. Generally just stick with an incident reading and live with that unless your subject is clearly placed in a shadow area.

Its no good spot metering half a roll for shadowy areas when the other half is more generally exposed since the development times will affect the whole role.

go large format instead

 

[Jao]

My current approach is to use an incident hand held meter and point it in the direction of the camera keeping the dome on the same light as the subject. Also with my metered 35mm cameras like the F3, F4, F5 and F100 I always use the meter in centre weighted AE mode (not matrix) and take several readings, then I use the AE lock to often select an exposure that I think best captures the range of tones in the proposed composition. I frequently use the exposure compensation dial in bright backlit conditions. I shoot a lot of slide film which tends I think to be less forgiving than colour negative stock, I think? This approach is based upon habit and is very personal to me, I am not suggesting this is what other should do, rather sharing the approach I have developed over time.

I also read this recently, an interesting technique that I will try at some point I think, if it ever stops raining here!

http://www.johnnypatience.com/metering-for-film/

 

[skysh4rk]

the thing with a roll is that all the shots will be developed in the same way and the whole process is part exposure and part development. The "expose for the shadows develop for the highlights" only really works when you can manage the development for each image as each one may require different dev times. If you're going to worry about shadow detail then you need a good spot meter and an understanding of the zone system. Generally just stick with an incident reading and live with that unless your subject is clearly placed in a shadow area.

Its no good spot metering half a roll for shadowy areas when the other half is more generally exposed since the development times will affect the whole role.

go large format instead

Obviously you have more control with large format with regard to developing for the highlights, but it still makes sense to expose for the shadows with any negative film. Inconsistencies in exposure over the course of a roll can be easily dealt with at the scanning or printing stages.

 

[AshleyC]

well the point was more that there isnt much point having custom exposures for frames when shooting roll film since the development will be the same across the whole lot. You might as well just take an average incident reading and shoot the lot to that.

 

[skysh4rk]

well the point was more that there isnt much point having custom exposures for frames when shooting roll film since the development will be the same across the whole lot. You might as well just take an average incident reading and shoot the lot to that.

Custom exposures won't make much of a difference though with negative film provided you stick within the emulsion's tolerances. I would ordinarily prefer to shoot my Fuji 400H two stops overexposed, but if I run out of light and can only go one stop over to maintain an acceptable shutter speed, I'm unlikely to notice much difference. Based on the circumstances, I'll happily adjust my EI mid-roll if the situation calls for it.

I wouldn't recommend just randomly changing exposures, however; I agree that it would be best to try to meter consistently.

 

[FujiLove]

My current approach is to use an incident hand held meter and point it in the direction of the camera keeping the dome on the same light as the subject. Also with my metered 35mm cameras like the F3, F4, F5 and F100 I always use the meter in centre weighted AE mode (not matrix) and take several readings, then I use the AE lock to often select an exposure that I think best captures the range of tones in the proposed composition. I frequently use the exposure compensation dial in bright backlit conditions. I shoot a lot of slide film which tends I think to be less forgiving than colour negative stock, I think? This approach is based upon habit and is very personal to me, I am not suggesting this is what other should do, rather sharing the approach I have developed over time.

I also read this recently, an interesting technique that I will try at some point I think, if it ever stops raining here!

http://www.johnnypatience.com/metering-for-film/

That's an excellent post - thanks for sharing. I'll definitely try this the next time I'm out and about.

 

[ChrisR]

I also read this recently, an interesting technique that I will try at some point I think, if it ever stops raining here!

http://www.johnnypatience.com/metering-for-film/

Thanks for this link Adrian, that's an interesting blog. He has another post about Richard Photo Lab, a pro lab in the States, which is interesting because of the way he discusses the effect that operators, scanners etc have on the results. I wouldn't expect to use RPL, but perhaps one day when I'm feeling richer and more patient I may try @skysh4rk 's favourite lab (UK Film Lab?), and see if they can give me that much better results...

BTW I couldn't find a link for a RSS feed anywhere on Jony Patience's blog, so I made one up by substituting feed for blog in the URL and it worked! Now have it in NetNewsWire.

 

[Jao]

Thanks for this link Adrian, that's an interesting blog. He has another post about Richard Photo Lab, a pro lab in the States, which is interesting because of the way he discusses the effect that operators, scanners etc have on the results. I wouldn't expect to use RPL, but perhaps one day when I'm feeling richer and more patient I may try @skysh4rk 's favourite lab (UK Film Lab?), and see if they can give me that much better results...

BTW I couldn't find a link for a RSS feed anywhere on Jony Patience's blog, so I made one up by substituting feed for blog in the URL and it worked! Now have it in NetNewsWire.

Thanks Chris, I too have thought about sending some work to UK Film Lab. I do like the look of their output and I am always impressed with the work that RJ @skysh4rk turns out.

But I am waiting until I have some work that I think is worth sending to them, it doesn't matter how good their output is unless I have some 'input' that warrants their exquisite service LOL! I

 

[skysh4rk]

I also read this recently, an interesting technique that I will try at some point I think, if it ever stops raining here!

http://www.johnnypatience.com/metering-for-film/

Good advice here. This is basically how I work with negative film, although I don't necessarily shoot all of my films at half speed.

Thanks Chris, I too have thought about sending some work to UK Film Lab. I do like the look of their output and I am always impressed with the work that RJ @skysh4rk turns out.

It's definitely worth sending a few rolls their way; I can't recommend them highly enough.

 

[FujiLove]

It's definitely worth sending a few rolls their way; I can't recommend them highly enough.

I had a quick look at the UK Film Lab site, but they only seem to do dev and scan. Is that right, or have I missed the printing section?

 

[skysh4rk]

I had a quick look at the UK Film Lab site, but they only seem to do dev and scan. Is that right, or have I missed the printing section?

Dev and scan is all they offer. They email you a link to the scans when they're finished and store your negatives.

 

[FujiLove]

Dev and scan is all they offer. They email you a link to the scans when they're finished and store your negatives.

Thanks RJ. I assume you can get your negatives back off them? Is that done in a batch and for extra postage cost?

 

[skysh4rk]

Thanks RJ. I assume you can get your negatives back off them? Is that done in a batch and for extra postage cost?

You get your negatives back after a year or until your pile of negatives reaches an inch thick, whichever comes first. You choose what method you'd like them sent back. I've opted for special delivery.

 

[StephenM]

Incident light readings are based on an artifical highlight method (the white dome) and hence guard against overexposure and blown highlights on slide film. If you have a subject with no highlights to speak of, and plenty of dark areas, you'll be underexposing.

On roll film - use separate backs for high, normal and low contrast scenes and tailor the development as you would with sheet film. Assuming you have a camera that can.

I do things the simple way - place my hand in the same light as the main subject, take a reflected reading and open up one stop. This is the same as an incident reading, since the only variable affecting the exposure is the amount of light (I had a lengthly discussion on another forum over this, and failed to convince that any method that didn't involve a white dome could possibly be measuring (or be called) and incident light method). In the event of dark shadows that matter, read from them and stop down 2 or 3 stops depending on how dark I want them. But this only happens once in a blue moon - film is very forgiving and has a fantastic working range. N.B. I only use black and white film.

To a good approximation, the amount of shadow detail you'll record with black and white film depends only on the exposure (after 2 or 3 minutes development, you won't get much extra shadow detail); on the other hand, the highlight density continues to build up (meaning contrast increases). Hence for contrasty subjects, give more exposure and less development; and the reverse for flat.

The best illustrations I've ever seen of the effects of varying exposure and development were in Langford's Basic Photography, 3rd edition. I don't have all the editions, and this info had been cut in the next one I have (the 7th), so the 1973 one is the best place to look.

 

[Steve Smith]

Dev and scan is all they offer. They email you a link to the scans when they're finished and store your negatives.

Do they post the actual negatives back to you?


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

Do they post the actual negatives back to you?


Steve.

As I mentioned above, they post them back to you after a year or when your pile of negatives reaches an inch thick, whichever comes first. You could get them sent earlier if you really needed them, however.

 

[gad-westy]

Cheers one and all. Some great tips on here. Need to find some nice light to put it into practice.

 

[Steve Smith]

As I mentioned above, they post them back to you after a year...

I see now. I posted before reading down the rest of the thread!


Steve.

 

[FujiLove]

If you use the 'shoot at half box speed and meter for the shadows' technique, do you process the film at the box speed or the speed you shot it at? I assume box speed, as processing it at half would sort of cancel out the overexposure, but I'm not entirely sure.

Also, I'm currently shooting with some expired 400 ASA black and white film. I rated it at 200 to compensate for it being a few years out of date, then set my light meter to 100 to accommodate the above technique (+ I'm metering for the shadows). Does that sound right, or will I have gone too far with the overexposure?

 

[ChrisR]

If you use the 'shoot at half box speed and meter for the shadows' technique, do you process the film at the box speed or the speed you shot it at? I assume box speed, as processing it at half would sort of cancel out the overexposure, but I'm not entirely sure.

I'm confident that the idea is to shoot at half box speed and process at box speed.

Also, I'm currently shooting with some expired 400 ASA black and white film. I rated it at 200 to compensate for it being a few years out of date, then set my light meter to 100 to accommodate the above technique (+ I'm metering for the shadows). Does that sound right, or will I have gone too far with the overexposure?

One stop per decade is a general suggestion, IIRC, so that would suggest it's OK. Also black and white film generally has more latitude than colour negative film, doesn't it? Hwever, I think I'd be a bit cautious going 2 stops and THEN metering for the shadows... but others above seem to suggest this might work.

I've just shot a 35mm roll of Portra 160 at 80, and attempted to meter for the shadows... using reflective rather than incident metering, and a Pentax MX which has centre-weighted metering only, so it's a bit vague. Basically I tried to point the camera at the darker bits and take the reading from that. The roll has come out fairly well; I'm very happy with all the shadow and vegetation areas, but almost all the skies are too bright. Even with Aperture's Highlight recovery set at 100, I'm not getting good skies from a day with very nice white clouds in a blue sky (I didn't use a grad filter, but I wasn't shooting into the sun particularly, nor making the sky a feature, and I was hoping the film would cope). I think I might try the next film either a half or a third stop over-exposed, instead of a full stop. The next roll of Portra 160 is currently in the camera set at 125, I think, but nothing shot yet.

Here's an example of a shot, after Highlight recovery at 100:



You can see from the reflection what the clouds were like, but the sky is really washed out in comparison. (I remember @Woodsy telling me that reflections were a stop or more less bright, and this seems to back it up.)

 

[Jao]

Chris, that is a really excellent shot and although the sky is bright the detail in the rest on the image looks very good!

 

[simon ess]

For what it's worth, I spot meter on the darkest area I want detail to still appear and stick it in zone 3.

For digital I do the opposite - find the brightest area I want detail in and stuff that in zone 7.

Generally works, but I'm itching to have total control over each exposure. (LF)

 

[skysh4rk]

I've just shot a 35mm roll of Portra 160 at 80, and attempted to meter for the shadows... using reflective rather than incident metering, and a Pentax MX which has centre-weighted metering only, so it's a bit vague. Basically I tried to point the camera at the darker bits and take the reading from that. The roll has come out fairly well; I'm very happy with all the shadow and vegetation areas, but almost all the skies are too bright. Even with Aperture's Highlight recovery set at 100, I'm not getting good skies from a day with very nice white clouds in a blue sky (I didn't use a grad filter, but I wasn't shooting into the sun particularly, nor making the sky a feature, and I was hoping the film would cope). I think I might try the next film either a half or a third stop over-exposed, instead of a full stop. The next roll of Portra 160 is currently in the camera set at 125, I think, but nothing shot yet.

Here's an example of a shot, after Highlight recovery at 100:



You can see from the reflection what the clouds were like, but the sky is really washed out in comparison. (I remember @Woodsy telling me that reflections were a stop or more less bright, and this seems to back it up.)

I don't think you're going to see any difference whether you expose a 1/3 of a stop less or even overexpose an additional stop with regard to detail in the sky. What is happening here is that the sky is much brighter in relative terms than your foreground, which is in shade, and that's not going to change with metering. With Lightroom, I'd consider using the ND grad tool, as I'm sure that the film recorded the details, but I don't think that Aperture has that feature... I'd also be careful about heavily using Aperture's highlight recovery tool as it'll often make the image look very flat (surely there should be highlights in images of clouds?).

If you don't want to do it with software, you'd need to look into other ways of controlling the subject brightness range of the scene, such as grad filters, or waiting for the light to change.

Edit: I've tried very quickly editing the image in Lightroom. I started by boosting the white levels and adding a bit of contrast, as the scan looked a little flat (I like white in my clouds and an overall brighter image, but perhaps that's just my personal tastes). There are quite a few stops difference in brightness between the grass, trees, etc. and the sky and even the highlights in the lake, so, to control the bright areas of the image, I then applied an ND grad to both the sky and the reflection in the pond. It's not perfect (I'm far from a scanning expert, hence why I usually use a lab), but you could likely get even more detail out of the sky with more time, practice, and the original scan than what I've got here, but perhaps this sparks a few ideas? I hope I didn't overstep my bounds here.


View attachment 19929

 

[ChrisR]

Chris, that is a really excellent shot and although the sky is bright the detail in the rest on the image looks very good!

Thanks Adrian, I did like that shot! It was for illustrative purposees, though.

I don't think you're going to see any difference whether you expose a 1/3 of a stop less or even overexpose an additional stop with regard to detail in the sky. What is happening here is that the sky is much brighter in relative terms than your foreground, which is in shade, and that's not going to change with metering. With Lightroom, I'd consider using the ND grad tool, as I'm sure that the film recorded the details, but I don't think that Aperture has that feature... I'd also be careful about heavily using Aperture's highlight recovery tool as it'll often make the image look very flat (surely there should be highlights in images of clouds?).

If you don't want to do it with software, you'd need to look into other ways of controlling the subject brightness range of the scene, such as grad filters, or waiting for the light to change.

Thanks RJ. I used this shot for illustration, as the reflection shows what the sky was like. Pretty much all shots on the roll have little visible detail in the skies, from the scans. I'm a bit confused about whether the foreground is really in shade (as you suggest); the waterweed is definitely in sun, but I suspect the other side of the pond is in shade from a cloud. I don't remember thinking the sky was particularly bright at the time. I've generally been under the impression that actual ND Grads are rarely needed with negative film.

What does seem true is that in this image the dynamic range is too great to be captured on film and scanned to JPEG. I've re-read the Johnny Patience piece from earlier, and though both he (and you) suggest the highlights will be recorded on film, it doesn't say much about the limits of scanning. I get my 35mm C41 processed and scanned by Photo Express, and I think they do a great job at a fantastic price, but they only give me JPEGs. (I've currently got some Velvia being scanned by UKFL, and I'm assuming I'll get TIFFs as well as JPEGs from them.) Plus, I use Aperture and it doesn't have a version of the ND grad filter (though there are some presets that emulate it with brushed adjustments).

I'm also expecting that using a centre-weighted reflective meter has a bearing. And I didn't try to assign the shadows to a particular zone; I just pointed it at the darker areas and used the indicated exposure. Not at all sure that's right, on reflection.

Edit: I've tried very quickly editing the image in Lightroom. I started by boosting the white levels and adding a bit of contrast, as the scan looked a little flat (I like white in my clouds and an overall brighter image, but perhaps that's just my personal tastes). There are quite a few stops difference in brightness between the grass, trees, etc. and the sky and even the highlights in the lake, so, to control the bright areas of the image, I then applied an ND grad to both the sky and the reflection in the pond. It's not perfect (I'm far from a scanning expert, hence why I usually use a lab), but you could likely get even more detail out of the sky with more time, practice, and the original scan than what I've got here, but perhaps this sparks a few ideas? I hope I didn't overstep my bounds here.

Thanks for the edit, which has helped a bit in sorting the cloud detail. I haven't been able to recreate that look with the tools I understand in Aperture yet!

Anyway, my feeling is that the advice "expose for the shadows" does give great shadow detail, but can give the unwary user (like me) other problems.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

well the point was more that there isnt much point having custom exposures for frames when shooting roll film since the development will be the same across the whole lot. You might as well just take an average incident reading and shoot the lot to that.

Which is how it used to be done back in the day, incident or reflected it doesn't matter as long as it is consistent for the whole film. People struggle with this concept. I have no idea why?

 

[skysh4rk]

Thanks RJ. I used this shot for illustration, as the reflection shows what the sky was like. Pretty much all shots on the roll have little visible detail in the skies, from the scans. I'm a bit confused about whether the foreground is really in shade (as you suggest); the waterweed is definitely in sun, but I suspect the other side of the pond is in shade from a cloud.

I would say that they're in the shade as I don't see the trees casting any shadows. The lighting looks quite flat.

I don't remember thinking the sky was particularly bright at the time. I've generally been under the impression that actual ND Grads are rarely needed with negative film.

It might not have been that bright, but it was a number of stops brighter than the foreground in relative terms. Consequently, when you adjust the scan so that the foreground looks good, the sky will look bright. Conversely, if you adjust the scan so that the sky looks good, the foreground will look dark or wait until the late changes. Your lab will have set the scanning to adjust based on the foreground.

You're right that you generally don't need ND filters with negative film (I'd bet everything that the detail is there in the negative), but if you want maximum detail in both the sky and foreground in your scans and prints, you will need to control that subject brightness range somehow (whether during exposure or in post) or shoot at a different time in different light when the contrast isn't as great (with some subjects, fill flash would also work). Negative film is fantastic, but it won't take tough lighting situations and magically make them awesome.

If someone else is doing your scanning and you're only getting JPEGs, you might actually need to use ND filters or find other ways to control contrast during exposure. There's not much of a way around this if you desire detail in skies and foreground in these conditions.

What does seem true is that in this image the dynamic range is too great to be captured on film and scanned to JPEG.

This is not a problem with the film or its dynamic range; the film has definitely recorded the information.

I'm also expecting that using a centre-weighted reflective meter has a bearing. And I didn't try to assign the shadows to a particular zone; I just pointed it at the darker areas and used the indicated exposure. Not at all sure that's right, on reflection.

Your metering is fine; it will not change what is happening in this image. You've got a bright sky with clouds that are being hit directly by the sun and then you have a foreground that is not being hit by direct sun and is shaded. You'll need to control the subject brightness range somewhere along the line in order to maximise detail in both, if that's what you want.

Personally, I just let my highlights fall where they may and just expose for my subject most of the time, but if I want detail in the skies, I use fill flash (admittedly not an option here, but it's an example of how you could reduce the subject brightness range).

I've currently got some Velvia being scanned by UKFL, and I'm assuming I'll get TIFFs as well as JPEGs from them.

UKFL have only ever offered JPEGs as far as I'm aware.

 

[srichards]

Would multi pass scanning solve the issue of bright sky/dark foreground and wanting both foreground detail and blue sky?

 

[StephenM]

I can't see why it shouldn't - assuming you mean making two scans and merging the results (as with HDR). I've had no problems with black and white film with a single scan which can hold detail in a stained glass window and a dim church interior. But I scan to give a 16 bit tiff file.

But if you have a jpg as a result, you've blown it. jpgs are 8 bit files, which limits the recording to an 8 stop range maximum. You have more headroom if you go to 16 bits (another 8 stops).

 

[Steve Smith]

I'm confident that the idea is to shoot at half box speed and process at box speed.

It's usually expose at half box speed and decrease development time by about 20%


Steve.

 

[skysh4rk]

It's usually expose at half box speed and decrease development time by about 20%


Steve.

For black and white, not colour negative.

Would multi pass scanning solve the issue of bright sky/dark foreground and wanting both foreground detail and blue sky?

Maybe. I'm guessing this is like an HDR image? Sounds like it could work in theory. I've never done a multipass scan, because they're not really recommended with flatbeds (problems with alignment), so I can't say that I know much about them.

You shouldn't need to do a multipass scan though, the information will likely already be there in the first scan assuming you don't clip anything. The issue is displaying these details and balancing their differences in brightness in the scanned or printed image in this case.

 

[ChrisR]

FMaybe. I'm guessing this is like an HDR image? Sounds like it could work in theory. I've never done a multipass scan, because they're not really recommended with flatbeds (problems with alignment), so I can't say that I know much about them.

You shouldn't need to do a multipass scan though, the information will likely already be there in the first scan assuming you don't clip anything. The issue is displaying these details and balancing their differences in brightness in the scanned or printed image in this case.

I have a Plustek scanner, and have used both multipass (which I hink reduces noise) and multiexposure, which does an extra pass at higher exposure to get a bit more detail out of the denser parts of the image (presumably shadows for transparency and highlights for negative film). I've often felt it was a useful feature.

I also suspect that if I understood how to use curves, I might be better at getting more of that detail off the film and into the scanned image. (And/or/maybe if Vuescan's curves implementation was a bit better?)

In this case though, I'm limited to the JPEG I've got (unless I rescan the frame myself). Surprising that UKFL only offer JPEGs; I really did expect they would provide 16/48-bit TIFFs, considering their target market.