Testing The Exposure Limits Of Fuji Pro 400H

For the third instalment of the Colour Negative Film exposure tests, we're looking at Fuji's Pro 400H. In this episode, I run a roll of 400H through the Pentax 67ii and see how it deals with different exposure scenarios. Just like with the Ektar test, I was really surprised with the results from this one.
►Follow me on Instagram: / kyle__mcdougall
►Order my new book ‘An American Mile’: bit.ly/3Og6Z45
►*DISCLAIMER*
Some of the links below are affiliate links, where I earn a small commission if you click on the link and purchase an item. The money I earn helps me make this type of content consistently.
GEAR USED IN THIS VID:
Pentax 67ii: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
Pentax 75mm f/4.5: ebay.us/TKCx5Z
Fuji Pro 400H: bhpho.to/2LZsRno
My '35mm Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/2JrGhFs
My 'Medium Format Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/3r7KLta
Where I source music for my videos (One FREE month with this link): fm.pxf.io/c/19...
Videos on this channel are filmed using the Fuji X-H2s: bhpho.to/3UEjFVs
►FILM PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR (*these are affiliate links):
My go-to medium format camera: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
My favourite 35mm film camera: ebay.us/82WyVI
My favourite 35mm film lens: ebay.us/u0V817
My favourite medium format travel camera: ebay.us/FVcfWk
My go-to light meter: ebay.us/QIFXF0
My favourite film stock: ebay.us/orbudp
My favourite 645 medium format film camera: ebay.us/ydY4HK
→Instagram: bit.ly/2GuYV21
→Website: kmcdougall.com

[@sawmill3702]

Six stops over on Fuji 400? You’re officially a wedding photographer!

[@KyleMcDougall]

About time!

[@user-su7cv9mr7j]

Ha , you found the secret of the wedding photographers

[@jaypadilla356]

🤣🤣🤣

[@FreeManFreeThought]

-2 is actually my favourite of the bunch! It just looks "right" to my eyes.

[@shamikchoudhury5924]

I guess, another Fuji 400 test with subject as portrait. That will probably give you a better understanding between potra 400 and Fuji 400h

[@sabinemetz]

You've captured exactly what I dislike about Fuji: the colours shift so much from image to image in one roll even just because of the different angles I will be using. Even if lighting conditions are fairly similar otherwise. In terms of consistency with a normal exposure, you're almost better off overexposing by 3 stops than by 1... lol.

[@user-ku9kb3kp5r]

Many people in Asia love this style of overexposure effect. I guess that is why Fuji invented this film:)

[@masonfairey7823]

It'd be cool if you could test some "consumer" level films. I guess those are really only available for 35mm. Eg. Kodak Color Plus / Fuji Superia I'm really interested in the differences in latitude/ colour shift etc in comparison to "professional" level films such as Portra. Thanks

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hi Mason, I'll definitely keep this in mind for future tests.

[@mackrac]

@@KyleMcDougall I'd really love to see Fuji 200 (AKA Fujicolor 200, AKA Fuji C200) tested.

[@michaelfraser4767]

There is a critical piece missing here: how are you metering? Are you spot metering emerging shadows? Incident metering highlights? The way you meter influences what you consider to be your "normal" exposure, and provides necessary context for the over/under tests. Otherwise love these videos!

[@darrenwall5439]

If all photos are metered the same it doesn't matter what meter he used😃

[@michaelfraser4767]

Assuming the metering is the same in all shots, that’s true only for *relative* exposures. But you can’t say “400H looks like this at speed X” unless you’ve metered it properly.

[@praxis1138]

Agree with what’s already been said here... I really dig these videos, not just because of the info passed on, but I really like the esthetic as well. Keep it up.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, George! Really appreciate it.

[@leonbrooke5587]

My takeaway is "overexpose all colour negative films by a stop"

[@Irnbruist]

jesus, I found you like 10 minutes ago and am already blown away by your content and production level: Your different camera angles and b-roll footages looks awesome.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks!

[@CannonFastReviews]

Great video!! :) Kyle that cold color shift is most definitely from the lab scanner. Most mini lab scanners auto white balance and can be different from frame to frame. The "Normal" one looks warmer then it should and the next +3 shots are cooler then they should. I have a Noritsu scanner now because my local labs were always different WB frame by frame. Personally I shoot my weddings 5-6 stops over for "my personal style." I ditched Portra 400/800 last year because things get odd after 4 stops. Maybe find out what scanner they are using and or see if you can scan them so you can control the WB. My local lab eventually let me jump on their machine. Dude your videos are killer!!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for the input, and for watching! I thought it may be a WB issue as well, but when I spoke with the lab they said that nothing was changed between frames and that the colour shift was from the exposure. These were scanned on a Frontier. The auto WB would seem to make sense though, as I haven’t experienced a drastic colour shift like this between two exposures, especially normal and +1. Once I’m home I’ll have a chance to look at the negs, and will re-scan myself on my flatbed.

[@CannonFastReviews]

Yes that is correct, like the Noritsu, the Frontier also has auto white balance natively running. You can not turn them off. So when they say they didn't adjust white balance that is true but they may not realize it will fluctuate on its own. To be honest its a pain in the butt. ;) But once you have hands on you can see the changes and correct during the scan. Its annoying that we have to correct something that is added. I just wish they would release a firmware update so we can stop the auto wb. Oh well the price of nice scanners. :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Gotcha, interesting and good to know. Thanks for the heads up!

[@bebox7]

I've been through this process many times and ended buying my own Frontier for the same reason as what you are seeing eg inconsistent results caused by the subjectivity of the operator of the scanner and the scanning process itself. There's absolutely no way that the negative would go from warm to cool and then suddenly back to warm at +4 - it makes no sense. You can actually get negs scanned on a Frontier with the corrections turned off altogether - it is a setting in the admin section and it definitely is an eye-opener for what the negative actually looks like before the Frontier works its magic on the colours and exposure. It will give you results that are closer to what you might see out of a raw scan on an Imacon before any corrections are applied. Another issue is the warmth or coolness of the scan. Over the years I have re-scanned all of my negs that were previously done by local labs and my scans are, in many cases, very different as my eye and interpretation of the scene is of course different from the person scanning it. The Frontier (and Noritsu) has three settings for each frame for Cyan, Magenta and Yellow (like a colour print in a darkroom) and then density correction. Each of those colour changes can then have different "step" sizes assigned to each button so that +1 Cyan on one machine might move it 3 places and on my machine +1 Cyan may move it 8 places. There are also a myriad of other settings that can vastly change the output of a negative "look". That "warmth" in the Fuji 400H probably isn't inherit in the neg - if the operator popped the Cyan in the preview window a little then that warmth is gone - simple as that. I tend to scan fairly straight (eg let the film be whatever it is) and rarely tweak the colour in daylight images as the Frontier default does a great job. The look that you get from places like RPL and Indie Lab or whoever, is their interpretation of the negative but if I or someone else had scanned the same neg it could/would be far different. You can also set up film defaults so that the Fuji reads the barcode and knows it is Kodak Portra 400 and applies a preset look but that is still controlled by what someone has to enter in to the settings that they think looks good. It's not to say any lab is right or wrong as that is a personal choice but it sure caused me some issues when I started as you start questioning why "x doesn't look like y" and blaming yourself, blaming the development etc and then when you get a little experience you find out exactly why. Unlike slide film there is no 100% answer to what the shot was exposed like or what the colour should be - you're taking a negative orange image and applying a subjective positive look to it, which can never be "correct".

[@Fritzgiallo]

@@bebox7 Actually you can have an aproximately 100% answer of your negative if you make a contact copy of the film. I think this is the only way to really know for sure what is going on.

[@chrislim6851]

Never stop making these videos. I watch a lot of YT and your channel is easily one of my favorites! Looking forward to the next one.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for the support, Chris!

[@KeychildProductions]

+5 was still pretty useable, i enjoyed that look

[@cruisegoose]

Thank you Kyle for your time and detail on these videos. The video editing quality is amazing and appreciate you doing this. Looking forward to future episodes!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Gustav! Really appreciate that!

[@jameslane3846]

These film tests are really helpful! I was wondering if you could do Portra 160 and some of the Ilford films? Like the HP4, Pan F etc

[@KyleMcDougall]

Portra 160 is on the list! Possibly some B&W in the future as well.

[@aflash2d]

+1 for porta 160 i love to over expose by 2 stops

[@46thandBliss]

thanks for taking the time to do this video. well put together. I decided to chance it and order Fuji Pro 400 for my first camera and now i have confidence that I can get that slightly over exposed look that I kinda like.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you found it helpful!

[@DavidJFulde]

2 stops under is beautiful. Nice punch, looks almost like Ektar

[@buyaport]

Thanks a lot! Your videos are not only very informative but, thanks to all the effort you put into them, also quite entertaining. Something that is rarely seen in this quality.

[@mateusz_paulus]

This is what kind of content I was looking for on KZbin. Thank you very much :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks!

[@radfordphoto]

Great video Kyle,I hope one day you can expand your tests into the area of colour correction at the point of capture. There seems a great belief amongst photographers that overexposing and correcting white balance (colour temperature) during scanning is the the holy grail for film photography. It's only part of the formula. In your tests you're exposing the film for the sunny conditions which the film is designed for - daylight balanced/midday sun/5500Kelvin..The shadows by default are going to be cool, probably around 7500K It appears to me many wedding/portrait photographers would move into that shade and make no correction to the colour temperature difference .and rely on correcting later in scanning.or PS. To correct the 7500K back to what the film was designed for (5500K), would require an 81EF or at least an 81C correction filter. If not corrected for example, a brides white dress would have a blue tint. Correcting at the time of capture gives you a perfect neg, not one you are trying to fix later.This might all be scary to some, but can be easily learnt by Googling the subject. Sorry to ramble on, but I've been in the industry since the 70"s and a professional since the mid 80"s and in that period this subject was drilled into us by the major Labs to ensure our negs were correct at capture. It appears to be the forgotten link, possibly because it seems too hard!!!! Keep up the good work Kyle, I look forward to further videos. .

[@KyleMcDougall]

Great insight here, Wayne. Thanks for sharing your experience!

[@m.m.neubauer7734]

Thank you. By coincidence. I got 2 rolls and I will shoot them at 200 as recommended with my Rolleicord V 😎 have a nice Sunday and stay safe!!!

[@mrmarzo]

People love to overexpose with the 400h. I believe it truly brings out it's unique characteristics. Great exposure series! I really appreciate what you've put together.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks!

[@JamesPotterAboutArt]

Very good. Well done! I think it would have been even more interesting to have done the same test with 35mm film. It would have given you a third dimension to your tests. You tested for contrast and colour, but with 35mm you could have tested for grain.

[@MarvinBoydCo]

Though I think it’s safe to say these 3 videos can be applied to the other film stocks in the same line I think these tests are super helpful and would be nice to see Kodak 160 and 800 along with things like HP5 and other popular films. Thanks again for taking the time to make these types of videos

[@Zartz14]

I am pretty darn surprised of the results 😳

[@alant8140]

I loved these videos! Especially the Ektar & Fuji 400 ones because they're my go-to films. Great, simple video! Thanks

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Alan! Glad you enjoyed!

[@RaymondCheng97]

Really enjoy watching this series of video. Looking forward to tests done on 35mm films!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@k.garcia7472]

These are great videos,man. Eager to stick with yah and watch this channel grow.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for the support! Really appreciate it.

[@RobMoses]

I am SO HAPPY to watch this video right now! Thank you! Ok so here's what's up. I took my (new to me) Pentax 6x7 out for it's first shoot tonight. And I was filming a video at the same time and just fired up about shooting some photos. I was set up with a reflector shooting sunset light onto my model and I shot two awesome frames at f/2.4. I was pumped right up and then as I'm packing up and the sun has just set over the mountains I realize I forgot to meter! (I haven't shot film in a while) and I just shot those photos at 1/250th and f/2.4 and I probably should have been shooting it at 1/1000th!!! Omg I nearly died right there haha. Anyhow, I was shooting Fuji Pro 400H so I am hopeful that those two images might still be useable after some post processing. What do you think? I'm going to re-shoot the photo tomorrow evening though anyhow.

[@billthornhill8408]

How bizarre! I’ve just shot my first batch of images with 400h and I was pretty happy with the results all round. Great video again Kyle, thanks for posting.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Bill! I've been happy with the 400H I've shot as well. I was just really surprised to see that shift with overexposure, so soon. Definitely going to test another one in the future.

[@billthornhill8408]

Kyle I wonder if it may have been down to film temp or storage? I’m guessing probably not but the color shifts on the over exposed images was certainly unexpected. I look forward to your next test.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, I'm really curious what it could have been. Film was stored in the fridge, and developed shortly after exposure. We'll see what happens next time.

[@nexo4985]

Would be great to see more tests, great to these done so clearly in a 5 minute video

[@mchlhth]

Normally try to get within 1 stop of the exposure I want on the 3 films you have tested thus far. You've convinced me that I should experiment more with overexposing. Thanks for your efforts. Also, I'll join with anyone who has asked that you try a few B&W films. Maybe not known quantities, like Ilford HP5 Plus or Kodak Tri-X, but maybe Ilford Delta 100 vs Kodak T-Max 100 vs Fujifilm Acros 100.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! Not much of a B&W shooter, but it's something I plan to explore more in the future.

[@michael_house]

This is a very interesting series of tests! Thanks a lot for doing this!

[@htetwin7524]

Looking forward to many more from Kyle, great stuff!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching!

[@ayenoppa4717]

Thanks for your tests they are really helpful. Are you going to do b&w next? Thumbs up for the channel

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching. Possibly some B&W in the future.

[@wv_]

I shoot a lot of 400h and have a freezer with about 500 rolls, I have in the past done a few exposure tests (mostly when buying some expired boxes and wanting to check the condition). I haven’t seen this colour shift. I scan at home. I think this is likely their scanner automatically compensating for the tint of the shadows changing skewing the rest of the shot.

[@Chrisosaurusrex]

Wow! Those results were surprising, the shift from correct to +1 is huge, I really dislike that blue/green shift to the pavement, although I suspect you could fix that in post. Ektar and Portra seem to hold up much better, although I really do like the colours that I can get from the he Fuji when correctly exposed.

[@martiningram8799]

Hi Kyle, love your videos, thanks! I was actually put off 400H after seeing how much it varied with overexposure. I normally love Fuji though so I decided to shoot 400H rating it at 200, and I actually love the results. So maybe it varies but I definitely like the +1 look!

[@ssm5774]

I feel like the lab should rescan these because the sky in -1, normal, and +2 look the same shade. The sky in -2 and +1 look the same and there doesn't seem to be a change in the sun and clouds to warrant the shift. Great job on these videos. Keep it up!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching and for the comments, Seth. I was surprised by the results as well. The two previous tests I didn’t have any issues with the scans.

[@CasnioMiCasio]

From my experience, the more quality the film is (more expensive) the more forgiving it is with wrong exposure. Same counts with less ISO the film haves the more forgiving it is. I've found out that the Fuji 160NS after correcting in Lightroom makes really good results with +2 nad -2 stops.

[@alecilstrup]

Really good and informative video man. Keep it up. Would love to see more gear reviews and film tests/comparisons. Cheers!x

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching!!

[@biopic8534]

Happy to see some tests nicely done. Straight, simple, clear ! (Even though these are scans of negatives, the results would different on analogue prints I guess)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! And yes, printing straight from the negative would be different.

[@joshvrolyk]

F for my man Pro400H here

[@warwickwallace2699]

Weird, for the previous two films I preferred over exposing but for fuji pro 400 i preferred the -1 and -2 under exposure.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, surprising results with this one. Will definitely have to do another test in the future.

[@johngelnaw1243]

@@KyleMcDougall Am I mistaken, or did you expose at EI 200 (you mentioned 1/250 @ f/16 in the video)?

[@deongedeon]

Now my question is where are you metering, what’s your middle gray? Really great video.

[@AndrewUpstart]

Great Videos!! Awesome production and very helpful!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Andrew!

[@LigusterDK]

I really enjoy these tests. However, I don't think looking at a lab scan is the correct way of doing it. I'd say that you should get the raw scan (no edit whatsoever, everything identical for each frame, still negative color) and then apply your own edit so that you KNOW it's the same edit for each frame. In addition, I think that you should try and get the best out of each frame and compare what you could salvage.

[@abigailsockeye1586]

Someone put a cable release in his stocking next Christmas

[@lilblingking1491]

Seriously, though 😂😂

[@Tehdits]

Cant wait for the Portra 160 Episode!

[@fromseedstogiants]

I personally prefer 400H over Portra despite having both in my fridge. I think its colour palette works a lot better with the conditions here in the UK.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I've certainly been happy with the rolls I've shot of 400H, but I've only shot a handful of it. For the most part, Portra has been my go to. Looking forward to shooting some more with it in the future.

[@TheRoppFamily]

Get it while you can!! Cannot believe that Fuji just discontinued this wonderful Film!!! 🥺😩

[@FlorianCueni]

Love your videos, so super informative. Interestingly, I always shoot Pro 400H one or even two stops over exposed and it stays really warm, I‘ve never seen that cool colour cast you are seeing, maybe because I shot 35mm and yours is 120. Keep up the great content.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Florian! I was surprised to see the images cool down like that. Definitely going to do another test in the future!

[@FranciszekNomarski]

It's in absolutely no way related to the format you are actually shooting. This is negative film, we are talking about. The inversion process (during or after scan) can be done in (oh so many) different ways, yielding very distinct results.

[@jimschmidt7303]

Hello Kyle. I will be purchasing my first rolls of 120 film soon. I heard a rumor that the new Fuji Pro 400H brought back in 2021-2022 is rebranded Portra 400. What are your thoughts? I caved to my desire and used some of my Christmas bonus to pick up a bargain priced Pentax 645. I already have Pentax 6x7 lenses I will be adapting to the 645. The 6x7 lens purchase were to satisfy my curiosity of how sharp they would be adapted to Full-Frame. IMO, good but no sharper that the Nikon primes I already have. So now comes purchasing a 5 pack of film. I will probably only shoot a couple rolls a year on landscape photography so I am trying to make an educated decision. I was very happy with the less grainy 35mm Fuji Superia 400 compared to Kodak Gold and Kodak Portra 400. I still have a roll of 35mm Ektar waiting to be used. For the 120mm landscape pictures I take I am debating between the Fuji Pro 400H, Ektar and the Portra 160. Thanks

[@KyleMcDougall]

Fuji 400H is definitely not rebranded Portra 400. I’d suggest going with some Portra 160 or 400 in 120. Both excellent options that will scan well and give you nice results. They’re also very forgiving films.

[@jimschmidt7303]

@@KyleMcDougall Thanks Kyle.

[@NorbertoMelech]

I think that the +1 neg is the right exposition like EV 15 because the reflectance in the whites and the sky with the grey ground is in perfect zone 5.

[@JohnMGarland]

I also love these exposure comparison videos! But I'd be interested to see the effects on skin tones if you ever consider it for future videos

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, John. I'll definitely consider a skin tone video for the future.

[@johnnykaldani633]

Your test offers some good information on the PRO 400H exposure limits. Did you develop the roll of film as recommended by Fujifilm? I assume that pulling or pushing development times works only if all of the exposed frames on the roll were shot in the same manner, e.g., the ISO was set to 200 (+1 EV) in the camera setting and the shots were exposed at the indicated meter readings.

[@robertbouchardt3357]

the cool shift was probably a light cloud coming between the sun and the scene. Makes no sense as to why it would shift cool then warm again a few stops more over exposed..

[@KyleMcDougall]

Very well could have been. I do try my best to make sure nothing is changing. But yeah, even a slight shift could have an impact.

[@Quickst3p]

So apparently one of the limits was January 15th 2021

[@philipk1987]

Great video man. Question, when you say “Normal” exposure are you setting your ISO at 400 or 200?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Daniel. Normal would be ISO at 400.

[@erwyn.]

Amazing review! Thanks for this.

[@Seapatico]

I would love to see a repeat of these results.

[@latentspacex]

Hi! I absolutely appreciate your exposure comparisons - have you thought of going even deeper into this topic, by trying out pushing and pulling the development times? It's another step further

[@KyleMcDougall]

Possibly in the future. But at this point, I'm just jumping into home developing, so I still have a lot to learn.

[@ThePhotoDept]

great video, man.

[@tomtafola4518]

Just a tip always luck up your mirror even doe you using a tripod you can still get hand shake the camera is quite heavy n when the mirror open close it shake inside Just a tip

[@JakeTheBear1]

I just love this film. The best out of Fuji's! Too bad Fuji scaled back production. I think this is what is in Fuji X's High contrast film sim.

[@theartpersuasion]

This is super helpful ! Thanks!

[@yirbeeltalbertotorresgarci9927]

Soooooooooo amazing... Please keep it up !!!! this is so helpfull

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@Being_Joe]

I really love that Fuji film, but the prices really make change my views of Portra stock.

[@kamilgarski4505]

Hey Kyle, I've got question to you :D. After test, did you develop that film at box speed or having it push or pull?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Box speed for this one.

[@djthought]

mate...you need to do this with every film haha

[@Chrille168]

Super interesting! Would love to see some BW films next!

[@jhoang861]

I’m sorry but i’m new to this and want to understand it more. You said for this fuji 400 film, you would change the iso to 200 not 400 right? Did you decide this because of the test you did in this video? And when you process the film, do you do normal developing or push/pull? Really like your videos. Thank you!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey there, normal developing when I get it developed. As for shooting at 200, I would do that simply for a bit of insurance if I was using a camera with a built in meter-to avoid any underexposure.

[@jhoang861]

Kyle McDougall thank you so much for the response! I’m learning so much and I love it 🥰 Very grateful!

[@jhoang861]

Kyle McDougall Btw I am a follower now;)

[@whothennow24]

+4 looks the best to me.

[@zooyork1453]

Great video!! quick question did you set your iso in camera at box speed?

[@lehnrry79]

I love your videos. Keep it up!! 👍

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@ZephyrMcIntyre]

The fuji underexposed is great!

[@CholoSerrano]

Sup Kyle! When you send your rolls over to the lab, do you tell them you overexposed on purpose? Or do you just tell them to scan with standard settings and corrections? Super informative by the way. Keep up the nice edits.

[@KyleMcDougall]

For these tests I let them know that I was under/over exposing, but usually, I won't say anything, and just have them develop/scan as they would normally.

[@CholoSerrano]

Kyle McDougall okay cool. I know each photo lab differs, but I wasn’t sure what the general routine was when sending a purposely overexposed roll to a lab was. Thanks again!

[@vince1000]

+1 looks amazing

[@carbonealpha]

Hi Kyle, well thanks for the tests that's really interesting as i love the Pro 400H! When you say you overexpose +1 do you mean that you are setting your iso at 800 and then extend the time of development or do you mean that you shoot it rated at 200 ISO and keep the same development time? Thanks!! :)

[@carbonealpha]

oops looks like i missed "i rate it at 200" at the end of the video! Well then you always keep development time constant?

[@KyleMcDougall]

You got it, always keep development time the same. I shoot it at 200 ISO, and then during the scan it's corrected.

[@siddj08]

What is the difference between those two things? Shouldn't the results be the same? Been trying to look for an answer to this for a while

[@davidrothschild8913]

interesting man. Currently shooting a roll of FujiPro400H at 160

[@mjbrixius]

Just learning about under and over exposing. I have mainly been a Portra 400 shooter and just use my phone app to meter as a Sekonic meter isn't in the budget. Would really light to try the Fujifilm...but was wondering if you always shoot it metered at ISO 200. Especially since I don't develop mine own film yet. Thank you for you time.

[@Louis-te7th]

I like 0, -1, -2, and maybe +1 in some cases.

[@DenisJust]

Hey Kyle, thank for the video, definitely very useful! I wonder if some kind of auto exposure/color correction was used during scanning? Even if it's same setting for all frames? That would explain some unexpected behaviors and color shifts between the frames. Otherwise, how the frames that have such a different overall exposure look pretty much of the same exposure. They were at least brought to the similar level of final brightness in post, correct? Thanks for the vid again!

[@KyleMcDougall]

All of the frames that I got back from the lab would have been adjusted during the scan, so I didn't have to touch the brightness levels of each one. They all looked as you seem them in this video. Basically the scanner doing an 'auto-exposure' adjustment, depending on the density of the negative.

[@Maxfahrer]

It would be interesting to know how you have measured the exposure?

[@dirtywater5336]

-1 actually looks the most natural to me in terms of saturation and contrast. Normal exposure looks flat.

[@wikezijlstraphotography6349]

Thanks for sharing these vids!!!! Love it! I try to test the exposure as well on my camera, but it's quite expensive lol 😂 After seeing this video I wanted to ask you something. I've had some batches of rolls developed and started a year ago, so quite new to this.... But I find the light meter on my Pentax 645n quite hard to read and I usually overexpose 2 - 3 stops, which is still within the reach of the in-camera light meter. It seemed like you were doing some sort of math to know what shutter to use. For box: 125th, for +1 stop a 60th of a sec, for +2 a 30th and so on. Is this a rule I could apply? I would love to try to overexpose 4 or 5, and this might be something so calculate it. Thanks!!

[@KyleMcDougall]

You got it. One way would be to shoot with a slower shutter speed, exactly the way that you described.

[@spencermanning3204]

Discontinued as of 1/14/2021...such a bummer

[@subtletherapy]

Please do ektachrome and ilford delta pleeease!

[@WayneKnight_Rider]

i think your -1 should have been the normal exposure for the scene. everything looks a lot more true to life at that exposure value.

[@Hassan-uz8sb]

Shooting 4-6, even 3 stops lower for overexposure is going to be tricky using a point and shoot like the GA645 without a tripod. The images wouldn't be still and crisp because of the slower shutter speeds when going at those lower stops, right?

[@KyleMcDougall]

That’s correct. With a leaf shutter, you’re probably fine at 1/60. I try to stay at 1/125 or faster while shooting handheld.

[@AdventurousInsight]

Great Video!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Zakk!

[@soulstart89]

jut stumbled on your channel. props to you mate! how do you meters your scenes? handheld meter or with the pentax built in meter?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! For the film test videos so far, it's been internal meter on the 67ii. For other shooting, a mix between internal and a Sekonic 558.

[@kleinbildphotographie]

Cool Video, keep it up!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks!

[@Louis-te7th]

Does anyone knows how those different exposures are converting in negative lab pro? Do you get the same contrast, saturation and hue changes like in those lab scans? Because I think it is analyzing the picture and converting it in a way that it has always the same contrast, hue and clarity. But has anyone tested this?

[@fedpoi]

Exposure Limits for Superia 400 please!!

[@Nguyen12121]

That's a crazy color shift from 0 to 1. How did you meter. Did you exposed for the shadow?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Pretty sure this just center weighted with the 67ii meter.

[@sebastianfrank2875]

What tripod is that? Great vids btw

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! Tripod is a 3 stage Benro CF legs, with a Markins Q20 ball head.

[@craigmckernan4056]

RIP 400H, Fuji needs to find a way to bring it back

[@oldmanmikey]

Where these shot at box speed or at 200?

[@huzizach]

Hey Kyle, I'm about to embark on a big road trip and I've made Pro400h my film of choice. Just wondering, do you recall what you were metering for the in these images? incidental? Thanks in advance!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Zach, these were metered using the camera's internal meter, centre weighted average. Enjoy the trip!

[@huzizach]

@@KyleMcDougall Cheers Kyle - that's super helpful!