Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tymix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!tymix!kanner
From: kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Exposure compensation
Message-ID: <615@tymix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Jan-86 22:40:54 EST
Article-I.D.: tymix.615
Posted: Fri Jan 10 22:40:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 08:05:03 EST
References: <75@ttidcc.UUCP>
Reply-To: kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner)
Organization: Tymnet Inc., Cupertino CA
Lines: 24

In article <75@ttidcc.UUCP> ward@ttidcc.UUCP (Don Ward) writes:
>The current issue of Popular Photography has an article wherein the
>author recommends overexposing color negative film by 1/3 stop and
>underexposing positive color film by 1/3 stop.  The contention (for
>negative film) is that the resulting negative will have better grain
>structure, etc.  If anybody has any observations about this I would
>like to hear them.  In particular, what I would like to know is if
>there is a difference, at what approximate enlargement is the differ-
>ence visible. 

I have personally directly or indirectly received this very same advice
from independent professional sources about three times in the past six
years, and have, in fact, been following it myself.  The advantage was
never claimed to be better grain structure; it was better color saturation.
I will check out that issue of Popular Photography tomorrow and see what
that author says.  

The basis for rating films is a bit arbitrary anyway. The only drawback
I can see to this 1/3 stop bias is that you discard a bit of your margin 
for error.
-- 
Herb Kanner
Tymnet, Inc.
...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner