Metering for shadows is overrated in most cases

I keep seeing people online say to always meter for shadows when shooting negative film. But I spent 3 years shooting Portra 400 in full sun here in Phoenix and I got way better results metering for the highlights instead. My lab tech even pointed out that my underexposed shots held way more detail than my overexposed ones after I accidentally shot a whole roll at 800. Has anyone else tried breaking that rule and found it works better for your lighting?

2 comments

2 Comments

parker_bailey12d ago

Wait you accidentally shot a whole roll at 800 and your lab said it underexposed shots held more detail than your overexposed ones? That's wild because I always heard shadows were the safe bet for film latitude but maybe Portra just handles overexposure differently than people claim. I've been too scared to try metering for highlights in direct sun but hearing that from an actual lab tech makes me want to grab a test roll and see what happens.

sam_rivera12d agoMost Upvoted

Yeah there's this guy on YouTube who tested like 20 rolls of Portra at different ISOs and found that highlights clip way faster than shadows on negative film, so metering for highlights actually gives you more usable range. The lab tech I follow swears by underexposing Portra by a stop in harsh light for that exact reason.