Should I under or over expose my Lomography Redscale film

 Another roll, from that unnamed black camera that shoots 120 film.  (The front of the lens probably had the camera brand -- but it fell off by the time I'd acquired it.)

 

Shot with Lomography Redscale film:   I think it's color film -- but just with a strong orange tint to it?  Functionally, though, it's "black and white" -- but with "orange" instead of greys.  :)

 

As usual, these are the better shots. 

I was actually kind of disappointed with the results:  the first roll I shot of Redscale, I just exposed it "normally" (based on what the box said -- 50-200 ASA). Or maybe I over-exposed it just a touch -- treating it as 50 ASA rather than 200 -- because I read a website that said to hit it a little hard, for stronger colors.  

But for this second roll, I did a bit of online research -- and three other websites said to under expose it for stronger reds -- so I did (exposed at 200 ASA, not 50 -- two stops less).  Wrong.

But:  now I know.

So, for future generations of internet folk, Googling "Should I under-expose, or over-expose, my Lomography Redscale film?"  Expose it correctly -- but at the "more light" end of the scale (i.e. if it says "50-200 ISO" -- shoot at 50 ISO).  

 Which is consistent with the general advice for shooting on film:  even though B&W is more robust with exposure than color -- you're better off over exposing by a stop or two, rather than under exposing. 

Yup.

For comparison:  here's a similar shot of the big red chicken (above) -- but with a lower exposure.  Unsurprisingly, it's darker and with weaker colors.  Ayep.

Oh!  And as usual, I haven't changed anything from the original scan (which hopefully was a "flat scan" from the photo lab guys).  So, no digital editing:  this is what it looks like -- for all of these.

As usual, double-click to enlarge.

--GG