In today's quick video, I'm going to be talking about auto-exposing act chrome. And I shot this video on my like MP with the new-ish Voitland or 35 APO which I'm going to be doing a review of as well. If you've been into film photography for a while, you've probably heard that slide film is incredibly unforgiving. You have to meter the scene perfectly. You have to expose for the highlights. You have to use the zone system. It only has five stops of dynamic range. And I wanted to see whether that was true or rather how true it was. So overall though, things did not turn out perfectly. They did turn out better than I expected. With the exception of maybe two or three shots, all my results were usable. Perfect. No, would they have been better if I used a spot meter, sure. But good enough to be honest. And with the method of just exposing for the entire scene. I found that generally my highlights were okay. My shadows were okay-ish. And if the shadows dropped out a bit, I was okay with that. That's a look that you'll frequently see photographers who worked with color slide film going for intentionally. So I'm thinking specifically of Alex Webb, Constantine Monos and some other late 1900s photographers who used the tendency of a shadows to block out on slide film to a really pleasant effect and work with the really saturated, beautiful colors of slide film. Admittedly, modern actor chrome is known for having pretty good dynamic range for a slide film. So obviously this isn't Velvia, but I found that I had more than enough dynamic range to accomplish what I wanted to and letting those shadows block up gave me some creative freedom to end up with a scene that was more contrasty and vibrant than I would have felt comfortable with if I were shooting, say, portrait 400. My other concern was that while slide film would just look like digital. And I didn't really find that to be the case. Admittedly, it's a pretty authentic color and neutral rendering. It's not as overtly golden-hued as, say, gold or portrait, but it still has some character in the highlights and the shadows. And overall, I thought the film maybe had a bit of a blutant, which was corrected in post and I was able to get it looking a bit warm like I prefer. And finally, would I shoot it again? Well, yeah, sure. But given the cost of about $15 a roll and the hassle of thinking about will I be blowing my highlights or blocking up my shadows, I probably won't shoot it again terribly soon or terribly often. But it's definitely an option and if you haven't shot it because you're afraid of it being really hard to shoot, I'd say just go ahead and buy a roll, have a simple meter that works well, is good enough and you should get surprisingly good results.