Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,953   Posts: 1,586,004   Online: 789
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    duparis00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    115

    Snuck in a film portrait during a session

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Nat-2.jpg 
Views:	238 
Size:	189.3 KB 
ID:	84383

    Nat's been out of the country for about 3 years, which was before I got into photography. So when she came back I had to call her out for a portrait session.
    Shot with Mamiya 645 AFD 80mm 2.8 on Kodak Portra 160. I must over exposed by at least 1/3 of a stop her skin shouldn't be shiny like that, it wasn't that way in real life or on digital.

    I did 2 shots on my 4x5 but I totally screwed up my exposure. Not only did I forget to account for the bellows factor but I forgot I'd loaded 100ISO provia instead of the 160 Portra, so I was under exposed by over 2 stops. There was no coming back from that lol....ahhh live and learn. I was so excited about shooting a portrait with the 4x5 for the first time I totally messed that up.

    This shot was the only saving grace.

  2. #2
    MattKrull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    134
    Very nice
    Love the lighting.
    Very good scan too btw.

  3. #3
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,560
    Images
    300
    Portra 160 should not be sensitive to 1/3 stop overexposure. I've shot it at EI 80 when bracketing and no problems. For Portra 160 to block up highlights due to overexposure you would have to try a lot harder.

    Very nice portrait. Good lighting.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    MA, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,288
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by duparis00 View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Nat-2.jpg 
Views:	238 
Size:	189.3 KB 
ID:	84383

    Nat's been out of the country for about 3 years, which was before I got into photography. So when she came back I had to call her out for a portrait session.
    Shot with Mamiya 645 AFD 80mm 2.8 on Kodak Portra 160. I must over exposed by at least 1/3 of a stop her skin shouldn't be shiny like that, it wasn't that way in real life or on digital.

    I did 2 shots on my 4x5 but I totally screwed up my exposure. Not only did I forget to account for the bellows factor but I forgot I'd loaded 100ISO provia instead of the 160 Portra, so I was under exposed by over 2 stops. There was no coming back from that lol....ahhh live and learn. I was so excited about shooting a portrait with the 4x5 for the first time I totally messed that up.

    This shot was the only saving grace.
    ISO 100 = X
    ISO 160 = X +2/3 stop.

    In reality, portra is not really 160 anyways.
    Its easy to push E-6 +0.5 stop.

    The highlights in the scan are probably due to the limited dynamic range of the scanner, and that area will have detail in the negative.
    CatLABS of JP
    Darkroom resources and service

    www.catlabs.info | https://www.facebook.com/CatLABS.of.JP | www.jobo-usa.com

  5. #5
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,227
    I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the lady's skin tones are rendered, and it's not the exposure because 1/3rd of a stop wouldn't be perceivable on Portra 160.
    Ben

  6. #6
    duparis00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    115
    Interesting, thanks for the feedback guys. I assumed it was over exposure since I couldn't think of another reason for the skin to render like that. But catlabs brings up an interesting point about the scanner's dmax. I started with digital and even then not long ago, so entering film is like a whole new world I need to understand.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    68

    Snuck in a film portrait during a session

    Nice, though I'd frame her head on the right third.
    Or flip the image horizontally.
    My eye reads it from left to right, so in your framing I set from the head and are lead to nothing.
    Anyway, that's me and maybe others read it the exact opposite way.

    As for the ⅓-⅔ overexposure, if you account your lens' true t-stop, the shutter'a and the lightmeter's accuracy, it's as small as a normal statistical error.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    68

    Snuck in a film portrait during a session

    Quote Originally Posted by duparis00 View Post
    Interesting, thanks for the feedback guys. I assumed it was over exposure since I couldn't think of another reason for the skin to render like that. But catlabs brings up an interesting point about the scanner's dmax. I started with digital and even then not long ago, so entering film is like a whole new world I need to understand.
    Btw, I think her skin rendered like that because mostly of her makeup (she needed to apply a bit more foundation/powder, maybe she has oily skin), then the lighting and thirdly the scanning.
    The overexposure is the least important of factors I can think of.

  9. #9
    duparis00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by giannisg2004 View Post
    Nice, though I'd frame her head on the right third.
    Or flip the image horizontally.
    My eye reads it from left to right, so in your framing I set from the head and are lead to nothing.
    Anyway, that's me and maybe others read it the exact opposite way.

    As for the ⅓-⅔ overexposure, if you account your lens' true t-stop, the shutter'a and the lightmeter's accuracy, it's as small as a normal statistical error.
    Yeah you know I was imaging an over the shoulder shot so I started framing her on the left side, but she doesn't really look over the shoulder and you're right I think she should have been framed on the right.

    Great point about the exposure.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    MA, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,288
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by duparis00 View Post
    Interesting, thanks for the feedback guys. I assumed it was over exposure since I couldn't think of another reason for the skin to render like that. But catlabs brings up an interesting point about the scanner's dmax. I started with digital and even then not long ago, so entering film is like a whole new world I need to understand.
    Its a good point to remember that digital works exactly the opposite from film, those highlights in digital mean less data, where as in film, its means more data then the very thin areas. A good scanner can get all that info out for you, perhaps in 2 scans and an overlay layer.
    CatLABS of JP
    Darkroom resources and service

    www.catlabs.info | https://www.facebook.com/CatLABS.of.JP | www.jobo-usa.com

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin