Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,966   Posts: 1,558,420   Online: 917
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 66 of 66
  1. #61
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,610
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    If your coming from video you are worrying about the highlights too much. Compared to video its almost impossible blow the highlights on film.
    Slide film excepted, of course.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #62
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,773
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandysloo View Post
    Ah, so it simply refers to the curve. I've been a videographer by trade for some time, so I have a pretty healthy understanding of this stuff. It's just the chemical process that's new to me.

    So I guess that's to say that tonality responds to light non-logarithmically? When I underexpose by 2 stops, my cloudy skies are just where I want them: a moody grey with spots of highlights with a feathery soft knee. My primary fear with overexposing is clipping those highlights, though with film I understand that highlights retain better across varying exposures than shadows do, correct? Meaning that overexposing will brighten the shadows disproportionate to how much it will brighten the highlights? I'm used to working with Log curves as part of the digital video workflow, where adjustments are impacted equally throughout the tonal range.
    Correct, on the toe and shoulder it does not follow a straight logarithmic line.

    Negative films are famous for their ability to hold highlight detail, you have little to worry about when compared to video.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #63
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Slide film excepted, of course.
    Quite right, an entirely different animal.

    Also, in regard to negative film there is no "clipping". If something blows it does so in a much more graduated and usually pleasing fashion than the hard cut off offered by electronics.

  4. #64
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,773
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by pawlowski6132 View Post
    there is no absolute accurate exposure. The best exposure is the one that gives you what you want in the negative. I would trade having all the details I can get in a negative for slower shutter speed and larger apertures all day. I think most people would. Not sure what grain size has to do with anything.
    Graininess increases with either more exposure or more development.

    I do agree that a negative that "gives you what you want" is the best. This was part and parcel of Ansel Adams' teachings, the zone system was designed to make printing easier and improve quality.

    An important part of that system is pegging the shadow point to a very specific point on the film curve, essentially as low as possible where you can still get the detail needed.

    Adams wasn't looking for a buffer, he had fully tested and found his own EI's. He knew exactly how to meter for and get what he wanted. This minimum exposure method is also taught, with caveats, by Dunn & Wakefield in "Exposure Manual".

    I do also agree that there is no one best exposure method or placement regime that suits everybody. Each of us need to figure out what works best for ourselves.

    My aversion to simply adding extra exposure as a buffer is purely practical.

    My metering practices are well practiced, when I miss its normally a doozy, like thinking I'm shooting Delta 400 at 3200 and having fP4 in the camera, 1-2 stops of buffer isn't going to fix the shadow detail there.

    I also don't think most people will give up speed for extra shadow detail. Personally I like photographing people, boats, and other non-fixed stuff in low light, or in motion, and on MF and LF film. My subject matter and smaller relative apertures that come with the larger formats pose a time problem for me and many others. Even where I can hold the camera still with a tripod my subjects are still prone to wiggle. I'm not real happy when shutter speeds get real long.

    Given my situation, I won't give up any shutter speed just to have a little extra shadow detail I'm not planning to use.
    Last edited by markbarendt; 01-04-2013 at 03:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #65
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,261
    Just remember, exposing less (a stop or two, or three) will provide better highlight separation and leave shadows either black or very, very underexposed. That is what you want on pictures like you posted. Of course, with underexposure, development must increase in order to get what you want. What you DO NOT WANT is to give normal exposure and then cook the film in the developer. You will then achieve a nighmare of density and distress. - David Lyga

  6. #66
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,773
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Just remember, exposing less (a stop or two, or three) will provide better highlight separation and leave shadows either black or very, very underexposed. That is what you want on pictures like you posted. Of course, with underexposure, development must increase in order to get what you want. What you DO NOT WANT is to give normal exposure and then cook the film in the developer. You will then achieve a nighmare of density and distress. - David Lyga
    Less than what?

    If the OP is picking, then placing, his or her chosen shadow point specifically for the print expected, as any zone system adherent might, then the OP is correctly exposing. That is not to say that that placement choice is even remotely close to the placement choice we might make.

    Underexposure only "happens" when shadow detail wanted isn't caught.

    Following on that line of thought, adjusting contrast isn't indicated just because a lower exposure level is chosen. Raising film contrast won't necessarily help the OP print the delicate highlights wanted. Measuring or judging SBR is a better way to make that choice.
    Last edited by markbarendt; 01-04-2013 at 06:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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