Any constructive feedback here regarding exposure (not composition)
I've just shot my first roll of Fuji Pro 800Z. I rated it at EI400 for extra shadow detail. I have posted the results on my blog if anyone would care to have a look and provide any feedback. My Blog Entry
Points of note :
1) The images on the website are scans of 6" x 4" prints, not the negatives. As such, they are not as sharp as the actual prints
2) The first 9 are Fuji Pro 800Z. The rest are Fuji Pro 160S, shot at EI125.
3) I was a GUEST at this wedding. I was not the official photographer. So I was stuck in the seating area for most of it and I wasn't free to compose my subjects. Thats why I'm not too interested in "If you moved the bride here..." etc
All were shot using Nikon F5, 80-200mm zoom, and mostly centre weighted metering, though some were matrix metered. An incident light meter was not used.
Any constructive feedback regarding the exposure especially would be welcome as I am intending on using this film for my up-and-coming wedding later this month and I am keen to get any hot tips for it's use.
My Blog Entry
The exposures all look OK to me, Ted. Of course, since we are seeing scans of prints, I'm sure the machine already adjusted for any exposure variations, so any exposure error would have to be pretty bad in order to be noticeable. How do the negs look?
Ted, if the prints replicate the scans then they look fine. It is really none of my business how many different kinds of film you take to the wedding where you are the official photog but I'd be inclined to have one of the prints from the 800Z enlarged to at least 8x10 or a little larger. If the grain isn't noticeable and the colour palette looks good, I'd be inclined to simplfy things by taking this one film only.
Those commissioning your shots aren't going to be in the least bit interested in what film it was. It simplifies things and gives vital extra speed at 400/800 which might be needed to cope with varying lighting conditions especially if you are still shooting into the evening or shady indoors
Best of luck
To me the placement of the skin tones seem to be a stop or so too low.
I know that the subjects are in the shade and it looks like the exposures are normal given that fact, but that doesn't mean it's what you want.
You have a couple choices here if you want the skin brighter: use a bit of fill flash (or a reflector) and let the background stay where it's at or bump the exposure a stop and let the background float.
You may also want to consider a warming filter on the flash for the shaded subjects, shadow areas tend to go blue.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
The exposures look good. There are a couple of shots where they appear to reflect a choice as to what the priorities are. I am assuming that the results, and your choices, match
In case you are wondering what I mean, take photo number 5 as an example. I am assuming you chose the exposure to favour the couple, at the expense of the officiant. If not, you didn't get what you wanted. You might consider approaching the question the other way, and expose for the officiant. In that case, of course, the couple will lose detail.
With respect to photo number 2, it looks to me that the meter was affected by the out of focus foreground item and the dress - always a danger when you are in a crowd at a wedding.
“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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm pretty much in line here. The exposure levels seem good from here. Course, they're copies of copies of copies. But they seem fine. The skin tones do seem a bit low, though, perhaps a stop. But you are doing a good thing. Getting to know your tools. Pratice another roll where you are less restricted with lighting and get a feel for that as well and you'll be headed down WOO-HOO street.
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti
I'm not seeing the dark skin tones that others have mentioned. Everything looks good to me; no complaints. I think people are seeing the results of the scans; chances are, your EI ratings of 125 and 400 were more than sufficient to prevent underexposed skintones.
I agree with Mark - fill flash would help tame the high contrast.
Thank you all who have commented so far, and thanks to Ian for PM'ing me with similar feedback.
The fill flash seems to be the order of the day and I am currently getting to grips with proper flash photography. I've just bought "The Nikon Creative Lighting System: Using the SB-600, SB-800, SB-900, and R1C1 Flashes" by Mike Hagen, which is proving to be great and is helping me to get to grips with my SB800 better than my current level of understanding. I never realised the importance of using "Slow Sync, in fact, and how it can be used where there is good ambient light or side light.
I've shot the wedding that I refer to at the start of this thread! I am quite happy with the results, especially with my use of flash, which in most shots is not very noticeable at all but adds just enough light to fill the eyes and faces. The book I bought that Ian recommended to me was superb in assisitng my understanding. Full write up and critique request here: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum292/...ml#post1018083 I am eager to learn how better to use flash.