Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,834   Posts: 1,582,390   Online: 907
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    In other words, adjusting the overall exposure to all layers does not solve the problem of whether each layer is getting optimal exposure. That's why we filter.
    Absolutely.

    It is also a good reason to use controlled colored artificial light. Strobes with or without gels, reflectors, scrims, ...

    One way or another, balancing the curves in the camera with filters or lighting helps a lot.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    I really could not use this Rollei 35 S camera. And I have no lightmeter and it makes everything more complicated........................

    Umut
    A good light meter would cost you about the same as a few rolls of film but will save you many rolls of film over time by properly exposing them. I highly recommend buying one, you will not regret it.

    As for color and the eye, your eye is a camera, but it is connected to a huge light, color and exposure computer called your brain. When you look at a scene you think you only look once, but your brain looks several times and each time it takes in different information and then provides you with the image that you "see" by filling in all the information it can from each of several images. Film can not do this, film looks once, and has to be exposed for only one light setting. You can shoot and process for whatever you want to, but you can't get the film to expose for several diffident types of lighting, there will always be some sort of compromise.

    FYI: In the late 1800's a photographer who's name I can not remember did experiments with shooting several frames of film then used masking and cutting to produce a photograph of what his eye was seeing at the time. It is a complicated process, but it can be done.
    "Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
    "Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"

    Me

  3. #33
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by bblhed View Post
    FYI: In the late 1800's a photographer who's name I can not remember did experiments with shooting several frames of film then used masking and cutting to produce a photograph of what his eye was seeing at the time. It is a complicated process, but it can be done.
    Are you referring to the colour separation work of Prokudin-Gorskii?
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #34
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    markbarendt;
    "Each layer in color film only makes one color and it is always fully saturated because there is no other choice. The density is the only variable I see."

    That's true, but densities resulting in from a given scene is not only dependent on exposure. They are also dependent on spectral sensitivities of the sensitization dyes in film. AFAIK, this is the variable that controls saturation along with image-forming dye absorption spectra. But I would expect this is constant regardless of exposure. I might be wrong. But at least we can control this by selecting a different film. At least I would like to hear if there is more to this.
    I agree that different films will have different color palettes. Ektar vs. Portra is a good example and that each film will have it's own unique response to any given input.

    As I see it though, after choosing the film all we have control of are the densities involved.

    My thought is simply that for any one given film there is only one color hue available on each layer and that when the three layers are "balanced and processed normally", the sum of the layers will always reach full design saturation.

    I guess one way of saying this is that, even a perfect gray caught on color film isn't a monochrome or desaturated color, it's a fully saturated real world color created by a "balance" of density between all 3 layers.

    We can manipulate contrast through composition, lighting, choosing the exposure relationships between our subjects and their settings, with polarizing filters....

    We can manipulate the exposure relationships (balance) between the layers with colored filters to skew the densities one way or another to manipulate color balance. This is generally global though, with all the hues shifting say warmer or cooler, it may look better/provide better color contrast/be just what we want, but the saturation hasn't changed and our perfect gray subject from the scene is no longer gray.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    For example, it is known that when printing with sharp-cut RGB filters instead of CMY filtered white light source, saturation is increased because of less crosstalk between the color channels, and this is different from contrast. So, there are more variables in the play.
    I agree that deviation from the normal processes and tools could easily change the palette a given film might produce.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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