Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,695   Posts: 1,549,061   Online: 1030
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,625
    I should probably explain a little more ... Here in Calif we have exquisite summer and fall colors consisting of all kinds of subtle shades of gold, gray-green, rust hues. These are very kinds of colors color neg film has a terrible
    time differentiating. Even chromes are tricky with these kinds of colors. Watercolorists have been able to do a wonderful job reproducing the special qualities of the color and atmosphere here; but film is another story. Dye
    transfer printing works to a degree, but fails at capturing really intense detail on large scale. The last thing I personally want is traditional Vericolor mud and mush like Misrach or Meyorwitz or Shore mastered, or at the opposite end, the jam and honey atop sugar cube saturation that every fool with Fautoshop does. Making color
    sing is really a matter of nuance, not noise. After a couple of years of making decent CA prints from Portra, but
    maybe only a couple of masterpiece images comparable to what I attained in Cibachrome, I'm finally beginning to
    understand some riddles, and am squeezing some difficult landscape color relationships out of these newer Kodak
    films which are giving me hope. In the meantime, RA papers have improved enough to make a difference too, and
    I've relearned some advanced masking technique specifically appropriate to color neg work.

  2. #32
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by RPC View Post
    Unless someone goes to the trouble to test his meter, metering techniques, aperture, and shutter for accuracy, he never really knows for sure his true shooting speed. Therefore, because of the lattitude of color negative films I believe it is best to shoot at some degree of overexposure until such tests are made to prevent underexposure and loss of shadow detail if the shooting errs on that side. Half box speed (one stop over) will probably take care of most errors.
    Yes testing is important but here are three thoughts to consider;

    One, the standard already has a safety factor. Stephen Benskin has had numerous discussions here that touch on this and books like Dunn & Wakefield's Exposure Manual and the encyclopedia of photographic processes are worth reading when we really want to know what's what there.

    Two, we have no idea which way the aperture and shutter are "off" without testing. Adding exposure "just because" can actually compound the problem.

    Three, a single test roll or 3 sheets should be plenty to see if you are "close enough" to normal or if an adjustment one way or another is warranted.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    I should probably explain a little more ... Here in Calif we have exquisite summer and fall colors consisting of all kinds of subtle shades of gold, gray-green, rust hues. These are very kinds of colors color neg film has a terrible
    time differentiating. Even chromes are tricky with these kinds of colors. Watercolorists have been able to do a wonderful job reproducing the special qualities of the color and atmosphere here; but film is another story. Dye
    transfer printing works to a degree, but fails at capturing really intense detail on large scale. The last thing I personally want is traditional Vericolor mud and mush like Misrach or Meyorwitz or Shore mastered, or at the opposite end, the jam and honey atop sugar cube saturation that every fool with Fautoshop does. Making color
    sing is really a matter of nuance, not noise. After a couple of years of making decent CA prints from Portra, but
    maybe only a couple of masterpiece images comparable to what I attained in Cibachrome, I'm finally beginning to
    understand some riddles, and am squeezing some difficult landscape color relationships out of these newer Kodak
    films which are giving me hope. In the meantime, RA papers have improved enough to make a difference too, and
    I've relearned some advanced masking technique specifically appropriate to color neg work.
    Out of interest, if dye transfer works, then the film must have the information on it. I presume you aren't scanning because you want a photographic reproduction (i.e. do you scan at all)? I've been playing with Portra quite a bit (160 mostly because 400 does'nt seem to have as balanced a colour response).

    Tim

  4. #34
    RPC
    RPC is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Yes testing is important but here are three thoughts to consider;

    One, the standard already has a safety factor. Stephen Benskin has had numerous discussions here that touch on this and books like Dunn & Wakefield's Exposure Manual and the encyclopedia of photographic processes are worth reading when we really want to know what's what there.

    Two, we have no idea which way the aperture and shutter are "off" without testing. Adding exposure "just because" can actually compound the problem.

    Three, a single test roll or 3 sheets should be plenty to see if you are "close enough" to normal or if an adjustment one way or another is warranted.
    There is no way to say for sure that any safety factor built in is going to safely cover all underexposure errors that might be a combination of metering and camera errors. If the errors are off on the side of overexposure, then adding more exposure, due to the lattitude of the film, is very unlikely to cause a problem. It would take a fair amount of testing to test various metering situations, all apertures and shutter speeds and shutter consistancy, especially if one has several lenses. Without such tests, adding a stop of exposure is simply a safer way to go. I do it and have never had a problem as a result.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,625
    Tim - dye transfer is done from chromes, not color neg film (although there is a rather complicated
    way of doing it from negs; and there was once a special type of DT film for neg film use per se).
    And there is an analogous method of retrieving info from color neg layer by layer and correcting the
    bias in each of these by doing scanned color separations and post-correction (more a prepress
    technique rather than ordinary PS). But neg film in general has a horrible time with certain color
    issues in nature. Low contrast types like Portra and more difficult to correct for my personal goals
    than something like Ektar. But Ektar has its own distinct idiosyncrasies. All films do. It's just that with
    chromes the learning curve goes a little faster because you can just slap the thing on a lightbox and
    see what is going on. And chromes haven't changed a lot in the last few decades - just incrementally. These new Kodak products are analogous to older color neg films, but really way more
    versatile in terms of color gamut. But they still need advanced post-processing for certain color issues.

  6. #36
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by RPC View Post
    There is no way to say for sure that any safety factor built in is going to safely cover all underexposure errors that might be a combination of metering and camera errors. If the errors are off on the side of overexposure, then adding more exposure, due to the lattitude of the film, is very unlikely to cause a problem. It would take a fair amount of testing to test various metering situations, all apertures and shutter speeds and shutter consistancy, especially if one has several lenses. Without such tests, adding a stop of exposure is simply a safer way to go. I do it and have never had a problem as a result.
    I used to do shoot at 1/2 box too and I'm not afraid of overexposing when there's a good reason to.

    I actually liked the idea of not worrying about underexposure and I didn't trust my tools or myself enough.

    What I've found over time with incident metering (as the OP is doing) is that when I make exposure setting errors, they are normally doozies, like taking a reading and completely forgetting to adjust the lens/camera; shooting at 1/2 box speed never "saved" a single shot where I screwed up like this.

    The other thing that I've found with incident metering is that, when I actually do what the meter tells me, which is the norm; exposure is spot on no-ifs-ands-or-buts, I get just what I expect every time. In this "normal" case, shooting at 1/2 box speed gives me no advantage but it still costs me a full stop of shutter speed in the field.

    Once I understood how accurate my tools were, and that I could do it, the idea of shooting at 1/2 box speed lost all it's appeal.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    130
    Sure, shoot at box speed if you're using a spot meter. Meter the shadows and drop exposure by two stops (assuming that your shutter is accurate). Otherwise add 1/3 - 1/2 stop of exposure to be certain that you capture some detail in deep shadows.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,625
    I spot meter everything. ... well, except for a couple times I dropped my meter in a creek and had
    to determine exposure from memory! (It worked.) Spot meters are especially nice if you switch between color and black and white film, which is easy to do with a view camera. But the important
    thing is just to get comfortable with the personality of your meter. Even when I was young and had
    only an external CDS averaging meter on an early Pentax and shot Kodachrome in it, I never got a bad exposure - they were all spot on, no matter where I went.

  9. #39
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,854
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I used to do shoot at 1/2 box too and I'm not afraid of overexposing when there's a good reason to.

    I actually liked the idea of not worrying about underexposure and I didn't trust my tools or myself enough.

    What I've found over time with incident metering (as the OP is doing) is that when I make exposure setting errors, they are normally doozies, like taking a reading and completely forgetting to adjust the lens/camera; shooting at 1/2 box speed never "saved" a single shot where I screwed up like this.

    The other thing that I've found with incident metering is that, when I actually do what the meter tells me, which is the norm; exposure is spot on no-ifs-ands-or-buts, I get just what I expect every time. In this "normal" case, shooting at 1/2 box speed gives me no advantage but it still costs me a full stop of shutter speed in the field.

    Once I understood how accurate my tools were, and that I could do it, the idea of shooting at 1/2 box speed lost all it's appeal.
    I agree with you entirely Mark, I've been using incidental metering for more than forty years and have found that for 95% of subjects with any negative or transparancy film rated at the boxed speed it produces uncannily accurate results with a single reading pointing the meter from the subject to the camera without having to do any mental arithmetic, or in difficult lighting situations The Duplex Method taking two readings, one with the dome pointing at the main light source, and another from the subject to the camera and using the mean average of the two readings as the exposure to set. I'm surprised that more photographers don't use incidental light metering it's magic.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 06-22-2012 at 06:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  10. #40
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    I'm surprised that more photographers don't use incidental light metering it's magic.
    Me too.

    Maybe that's St. Ansel's fault.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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