Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,710   Posts: 1,482,892   Online: 989
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,714
    Images
    65
    That ISO fits a generic guide set up by the ANSI standard committee on photography. It does not take into account all of the real world conditions. So, a tad of adjusting is going to be needed in extremes of sunlight and etc. Slight overexposure is one way to correct that without a lot of tests.

    And yeah, we do know what we are doing. I was one of those guys doing it. I still use 320 for a 400 film!

    PE

  2. #12
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    816
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    That ISO fits a generic guide set up by the ANSI standard committee on photography. It does not take into account all of the real world conditions. So, a tad of adjusting is going to be needed in extremes of sunlight and etc. Slight overexposure is one way to correct that without a lot of tests.

    And yeah, we do know what we are doing. I was one of those guys doing it. I still use 320 for a 400 film!

    PE
    That means I can credit you with that awful Kodak Ultramax 400?

  3. #13
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,293
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    C-41 films are very flexible, consider for a moment the lighting range disposable cameras have to operate in and there is no adjustment provided to change the time or f-stop. The reason these cameras do just fine in most situations is the inherent latitude of negative films.

    The exposures that come from disposables or toy cameras may vary by 4-5 stops, say 1 under to 4 over. Surprisingly decent prints displaying normal color, contrast, and detail may be doable across that whole range. YMMV depending on lots of things but lets keep it real simple for a moment.

    Negatives normally record a much larger range of info from every scene than will actually be printed directly.

    As an analogy, think of yourself standing on the second rung of a 15' tall ladder and your hands are on say the 9th rung. The ladder represents the range negative catches, you represent the range the paper can print. As long as you (the paper) stay inside the ladder's (the negative's) range you can get essentially equal prints in terms of detail and contrast.

    In the analogy if you reduce camera exposure you, the paper, moves down the ladder and when you hit ground you start losing shadow detail. Increasing camera exposure is like moving yourself (the paper) up the ladder, at some point you reach the top of the ladder and start losing highlight detail.

    Photographers like Jose Villa claim to lean significantly toward the overexposure side, there is more to the story though. Jose's shots are typically backlit portraits. IMO he is simply giving his main subjects very full exposure so that he can print bright skin tones/mid-tones. He is willing to let the background fall where it may. The background in Jose's shots is simply a light pastel blur. It is a style choice he has made. In contrast a landscape shooter might not want to use that much exposure, detail in the clouds may be important.

    So, rather than saying one "should" give negatives extra exposure in general, I'd suggest simply that generally you should avoid underexposure until you have tested clear to the print to find your minimum and maximum exposure limits in all the various lighting situations and subjects you normally encounter.

    No push or pull is needed for any of this to work.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,714
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    That means I can credit you with that awful Kodak Ultramax 400?
    I am not familiar with that product in any way. Sorry. And, it is not in the current product list. If you are right then they were smart and quit making it!

    PE

  5. #15
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,714
    Images
    65
    As to the tonal range of color films, I have exposed Portra 160 NC and VC both from ISO 25 to 400 and gotten usable pictures.

    PE

  6. #16
    Tom1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,687
    I've always wondered how many chemists, scientists, and engineers were on EK staff and on the premises each day. On top of that, there must have been many non-Kodak people actually on the premises also each day, from defense contractors and commercial consumption each day. With that wonderment I speculate that if you were somebody not smart enough to cut the mustard, you didn't last at EK very long. I suppose I've always wondered these things as I perused the products in the camera stores as a young person in the 70's.

  7. #17
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,714
    Images
    65
    In my time there, KRL had about 2000 people doing R&D in Rochester with 120,000 world wide in overall operations and about 60,000 of them in Rochester. There ere 3 R&D facilities. One here in Roch. one at Harrow England and one at Chalon France.

    There was a regular staff and a senior staff for "professional employees" and a "technician staff" for others. We were paired 1 professional heading a Lab with about 20 - 30 in the lab. Each professional staff in the lab had 1 - 3 technicians under them to do work. R&D on a product took up to 5 years. We used a staff of up to 6 professionals and their associated technicians on each product. Support staff included the coating engineers that mad coatings and process engineers that processed them if we did not do it ourselves.

    There ya go Tom.

    PE

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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