Well to really understand exposure, you need a darkroom to print in (or a scanner to make a digital print onto a computer screen).
The only job of the film is to capture information. And it did that.
Now you have to take that information and successfully transfer it onto another media. Thats where differences in exposure will be a factor.
Last edited by WolfTales; 12-21-2009 at 09:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I brake for fixer!
I agree with WolfTales. Before digital existed I used to tell people first starting out in photography to put their cameras on manual, shoot slides and have them processed at a consistently good lab. Slides don't lie and can be the best teacher for understanding and controlling basic exposure. Once they understood this then I told people to process and print their own B&W. If someone else is correcting their mistakes they'll never learn how to prevent them.
Haven't had challenges relative to exposure. However, just thought I would stick my oar in here, when capturing in color, what I have to notice & correct is color temp. especially if it's a bright sunny day after a snow. I find that snow can be a little blue in color.
Have a wonderful week.
A little more detailed description of the overall scene and the OP's intent on what he wanted to capture would probably help.
Not sure if this will help, but in difficult lighting situations, I like to meter of the back of my hand to get my exposure in the ballpark, and then compensate a little if I need to from there.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
well thank you to all who replied
and yes, snow is white and I expected dark negs, but some of mine are a bit TOO dense.
and I can't print yet, saving up money for darkroom equip.. should be ready after the holidays.
So in a months time, the real fun will begin and I'll get back to printing!
I re-read your original post. If you only overexposed 1 or 2 f/stops and your negs are really that dense then something else is awry. Maybe the cold weather is affecting your shutter speed or aperture... slow/sticky/jamming? And... you did set the appropriate ISO on the meter, right?
It's good general advice to meter from the palm of the hand rather than the back as the palm skin colour doesn't vary much with regard to overall skin colour. With this method it is usual to add one stop of exposure.
Originally Posted by photokalia
However, if you are lucky enough to have a skin tone which has the same reflectance as a standard grey card, then you are in luck!
For slides of skiers and snow boarders, take a reading of the palm of your and a reading of a dark parka and average, unless of course you find an appropriately dark gray parka.
Originally Posted by Mike1234
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Reading this, I'm a bit confused. IF you took an incident reading and compensated, you've done too much. The incident reading if done right, will give you all you need.
Originally Posted by Deit39
But I'm not sure about which WAY you compensated, either. If you added exposure, yes, you would get overexposed negatives. But you say you didn't compensate enough, which suggests that you may have given LESS exposure and don't think you went far enough. Were you to have cut your exposure, you might well have UNDERexposed. Just don't compensate and you should do fine, but be sure that you are pointing the incident meter AWAY from the camera if you stay at the camera position and are in the same light, or, if you go to the subject you'd point the meter toward the camera. Note that in both these cases the meter would be pointing in the same direction.
Using a reflected light meter, yes, whatever you meter is assumed in the design of the meter to be middle gray. Using an incident meter is far more reliable when working in snow or other unusual conditions. Fog too.