Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,296   Online: 817
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Discussion of exposure needs to be "focussed" on meters, how they work, and how to use them.
    I agree, if you understand where to point your meter to get a reliable reading, what it is measuring, and how to interpret/translate that reading into a camera setting; you will be able to get the results you expect nearly every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    The question of whether to meter using the box speed or to use a personal EI turns on two factors:

    1) whether the film being used is a typical film (like Tri-X) where the ISO and the box speed are one and the same, or a film like Neopan 1600, where the "1600" refers to a speed that is applicable to some relatively special conditions, and is different from the ISO;
    Here I disagree, The box speed is only correct when it's developed as specified for box speed and with the same chemicals at the same temperatures.

    Shooting Neopan 1600 (or Delta 3200 or TMax 3200) at 1600 is normal, developing it for 1600 is normal too.

    The magic of getting the shot you want though still lies in placing the exposure properly. The OP thinks the Neopan shots were too dark, that's just a placement issue not an EI issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    and 2) whether one has engaged in the procedure of testing one's metering and shooting and developing at a number of different EIs, and come to the conclusion that a particular EI works best for them.
    Exactly, what I've actually found for myself over the last year or so of playing with this, is that the EI's I like are: 1-specific to the situation (i.e. back-lit vs. front-lit, night vs. day, landscape vs. cityscape, etcetera), 2-specific to the meter I'm using (and it's idiosyncrasies), and 3-specific to my mood or intention.

    I've gone back to using the box speed as my reference point and just factoring in all the variables on the fly.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  2. #32
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,798
    Images
    60
    Hi Mark:

    I may not have been totally clear with respect to my comment about Neopan 1600.

    I was trying to stress that the "1600" in Neopan 1600 is very different than the "400" in T-Max 400, because 1600 is not the ISO speed for the film, but rather an EI that can be used when light conditions suggest under-exposure and "push" development. For that reason, I don't think it a good idea to use one's experience with Neopan 1600 (or the 3200 films) to determine how best to determine an EI for another film.
    Matt

    “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

  3. #33
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    No problem Matt, I knew what you meant, just wanted to be practical and my hope here is just not to let Jean (the OP) off the hook.

    Jean, my point is simple and born of my own mistakes.

    Using an arbitrary EI is not a magic bullet capable of getting you good exposures.

    Matt and others have put it well, understanding what the meter is telling you and being able to translate that into a workable camera setting is almost always the the fix.

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Hi Mark:

    I may not have been totally clear with respect to my comment about Neopan 1600.

    I was trying to stress that the "1600" in Neopan 1600 is very different than the "400" in T-Max 400, because 1600 is not the ISO speed for the film, but rather an EI that can be used when light conditions suggest under-exposure and "push" development. For that reason, I don't think it a good idea to use one's experience with Neopan 1600 (or the 3200 films) to determine how best to determine an EI for another film.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #34
    ted_smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    396
    Images
    1
    Welcome to APUG. It's the finest photographic community on the net, in my view.

    I like your shots. I think as one poster has already said, you're perhaps too used to looking at over saturated "photoshopped" digital nonsense. Many of us here have either always shot film, or were raised shooting film, or now shoot both film & digital.

    Your Neopan shots look nice and dark where they need to be. I'd simply recommend some sharper focusing, unless you were deliberately trying to capture them slightly blurry, to go with the B&W feel? I've shot a few Neopan 1600 and ahev struggled to get shots nice and dark like that, even using my Nikon F5. Are these "pure scans" from the print or negative, or are they scans of the prints that have since been tweaked with Photoshop? I'd be intrigued to know.

    I'm not that used to Velvia, but again, they look OK to me. Slide film is (as already been said) very unforgiving of incorrect metering. Read up on that subject first then use a few rolls to test, otherwise you'll be broke before you've even begun with film! "Understanding Exposure" by Peterson is a great book.

    Ted
    Ted Smith Photography
    Hasselblad 501CM...my 2nd love.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,116
    If you want to stick to your camera's meter and have no choice(pity - there is a choice in fact as home developing isn't that difficult) except to have your films developed commercially then try and get hold of Carson Graves book " The Zone System for 35mm Photgraphers" It describes how to establish your own Exposure Index using nothing more complicated than your own camera's meter and a willing model wearing a textured white and black garment and carrying a 18% grey card.

    Some of what he says relies on doing your own developing but in your circumstances it comes as close as any book I have read to get you to the right E.I. and how to expose accurately without expensive spot meters, densitometers etc. Secondhand copies of the book sell for silly prices on Amazon or Allibris Books.

    pentaxuser

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Thunder Bay Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    Hi,Your photography - good contrast and good compositions,I like ,great for me.
    I wish You GOOD LIGHT, borek

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