Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,487   Posts: 1,571,312   Online: 730
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    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 Dikaiosune01 View Post
    checking the negatives, the shadows seems good. Then again im not the most experienced to judge.

    Final result prints. They seem quite off. I lose a lot of shadow on the prints. The prints that used the iso 200 setting on the meter are better than the 400. but there seems to be room for improvement. I want to shoot closer to the mark.
    Given that the negatives have detail where you want it, I'm going to say it's a problem in the printing.

    Negatives are very forgiving and normally carry a lot more of the scene brightness range than what can easily be printed.

    You may need to do some burning and dodging or ...
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Dikaiosune01 View Post
    It is more likely i am wrong somewhere in the process. Ill try to be a little more specific about my current process.

    No bellows factors. Everything is far enough away.

    Meter: canon 500d + 300mm (75-300 zoom)
    monocrome setting, spot meter.
    Iso 400 overexposes. Iso 200 better, looking to fine tune it further. For the purposes of this exercise, my meter will be set to iso 200.

    Camera 4x5 (shen hao, but i dont think that is too important)
    film: hp5 400
    lens: 180mm shenider on copal shutter.

    i also use filters. I use the filter on the meter, no further compensation takes place. I meter. Plan my zones based on iso 200 for 400 speed film. Preview on the camera back. Checking my tones.

    checking the negatives, the shadows seems good. Then again im not the most experienced to judge.

    Final result prints. They seem quite off. I lose a lot of shadow on the prints. The prints that used the iso 200 setting on the meter are better than the 400. but there seems to be room for improvement. I want to shoot closer to the mark.

    I apreciate the help fellas.
    (typed on a phone. I apologize for typos)
    I can't see any reason why using a DSLR meter shouldn't work, even if the readings are 'wrong' - as long as they're consistently wrong, everything should work out fine. It's only if you later use a different meter that problems may arise.

    I don't wish to appear rude but I'd suggest that, from the way you presented your question, you've not quite understood how the zone system works : When you say you are 'planning your results on iso 200', does that mean you've done film speed tests to confirm that the 'actual iso' is 200? Or have you decided on it arbitrarily? If so, then you aren't using a zone system but guessing and that isn't really how the system operates.

    I'd look at Ralph Lambrecht's site or here http://www.silverprint.co.uk/pdf/Goldfinger.pdf (Page 11 onwards, It's very poorly reproduced but it's a simple method that works).

    Regards
    Jerry

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,851
    Images
    27
    it might take a few sheets of film
    but why don't you bracket your exposures to find
    out what your "personal iso" is when you use your d-cam
    as your light meter ?
    don't just make the negatives, but make prints of each exposure.

    if / when you get a new meter, you will probably have to do something
    similar just to fine tune your exposure+printing.

    good luck !
    john

  4. #14
    outwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    319
    Images
    3
    There is also the very good chance that your digital camera has accurate shutter speeds whereas your Copal shutter is running a bit slow (or maybe a lot slow in the case of the higher shutter speeds). This would cause your overexposure and it could vary at different shutter speeds.

  5. #15
    Shaggysk8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    465
    Images
    65
    Yeah shutter speeds just to give you an idea, i tested mine and this is what i got

    5.6/210
    1 = 1 sec
    1/2 = 1/2
    1/4*= 1/5
    1/8*= 1/7
    1/15*= 1/14
    1/30*= 1/30
    1/60*= 1/60
    1/125*= 1/100
    1/250*= 1/150
    1/400*= 1/175

    So you can see it's very important to know you equipment.

    Paul

  6. #16
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,653
    Images
    15
    What stepping is the DSLR set to for metering? That 75-300mm zoom strikes me as oddly-fitted to the task for metering: the camera compensates for zoom extension. If the camera has multispot and average capability, use that rather than a single spot reading. What strikes me is how cumbersome this exercise appears. Invest in a hand-held meter.

    As each exposure comes out through the trial, get prints done from it as "reference cards" to what you are doing.


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