New pics with Rolleis'
Here are some pics i took while at a car show at the MN state fair grounds, on July 23-24, 2011. Delta 100 film.
And Here are some pictures i took at my cousins wedding which was on July 30, 2011. XP2 400.
And a question i have. Is it me or are most of these photos (some of the car show pics and most of the wedding pics) really bright/overexposed? I was using ilford Delta 100 for the car show and XP2 400 for the wedding, and to me most of them are really bright, even with some of them exposed at f16 1/500 (one of the train).
Andy, thank you for posting the photos. The first bunch of photos of the cars looked great, that 100 film maked everything look wonderful. Guess I will be trying more of that stuff soon. I am just getting "back" into the black and white scene.
I agree that the wedding photos probably didn't come out the way you want because the trees in the background were so intensely bright from the sun.....and it looked like some of that came through the trees where everyone was standing too. That's what I see at least.
I am at a loss to give you much of a suggestion to help you even everything out other than fill flash perhaps would have evened things out. I am looking forward to what the experienced among us have to say. I know everyone gets tired of me coming out of the house with a moster potatoe masher flash just to take "casual" pictures.......but like you, I lost an enormous amount of beautiful face detail when I was outside during the day when the sun was out significantly.
I just had around 2 rolls of Illford HP5 handed to the lab today and they were both outside, in sun and shade and as I recall I used the old potatoe masher for fill and to stop the rapid action.......what I am getting at is I don't know how advanced of a camera you have, but it sure it easier to play with fast moving targets (unlike your crowd) with a TTL capable F4 versus the old FA or FE with a manual focus lense......
Good luck and keep taking those photos......looking really good!!
Nikon F5, Nikon F4S, Nikon FA, Nikon FE, Nikon N90, Nikon N80, Nikon N75, Mamiya 645 Pro, Mamiya Press Super 23, Yashica Lynx 14e, Yashica Electro GSN, Yashica 124G, Yashica D
Both my Rolleiflexes' (the cameras that shot these pics) are totally manual, no meters or anything. I use my D5000 to shoot with and also as a meter for the Rolleis'.
I wonder if i got some kind of filters, if that would help out. Or should i be using slower films like the delta 100 or even slower like the Pan f+ which is ISO 50. Is there any real difference in the speed from 50-100? And i think most of the pictures i have taken with the XP2 400 are not real contrasty, i have to add a little bit when i get them on the computer. I have seen some pictures taken with xp2 400 look really contrasty, and i wonder how they do that. Plus i am no expert in developing film, but i think i will try to start developing my own film soon.
Of course you can have your own darkroom!
It just seems to me using a digital camera as a light meter to evaluate the light for a Rolleiflex is like pulling a stagecoach with a space rocket.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would like to see that!
Originally Posted by benjiboy
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Don't use your digicam as a meter for your film cameras. The digital cameras meter has been calibrated for the sensor. It may SAY ISO 100 on the dial, but if you compare the actual reading you get with it set to ISO 100 and a good hand-held meter set to 100, you'll see the readings are not the same. I've seen this on multiple cameras from multiple brands, across a good decade's worth of digital cameras. Digicams seem to tend to require more exposure than film cameras do, so if you use their settings, you'll get blown out highlights on film.
The problems with brightness and excess sparkle are from scanning and other processing that is not to be discussed here, I assume, or could be corrected in such. Like excessive sharpening, and needing to use curves to pull down the tones, not allowed to mention such things, yes?
From what I can tell from scanned images reduced to jpegs, etc., you don't have a problem. In both cases, you were exposing a fairly contrasty film in very contrasty lighting situations. The dynamic range of both scenes was pretty extreme. I think you did very well, considering lighting in both situations. As you become more familiar with using the cameras and start to do your own film processing, you will learn how to handle extreme contrast.
Also, there is a reason wedding photographers use fill flash. It helps control the contrast. Learn to use fill flash if you intend to photograph a lot of scenes with people in harsh lighting conditions.
I see some of the outdoor pics were shot at f8 for 1/250. On a sunny 16 day that would put you 1 stop overexposed with ISO 100.
To me the wedding was just a difficult condition - shade with infiltrating sunlight (and that falling on the white dress!) and a brightly lit background.
So you stayed at the Holiday Inn... I'd be happy with the exposure in your shots of the old depot and the Mulberry St bridge. Your neighborhood look good.