my last roll of Kodachrome in my M6

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

May I raise the question again how you can adjust exposure in less increment than half a stop?

Regards

Steve

[bill]

Now we have dispensed with the static on the line ("I'll name that Troll in 4... ) of course you can. I'd be interested in the answer myself.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[NB23]

Yes, Ned consistently shows a masterly eye. Great photographer and critic and I congratulate him on being featured in LFI.

 

Although I disagree with his (and your) view on exposure, I don't deny the essence of what Ned says, that the key to a well exposed K64 slide is to nail exposure within a very fine degree and that nailing it isn't a matter of control, as no camera, especially a Leica, can be set so precisley, but rather a matter of luck.

 

And when the shooter is lucky and nails the K64's exposure, the K64 slide sings like no other. (You'll get no argument out of me over that.)

 

JJ, what you're saying is exactly what I have been saying all along.

[AlanG]

May I raise the question again how you can adjust exposure in less increment than half a stop?

Regards

Steve

 

With a lot of cameras, it is hard to accurately and repeatably set them finer than 1/3 or 1/2 stop. You can set lenses between click stops. But even ones that do not have click stops will generally set a different size opening when turning the aperture ring from one direction vs. the other. If using electronic flash, some can be adjusted in 1/10th stop increments. Of course hitting even a 1/3rd stop of "accuracy" only comes into play when making several bracketed exposures of the same subject as there is no way that the overall system of film speed, processing, shutter, meter, is going to be that accurate or consistent. E6 (and at one time Kodachrome) film could be pushed or pulled, but getting finer than 1/3 stop change is usually pretty pointless to attempt. And because of the unpredictability in the photographic process when shooting film, especially with various films, lenses, and cameras you may not hit what you are aiming for without bracketing. This is one reason why many commercial photographers who shot people or other subjects where they couldn't bracket, would have to do a lot of testing, then shoot Polaroids and still end up having E6 film pushed or pulled after running a "clip" test or test roll. The fact that one could not go to an area lab and have a clip test run in an hour or so, pretty much eliminated Kodachrome from a lot of projects. Also consider that lenses vignette, so the brightness will vary across the scene independently of the subject and exposure settings. Then you have reciprocity failure to consider for long exposures and exposure compensation for close-ups. Even when proofing on Polaroid, I almost always bracketed images of static subjects so I could choose the exposure I liked best. Any other way would be dependent on luck.

 

Years ago, I went shopping for a light box. I had several sets of identical 4x5 images and compared them on three different light boxes. There was quite a difference in color and brightness on one of them. The other two were fairly close. The GTI unit I chose has a monitor that indicates when it has warmed up, and tells you when the bulbs need replacing. "Each viewer is individually tested and boasts GTI’s official Control Lab Certification Seal, guaranteeing strict adherence to ISO standards." Meanwhile, some of my clients would hold the transparencies up to their ceiling fixtures to view them. Just as today, few of my clients have high end calibrated monitors.

 

Also, a big issue in viewing slides and transparencies on a lightbox is if you allow any area of the lightbox to illuminate around the images, or if it is all masked to black which will make the image pop much more. The brightness of the viewing room is also a factor. So what I'm getting at is the first thing you need to do is establish an objective viewing standard. Then you might have to give your eyes some time to adjust to the viewing conditions. Perhaps you'll also want a "standard reference image" to leave on the lightbox at all times to give your vision a calibration target. And consider having your vision tested for color blindness. (Even if you are not "color blind" your ability to discern various colors may be less than optimal.)

 

Now that you are set, start viewing a series of images that you shot which are bracketed within 1/3rd stop or so and see how much difference that much exposure change matters to you. Also keep in mind that in scanning or printing, small exposure and color adjustments are easy to make. Of course one big advantage to digital is that by shooting raw files a lot of very precise control is available. (Much finer than I could generally get by shooting transparencies and making Cibachromes or R prints.)

[Steve Ash]

Alan,

 

thanks for your reply and explanation. Yes, with flash I can adjust to 1/10th and digital captures also adds flexibility. Actually I do own a Hensel porty (portable studio flash) which is adjustable to 1/10th. But in the discussion it was explicitly talked about adjusting exposure to 1/32 which sounds weird to me when using film. I also do not believe that NB23 was talking about using flash. So as I understand now it comes down to luck only when shooting Kodachrome. BTW, I took the chance to shoot Kodachrome two weeks ago and I am really looking forward to see the results.

 

Regards

Steve

[bill]

So.

 

Science or art?

 

For me, the correct exposure is the one that matches my original vision. I could not give a flying fart about accuracy to 1/32nd; to me that is simply an ideal scale for an Airfix model.

 

But, hey-ho. I am a right-brainer. I'll leave it to the left brainers to tell me what they KNOW is the "correct" exposure for snapping those angels dancing on the head of a pin

 

Oh, and I'll be damned if I am going to calibrate my eyeballs...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan,

 

So as I understand now it comes down to luck only when shooting Kodachrome.

 

Regards

Steve

 

You can improve your odds by carefully testing your gear and bracketing exposures. There really is no way to pin all of this down and of course trying to control everything takes a lot of the fun out of photography. Consider a fashion shooter working with electronic flash in the studio. As the subject moves around, the way the light hits the subject will also change. Maybe for better, maybe for worse. I found that a lot of my photography was getting to be more like a science project than something I enjoyed doing. Unfortunately for film, the immediate feedback of shooting digitally liberates me from a lot of what I had to deal with to make sure I always got at least "acceptable" results on film.

[Stealth3kpl]

Alan,

 

But in the discussion it was explicitly talked about adjusting exposure to 1/32 which sounds weird to me when using film. I also do not believe that NB23 was talking about using flash.

 

Regards

Steve

 

To be fair, I don't think NB23 said he adjusts his equipment for 1/32 accuracy (or claims it is possible to do so). He suggested that to make K64 sing, the exposure in some instances needs to be critical to an accuracy of +/- 1/32 EV, and that occasionally by chance/luck his exposure (probably, like anybody's, +/- 1/3 EV) hits that mark. I might be wrong but I think that is what he is saying. If he could he would always hit the exposure with that accuracy but it is impossible but he is happy that in about 1/100 exposures he might hit it by chance.

 

Could be time to close this thread.

Pete

[AlanG]

To be fair, I don't think NB23 said he adjusts his equipment for 1/32 accuracy (or claims it is possible to do so). He suggested that to make K64 sing, the exposure in some instances needs to be critical to an accuracy of +/- 1/32 EV, and that occasionally by chance/luck his exposure (probably, like anybody's, +/- 1/3 EV) hits that mark. I might be wrong but I think that is what he is saying. If he could he would always hit the exposure with that accuracy but it is impossible but he is happy that in about 1/100 exposures he might hit it by chance.

 

Could be time to close this thread.

Pete

 

I don't believe anyone thought NB23 said or implied there was a way to work within 1/32nd stop of accuracy. But I and others question whether the idea of even thinking in terms of 1/32nd of a stop makes any sense. Just do a simple test by shooting with electronic flash and varying flash output by 1/10 of a stop to see if you can tell the difference at that level of variation.

 

Anyway, if you shoot an evenly lit scene with a lens that vignettes, what part of the scene is "accurately" exposed?

[Stealth3kpl]

Enlighten us on how any camera can ever get to within 1/32 of a stop.

 

 

 

But I and others question whether the idea of even thinking in terms of 1/32nd of a stop makes any sense. Just do a simple test by shooting with electronic flash and varying flash output by 1/10 of a stop to see if you can tell the difference at that level of variation.

 

I don't need to. I can hardly see any difference between 1/4 stops.

Pete

[Fernmelder]

Did actually anybody see and interest my note about the url?

[AlanG]

I don't need to. I can hardly see any difference between 1/4 stops.

Pete

 

Nor can I.

[JJKapsberger]

Did actually anybody see and interest my note about the url?

 

This?

 

A pitty and another sign for the end of an era is that the guys from the LFI magazine did not quote the correct url of Bojic's website, giving the provider only.

 

I saw the mistaken URL in the LFI article but I don't quite grasp its significance in regards to this thread.

[andybarton]

Ned's website doesn't exist. That's why LFI can't link to it.

[NB23]

Ned's website doesn't exist. That's why LFI can't link to it.

 

 

My website is under construction. Still, its address is simply nenadbojic.com

[stunsworth]

My website is under construction. Still, its address is simply nenadbojic.com

 

It's a parked website that's owned been owned by someone in Quebec since November 2007. It's under construction in the sense that it doesn't exist yet. I - genuinely - look forward to seeing it once there's something to see.

[KM-25]

that the key to a well exposed K64 slide is to nail exposure within a very fine degree and that nailing it isn't a matter of control, as no camera, especially a Leica, can be set so precisley, but rather a matter of luck.

 

This is just false, billions of Kodachrome slides have been shot in the past 75 years, many by masters like Haas, Harvey, Allard, etc. You don't make a career in shooting Kodachrome by sheer luck, you simply understand the medium as a true master can and then pair it with fine tuned finesse.

 

Again, Kodachrome's maximum saturation threshold is not 1/32nd of a stop but 1/4, it a good photographer can nail it very consistently. You might have to venture out of this website to find that out.

 

Sincerely,

 

Daniel Bayer, Creator / Director of the Kodachrome Project ( The original one )

[stunsworth]

You don't make a career in shooting Kodachrome by sheer luck, you simply understand the medium as a true master can and then pair it with fine tuned finesse.

 

It reminds me of something Gary Player once said about playing golf - "the more I practice, the luckier I seem to get".

[peterv]

Last roll of Kodachrome developed in Parsons | State & Regional - Wire | Wichita Eagle

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[peterv]

I realise now the title of the link above might be misleading. The article is about Steve McCurry's last roll of Kodachrome.

 

Here's one from my last roll, shot last month in Hoek van Holland.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!