christoph_d Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37461 Posted August 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've recently been interested in light, and trying to take its picture: ... communication breakdown 2017 M6TTL, 35mm summaron (1958), adox silvermax 100 It seems you've seen the light. Like it. Rgds C. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Hi christoph_d, Take a look here I like film...(open thread). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
christoph_d Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37462 Posted August 2, 2017 Rolleicord Vb, Tmax 400, D76 CordVb_BAUMA_APR16_011.jpg Excellent, a slice out of life. Rgds C. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37463 Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) I took this picture in Marseille (South France) but I hesitate to show you specially for Phil and Philip and in contre-jour Cemetery Marseille All of us will go one day to the sky Kodak Portra160-Leica M7- Summilux 35 Asph Image1cemetkodp160m7++++-Modifier.jpg Best Henry For me, this is special. I cannot say exactly what it is, but for some reason the photograph makes me contemplate the existence of scene....and want to see other things in the same way. Film does this to me sometimes, and normally not when exposure is spot-on.......Sort of like the "reality" of something, stripped bare. I have never really considered the significance of contre jour in quite this way. The Sun, being the thing that that normally allows enhanced perception of what is before us, can also obscure; leaving only the most significant artifacts of that things existence. In past, I have always averted my eyes from the discomfort of contre jour. Maybe it is one of the more valid ways to actually evaluate the core of what is to be photographed..............Even if you return to photograph it later, when the sun is not so harsh. Edited August 2, 2017 by Wayne 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37464 Posted August 2, 2017 Adam, I'm sorry if I'm unclear. It's probably a combination of sleep deprivation and bad use of terminology on my part. What I mean is that I set my camera's ISO dial to one or two stops over the box speed. To my mind that means that the frame is over-exposed in-camera at the time of taking. As I understand it the meter in film Ms is a fat spot meter that just averages out the readings it gets from within its sensor area. It is a very basic meter, the kind that exists in almost all old film cameras. This means that if a part of that sensor area is much brighter than the other parts, the meter reading will shift to accommodate that brighter reading, resulting in underexposure of the rest of the image. I'm not very good at putting this into words. I only know that if I had included the sky when I metered for the image with the building, then the building and greenery would have been considerably darker. These were scanned as linear scans in Vuescan which allows me to invert them (to get rid of the orange mask) in ColorPerfect. I'll try to post a few screenshots tonight to show what the image looks at each step through the workflow I use. Hopefully that gives an idea of how bad or good it looks out of the scanner. But, and this is what is interesting, at no point in the workflow do I "add" any stops of exposure. The only thing I do is adjust the various highlight and shadow sliders in Adobe Camera Raw to get as "wide" a histogram as I can. Certainly this will technically add and subtract "stops" or parts of stops to various parts of the image, but that's just normal photo editing, in my mind. Philip - the issue i am having (with myself) is that I am not following how you can say that this scene was overexpose just because you added one or two stops of exposure compensation to the spot meter your camera. I frankly dont know how an in-camera ttl meter reads light values from a large spot taking up 2/3 the vertical frame when there is a whole range of EVs within that spot. Is the meter so smart that it precisely averages all of the EVs within the spot. Or, do the brightest EVs dominate, or vice versa? I have no clue. This makes me think that your workflow of adding a couple of stops is just your way of "rigging the system" to get the proper exposure....? Thanks Phil. You remind me of a conversation I had with my insurance company the other day regarding our new house. I asked if the term "photographic and related equipment" in their conditions covered old film cameras and film scanners. The rep said "What do you mean by film camera, is it one you make videos with?" I said "No, it's cameras that use film rolls, you know like one used to do". The guy had no idea, literally no clue, what I was saying... Thanks a lot Philip. I also agree fully with your comment about a film image retaining its "character" and "identity" when it has been digitised. Four or five years ago two friends and I held a group exhibition of portraits where we decided we'd use medium format film. At the exhibition I was interviewed by a fellow from one of the major Melbourne newspapers who asked why, if we scanned the negatives, we didn't "cut out the middleman" and just shoot with digital. I tried to explain it exactly (though not as well) as you've so eloquently put it, but to no avail - the review came out questioning why we used an "antiquated" process! But the fact is that we were exhibiting digitally rendered prints of film photographs - the grain, the character of the film - was all still in the prints. I couldn't understand how the interviewer, a well-respected Melbourne journalist, didn't get that. It's a bit like often people compare analogue playback of music with taking pictures with analogue cameras (not thinking of anyone specifically here, Henry!). Here we are talking about different steps in the processes. To my way of thinking (and I'm sure it's far more complicated than this) you should compare the way (i.e. the technology used) the music was captured. Music recorded using analogue gear - to tape, using Neumann microphones, with drums and other instruments close-miked in a studio - will sound vastly different to music recorded via direct injection to a desk using ProTools or whatever. Played back, much of the "character" of the analogue recordings will be retained, even when played back using digital devices. The direct injection stuff will never sound that way, no matter how hard it tries. This is, I think, the real comparison between digital vs analogue as it applies to music and photography. Sorry if I'm ranting. You raised an excellent point Philip and it's just my long-winded way of saying I agree! Well it depends on the film, Henry. Transparency film detests both under- and in particular over-exposure. Over-exposure will blow highlights very quickly (though in post one can recover a little bit, I find, all depending on how badly over-exposed the frame is). Colour negative film can easily take much more light than box speed without, as I think I have shown in my examples above, any negative effect. Colour negative doesn't like underexposure at all, though. That quickly gets ugly. Phil , in film (I don't speak in digit because it's still special), when you overexpose ,with too much light color as b&w , you lose all details and the picture is lost but when you underexpos. as you said you can keep these details and a little correction can give a fine picture. Agree wiith me Phil ? Best Henry Yes, I think that matches my experience, regarding colour negative film at least. Such film loves light. I typically use reflected light metering for both color and B&W......And I struggle. However, on those occasions when I do take incident light readings, additional exposure- over the reflected reading- is always called for. Does this tie in with the discussion on color film and box speed? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37465 Posted August 2, 2017 Adam (and Edward) I think you're right - it's personal ways of "rigging the system" to achieve results. I employ a similar technique with colour film to Philip, using the in-camera meter and overexposing the metered result. Probably, at least much of the time, carefully spot-metering and deciding whether or not to compensate exposure, will turn up a not-too-dissimilar result. I think the key here is avoiding underexposure with colour negative film - something that I think we're all agreed on. After seeing Philip's photo samples, I actually think you're right. I think we are using different ways, to reach the same result. In Philip's photos, I would also overexpose by 1 to 2 stops over the camera reading, because they are bright scenes that would fool the meter into underexposing. I have suspected since Ray asked this question last week, that we basically are talking about the same thing. Philip sets the ISO dial to 1 or 2 stops below the box value. I take an incident light reading of the shadow area, or when in a hurry, just point the camera to the darkest area of the scene, lock the exposure manually, then recompose. I'm pretty sure we would all reach the same exposure within 1/2 stop using our own favorite methods. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37466 Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) Rolleicord Vb, Tmax 400, D76 CordVb_BAUMA_APR16_011.jpg Great capture of the expression and 'moment in time'. Excellent tones too. Edited August 2, 2017 by Keith (M) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37467 Posted August 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Philip - No worries at all. And please forgive my density on this subject. I think it has to do with my severe distrust of in-camera meters. I just don't have much faith in the ability of a relatively little spot inside of a camera that purports to be able to look at an entire scene and set the exposure "correct". That's why I don't use them. Let me ask my question a different way: let's say that I wanted take a portrait of you in an evenly lit setting (such as bright overcast). I am using portra 400. What I would normally do (if I were doing it OCD precisely) is plug in ISO 400 in my 1 degree Minolta Spotmeter and walk about two feet from your face and put the spot on a point in your face that represents an average EV relative to your entire face. That meter reading would put that point in your face on zone 5. I would then increase the exposure by 1.5 to 2 stops, depending on what other background subjects I wanted to capture and the EVs of those subjects. This would put the said point on your face on zone 6.5 to 7. What would you say that I have done exposure-wise relative to the box speed of the film? I would say that I at most overexposed the film by .5 to 1 stop, assuming (and this is a BIG assumption) that zone 6 was strictly the optimal EV for that point on your face (and I put that point on zone 6.5 or 7). So I guess I would be considered to rate the Porta 400 at 300 or 200. But I would add the extra exposure b/c (i) the film can handle it and (ii) I might realize when I see the scan or print that your face really should have been brighter than zone 6, and it is easier to dial down the exposure a little than dial I up. If I ultimately concluded that I needed every bit of that extra exposure to properly expose your face (such that the said point on your face was rightly, say, zone 7), the way to figure out how this translates into how I rated the film is to take a precise incident meter reading on the light falling on the said point on your face. This would give me the exposure for middle gray at box speed. The extent to which the exposure I chose using my approach with the spot meter is greater than this incident meter reading is the extent to which I have rated the film at lower than box speed. Th thing is that I don't normally do this cross check with my incident meter. So I don't therefore really know how much my rating of the film deviates from box speed. My guess is that in the above example it probably deviates by a stop or so. But a wide range of variables play into it.... What I mean is that I set my camera's ISO dial to one or two stops over the box speed. To my mind that means that the frame is over-exposed in-camera at the time of taking. As I understand it the meter in film Ms is a fat spot meter that just averages out the readings it gets from within its sensor area. It is a very basic meter, the kind that exists in almost all old film cameras. This means that if a part of that sensor area is much brighter than the other parts, the meter reading will shift to accommodate that brighter reading, resulting in underexposure of the rest of the image. I'm not very good at putting this into words. I only know that if I had included the sky when I metered for the image with the building, then the building and greenery would have been considerably darker. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37468 Posted August 2, 2017 Look what happens when one is daft enough to try a contre-jour shot sans lenshood! Hasselblad 500C, 80mm Planar (naked!), Portra160. 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! 11 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3328704'>More sharing options...
Popular Post }{B Posted August 2, 2017 Popular Post Share #37469 Posted August 2, 2017 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! Leica M2 & 35mm Summicron - Fuji Sensia 20 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Leica M2 & 35mm Summicron - Fuji Sensia ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3328734'>More sharing options...
MaDeVa Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37470 Posted August 2, 2017 It is very interesting how everyone's experiences differ on this topic, I find. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I virtually always expose all my colour negative, except Ektar, 1 or even 2 stops over, and regardless of whether I shoot 135 or 120 film. In my workflow, I see no degradation at all in colours, sharpness etc, but I get benefits in terms of scanning (using the type of scanners I have). So I think it may be a workflow and scanner thing to a large extent; there are just so many ways to process colour negative scans, the medium itself is so malleable and different scanners treat images quite differently that it is difficult to give hard and fast rules. As with so many other things in life, whatever works and is satisfying enough, seems to be the closest one can get to a principle. Again, all just my opinion of course. Just a few examples to show what I mean. These were inverted in ColorPerfect without any other adjustments than clicking the Restore Settings button to find a colour impression I like, and then adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw. Clearly more accurate colour can be achieved but, for me, this is good enough. 36275573966_5196ed98dc_b.jpg Superia 200 at EI100 36150952332_a04cbac571_b.jpg Superia 400 at EI100 Excellent results! Thanks for sharing your experience (that matches with mine). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37471 Posted August 2, 2017 It is very interesting how everyone's experiences differ on this topic, I find. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I virtually always expose all my colour negative, except Ektar, 1 or even 2 stops over, and regardless of whether I shoot 135 or 120 film. In my workflow, I see no degradation at all in colours, sharpness etc, but I get benefits in terms of scanning (using the type of scanners I have). So I think it may be a workflow and scanner thing to a large extent; there are just so many ways to process colour negative scans, the medium itself is so malleable and different scanners treat images quite differently that it is difficult to give hard and fast rules. As with so many other things in life, whatever works and is satisfying enough, seems to be the closest one can get to a principle. Again, all just my opinion of course. Just a few examples to show what I mean. These were inverted in ColorPerfect without any other adjustments than clicking the Restore Settings button to find a colour impression I like, and then adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw. Clearly more accurate colour can be achieved but, for me, this is good enough. 36275573966_5196ed98dc_b.jpg Superia 200 at EI100 36150952332_a04cbac571_b.jpg Superia 400 at EI100 When I first used Fuji Superia 400, I exposed it at ISO200, having read that it would increase saturation (I'm not sure now why I thought that would be a good thing! Perhaps it was actually because colour negative films look horrid when underexposed, yet cope remarkably well with overexposure.) I don't bother anymore, and simply use it at 400. I also noticed today a brick of Fujicolor C200 in the freezer that I had forgotten; I'll have to try it out one day. These cheaper films are surprisingly good. They don't match Kodak pro films, but they aren't awful at all. Of course, they do make everything green: Avocado leaves by chrism229, on Flickr C. 12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37472 Posted August 2, 2017 M2 -35mm.jpg Leica M2 & 35mm Summicron - Fuji Sensia Impressive sense of depth & scale. Location? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37473 Posted August 2, 2017 Look what happens when one is daft enough to try a contre-jour shot sans lenshood! Hasselblad 500C, 80mm Planar (naked!), Portra160. But it brings with it a feeling of warmth. Pete 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixteen pads Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37474 Posted August 2, 2017 Vintage car porn continued. 19 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37475 Posted August 2, 2017 I put a roll of Kodak Ektar through my MP the other day. I was quite lackadaisical about metering on my previous try with Ektar, and wasn't keen on the results. Since then (and we're talking a few years) I've seen others' results which have looked great. I think my problem was I tend to use sunny 16 and often err on the side of over exposure. I think Ektar needs to be close to box speed. I don't recall the lens. Pete 000038 by Pete, on Flickr 000021 by Pete, on Flickr 000019 by Pete, on Flickr 17 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37476 Posted August 2, 2017 I put a roll of Kodak Ektar through my MP the other day. I was quite lackadaisical about metering on my previous try with Ektar, and wasn't keen on the results. Since then (and we're talking a few years) I've seen others' results which have looked great. I think my problem was I tend to use sunny 16 and often err on the side of over exposure. I think Ektar needs to be close to box speed. I don't recall the lens. Pete 000038 by Pete, on Flickr 000021 by Pete, on Flickr 000019 by Pete, on Flickr Fine set of photos there, Pete. Yes, in my limited experience Ektar does not respond well to over-exposure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Keith (M) Posted August 2, 2017 Popular Post Share #37477 Posted August 2, 2017 One more from the test roll put through my 'new' R5 last week. 60mm Macro Elmarit-R & Acros100. After the rain-shower. 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! 35 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3328810'>More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share #37478 Posted August 2, 2017 I put a roll of Kodak Ektar through my MP the other day. I was quite lackadaisical about metering on my previous try with Ektar, and wasn't keen on the results. Since then (and we're talking a few years) I've seen others' results which have looked great. I think my problem was I tend to use sunny 16 and often err on the side of over exposure. I think Ektar needs to be close to box speed. I don't recall the lens. Pete 000038 by Pete, on Flickr 000021 by Pete, on Flickr 000019 by Pete, on Flickr Pete wonderful and lovely pictures , superb color tonality Great pictures must be keep for memories If I remember well when I was in "Film scanner" comparison thread in LUF, it's your wife Pete ? Best Henry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixteen pads Posted August 2, 2017 Share #37479 Posted August 2, 2017 One more from the test roll put through my 'new' R5 last week. 60mm Macro Elmarit-R & Acros100. After the rain-shower. Love !!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share #37480 Posted August 2, 2017 Rolleicord Vb, Tmax 400, D76 CordVb_BAUMA_APR16_011.jpg Klaus well seen and well captured , at the right moment Henry 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.