If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote: Do your training on something a little less contrasty like Sensia 100. Velvia is beautiful but narrow latitude for your exposure. If you spot meter a highlight in your scene and then open 1.7 or 2.0 stops, you'll usually do fine. Also use the spotmeter to 'scan' the scene and make sure that it fits into +/- 2 stops of your exposure. Every thing outside of that will be black or clear on the slide. For older scanners, and additional 1/3 exposure will 'thin' out the slide for an easier scan. The 12bit and higher scanners generally have less problems with denser slides. (I'm talking about film scanners, not flatbed). If you don't have a spot meter it will be tougher to nail the exposure. An incident meter is a good way as well, but nailing highlights is less certain. Thanks for the advice. To be honest, I've still got a lot to learn in general, so I'm probably going to stick with normal film for the foreseeable future; it reduces the number of variables that affect my pictures. I only really considered Velvia at all because a) all the pros seem to use it, and b) when I scan and print my photos at home I usually need to increase the saturation. This latter point is probably due to poor general technique rather than the film I used (eg. I only just found out that my "misty morning" shots of recent weeks are looking washed out because I'm using centre-weighted metering, not spot metering, so even though I'm pointing the central focusing area at the ground to meter off it, there is still sky in the shot and that is giving me the "wrong" reading. Only by luck did I get one right because I'd left the right neutral grad on. It proved that it wasn't the camera screwing up - it was me.) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:13:21 +0000, Walter Hofmann wrote:
Owamanga schrieb: On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick" wrote: I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we use them at. No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows very slowly. Walter I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "flow". -- ? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:13:21 +0000, Walter Hofmann wrote:
Owamanga schrieb: On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick" wrote: I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we use them at. No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows very slowly. Walter I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "flow". -- ? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:13:21 +0000, Walter Hofmann wrote: Owamanga schrieb: On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick" wrote: I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we use them at. No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows very slowly. Walter I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "flow". -- ? No, you need to broaden your time scales. And, maybe, Walter needs to add a few more very's. Jim |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:13:21 +0000, Walter Hofmann wrote: Owamanga schrieb: On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick" wrote: I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we use them at. No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows very slowly. Walter I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "flow". Sorry Rox, but Walter is absolutely right. Take a micrometer to a really old window and you'll find every pane is thicker at the bottom than the top, due to flow. Of course, this takes a couple of hundred years before it's practically measurable. Peter |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:13:21 +0000, Walter Hofmann wrote: Owamanga schrieb: On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick" wrote: I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we use them at. No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows very slowly. Walter I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "flow". Sorry Rox, but Walter is absolutely right. Take a micrometer to a really old window and you'll find every pane is thicker at the bottom than the top, due to flow. Of course, this takes a couple of hundred years before it's practically measurable. Peter |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Chadwick" wrote in message
oups.com... [SNIP] Thanks for the advice. To be honest, I've still got a lot to learn in general, so I'm probably going to stick with normal film for the foreseeable future; it reduces the number of variables that affect my pictures. I only really considered Velvia at all because a) all the pros seem to use it, and b) when I scan and print my photos at home I usually need to increase the saturation. Give Kodak Ektachrome E100VS a try - the VS stands for "Very Saturated". It's a bit easier to work with than Velvia, though the colour palette is very different. I use both, and while they are different from one another, they are both extremely saturated. Peter |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Chadwick" wrote in message
oups.com... [SNIP] Thanks for the advice. To be honest, I've still got a lot to learn in general, so I'm probably going to stick with normal film for the foreseeable future; it reduces the number of variables that affect my pictures. I only really considered Velvia at all because a) all the pros seem to use it, and b) when I scan and print my photos at home I usually need to increase the saturation. Give Kodak Ektachrome E100VS a try - the VS stands for "Very Saturated". It's a bit easier to work with than Velvia, though the colour palette is very different. I use both, and while they are different from one another, they are both extremely saturated. Peter |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
jimkramer wrote: [glass flowing slowly] No, you need to broaden your time scales. And, maybe, Walter needs to add a few more very's. I'm afraid he's right, and you've falled for an urban myth. Yes, it's technically correct that (some) glasses are supercooled liquids, but they don't flow. The whole thing about medieval stained glass windows is, doubtless, going to be brought up soon, but it too is a myth. Old glass wasn't made to uniform thickness, and for every stained glass panel that's been in-situ for hundreds of years and is thicker at the bottom, there's another one that's thicker at the top. See : http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html or any of the other myriad links you can get on Google by typing in, "glass flow myth" |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:56:25 -0000, "Bandicoot"
wrote: "Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message news On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:13:21 +0000, Walter Hofmann wrote: Owamanga schrieb: On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick" wrote: I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we use them at. No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows very slowly. Walter I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "flow". Sorry Rox, but Walter is absolutely right. Take a micrometer to a really old window and you'll find every pane is thicker at the bottom than the top, due to flow. Of course, this takes a couple of hundred years before it's practically measurable. Na, urban legend. Just another lie we were taught at school by those too ignorant to know any better. -- Owamanga! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Velvia indoors? | Celeste G | Film & Labs | 11 | December 14th 04 01:05 PM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
Velvia 100F | dan | Film & Labs | 2 | June 29th 04 09:47 PM |
velvia 100F [question] | dan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | June 28th 04 03:46 AM |
5 Megapixels vs Velvia vs Kodachrome + Microscope Views | Roger and Cathy Musgrove | Film & Labs | 0 | October 12th 03 02:16 AM |