No more Velvia

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.)

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".

--
?

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".

--
?

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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"

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!