What kind of advice do you give when asked?

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 23, 7:38 pm, UC wrote:

Or use film.

That's one bit of advice I would rarely give.
I'd give that advice to some people. For someone who has previously
successfully used film cameras, and uses the camera rarely, there may not be
a compelling reason to change.
One of the most common complaints I hear about digital is it's battery use.
A film P&S would typically shoot several rolls on a pair of cheap AA's, or
last ages if it takes CR2/CR123 etc. A digital though will often not even
turn on with dry-cells, and doesn't last long with alkalines. So they
frequently turn to rechargeables, and get faced with the problem of
self-discharge - so the camera is almost flat whenever they pick it up.
For those of us who frequent the newsgroups, most of us shoot fairly large
volumes and we are technically savvy, so this isn't even an issue for us,
but it is a big problem for someone who isn't technically savvy and just
wants to be able to pick up a camera and take a photo.

It's not anecdotal. I run a mini-lab and I see it all the time.


Yogi! I never knew it was you!

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

On Oct 23, 2:36 pm, TheDave© wrote:
I frequent several internet message boads, etc. On one, a general-type
board, some people occasionally ask for photography advice. Generally,
most of these people are just average people wanting some nice shots of
their kids to print and/or e-mail to friends and family and they don't
want to spend alot of time doing it. I'm totally down with that. Not
everybody aspires to be the next Ansel Adams.

Some people chime in and start on about how shooting in RAW is
necessary, and how they should invest in L-quality glass, and make sure
they have full-blown Photoshop, and so on.

I try to tailor my advice to what I believe their interest level is.
For example, a nice decent lens, shooting in jpg is fine, understand
some of the basic nuances of exposure, etc.

I think the people who give *too much* information than the receipient
is interested in does them a disservice and only confuses them. I'm
not saying the person seeking advice is stupid or can't comprehend,
they're not not at the same obsessive level that a serious hobbyist or
professional is.

Thoughts?

I biggest problem isn't "too much information", it is bad
information. People on NGs want "the best ..." or "the perfect..." or
want a quick answer to "what is better ...". The problem is, there
are few definitive answers in photography. What is better, film or
digital: It depends. What is better, RAW or JPG: It depends. What
is better, Canon or Nikon: It depends. What is better, dSLR or P&S:
it depends.

A typical question is "what the best camera bag that'll hold 2 dSLRs,
2 flashes, and 4 lens for under $50. Well, the real answer is "it's
the one on my table that I custom built from a bag and foam padding.
But that's not the answer the OP would want to hear. It involves
work But you know what, it's a great bag !!!

On NGs, people don't want a "it depends" answer and few people ever
give the answer. There are too many zealots and too few experienced
photographers. The zealots are all "I love RAW" or "I love JPG" and
there are few of use who say "It depends".

The other problem is lack of experience. To few posters are really
experienced photographers who understand the field. I've been
shooting, on and off, for 30 years. I've done portraits, weddings, a
bit of advertising, sports, and family stuff. After a while you get a
good feel for things and you get a broader view of things. That allows
you to address almost any situation that comes at you. Too many
people have read a book or seen something somewhere or have basic
knowledge but don't really know what they need to pull off a hard shot
or to answer a difficult question.

So the short answer to your question, "well it all depends".

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:47 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

-set negative film at 1/2 the ISO rating

Negative films have a lot of overexposure latitude (v. slide or
digital). Easily tolerates overexposure, but the reason is that very
many unconcerned photographers seem to produce images that are
underexposed and then printed to compensate ... ends up looking dull and
grainy.

Such photogs are not likely to learn to compensate.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Oct 23, 11:43 pm, Pudentame wrote:

However, I'd recommend rating it at 2/3 ISO (i.e. 1/3 stop over-exposed)
rather than 1/2. Shoot ISO 400 print film at ISO 320, ISO 100 print film
at ISO 64, ...

It's not anecdotal. I run a mini-lab and I see it all the time.

Just so I'm following correctly, Alan's suggestion of setting the ISO
to half the number on the film will produce a full 1-stop
overexposure, correct? Your suggestion only produces a 1/3 stop
difference. Is that enough to even worry about?

I don't even know why I'm interested since I'll probably never shoot
negative film again. So what about slide film? Should you stick with
the rated ISO or are there benefits to be gained by sliding one way or
the other? Get it? "Slide - ing." (I amuse myself.)

Annika1980 wrote:

Just so I'm following correctly, Alan's suggestion of setting the ISO
to half the number on the film will produce a full 1-stop
overexposure, correct?

It would be more correct to say one stop over the
recommended minimum exposure. Actual overexposure
of negative film usually takes a lot more than this.

Remember that there is a fair chunk of the photographic
industry built around cameras loaded with 400 speed
film and set to 1/100 second at f/11. The "correct"
exposure for a sunny day at the beach would be
1/400 at f/22 - four stops more than the single use
cameras are set for. The film takes this just fine,
and minilabs are used to printing such negatives.

Your suggestion only produces a 1/3 stop
difference. Is that enough to even worry about?

For underexposed negatives, 1/3 stop less underexposure
can make a difference.

I don't even know why I'm interested since I'll probably never shoot
negative film again. So what about slide film? Should you stick with
the rated ISO or are there benefits to be gained by sliding one way or
the other? Get it? "Slide - ing." (I amuse myself.)

A lot of people like to shoot Kodachrome 64 at 80.
This gives you a one third stop more headroom
for the highlights, and slightly richer and more
saturated colours. Kodachrome has excellent
blacks with lots of shadow detail, so it has some
real room on the underexposure side. What looks
best depends on the brightness of your projector,
how large an image you project and how dark you
can get your room.

Slide film tends to somewhat more sensitive to
light than negative film of similar ISO rating.
(The rated speed of slide film is based on
midtones and highlights, not on shadow detail
as is the case with negative film.). K64 has about
the same shadow sensitivity as 125 speed negative
film - so if you shoot k64 1/3 stop under and
negative film 2/3 stop over you will get about
the same shadow detail recorded in each.

Peter.
--

Annika1980 wrote:

I don't even know why I'm interested since I'll probably never shoot
negative film again. So what about slide film? Should you stick with
the rated ISO or are there benefits to be gained by sliding one way or
the other? Get it? "Slide - ing." (I amuse myself.)

Slide films have little over-exp tolerance and they don't record much
shaddow detail. They are pretty much 2 stops up/2 stops down.

I often overexpose a slide shot by 1/3 to 1/2 stop in the hopes of
lightening up a slide for scanning. Highlights are then too far gone,
so have to limit this to shots with small highlight areas.

Some people rate Velvia at 40 to "less" saturate the film. Others rate
the film 1/3 or so + or - to compensate for the metering or for their
metering technique... in the end, a narrow band.

Metering is just much more critical with slide film.

Advantage to digital here ... more shadow detail.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Oct 25, 12:27 am, Peter Irwin wrote:

Slide film tends to somewhat more sensitive to
light than negative film of similar ISO rating.
(The rated speed of slide film is based on
midtones and highlights, not on shadow detail
as is the case with negative film.). K64 has about
the same shadow sensitivity as 125 speed negative
film - so if you shoot k64 1/3 stop under and
negative film 2/3 stop over you will get about
the same shadow detail recorded in each.

Thanks for the info.
Now I think that's enough ****in film talk for awhile, right boys?
Let's get back to discussing important things like DSLR sensors and
HDR processing.

On Oct 23, 10:32 pm, Scott W wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:47 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

-set negative film at 1/2 the ISO rating
Why?

Because:

1) Negative films have lots of latitude on the overexposure
side and hardly any on the underexposure side. Most
novices don't know when to override what their in-camera
meters tell them, so an extra margin of safety will reduce
the number of underexposed shots. There is much anecdotal
evidence from people who work in photo-processing labs that
underexposure of colour negative film is a very common
problem.

2) C-41 films show a noticeable reduction in graininess
with increased exposure.

Peter.

Which is all true, but is also means that that ISO 100 film is really
more like ISO 50, if you want a good image.

Scott

More like 64.