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
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Djernæs wrote:
As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top. In some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at all (overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color). Can you post that shot? -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Martin Djernæs wrote: As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top. In some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at all (overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color). Can you post that shot? Sure. I have picked two series of pictures, but unfortunately I don't have my exact settings. http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/ http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/ The images are taken with Velvia 50, scanned with 1200dpi/8bit with a film scanner (Dimage IV) and are "untouched" (I haven't adjusted or cleaned them). You can also get the "original" tif files he http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/shasta.01.zip http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/shasta.02.zip Martin |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Djernæs wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: Martin Djernæs wrote: As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top. In some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at all (overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color). Can you post that shot? Sure. I have picked two series of pictures, but unfortunately I don't have my exact settings. http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/ http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/ Simply put there is a lot more tonal range in the image than the film is capable of capturing. Notice that as you get more color in the plants in the FG that the BG white really merges to pure white... An ND grad could help, but the reflection in the water gives us an idea about how that would have looked (bleak). The real problem was the haze. A UV filter (a good one) would help with that, as would a polarizing filter ... but that, when set to reduce the haze might also kill the refelction in the water. Was the sky cloudless? Looks very hazy white but there is a bit of blue in some of the water reflections in one of the shots. At a course recently the instructor mentioned that nothing kills a color photo more than a lot of featureless white sky... Sometimes best to let the shot go if the light isn't right and come back another day after a cold front has gone through and moved all the haze out. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Djernæs wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: Martin Djernæs wrote: As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top. In some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at all (overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color). Can you post that shot? Sure. I have picked two series of pictures, but unfortunately I don't have my exact settings. http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/ http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/ Simply put there is a lot more tonal range in the image than the film is capable of capturing. Notice that as you get more color in the plants in the FG that the BG white really merges to pure white... An ND grad could help, but the reflection in the water gives us an idea about how that would have looked (bleak). The real problem was the haze. A UV filter (a good one) would help with that, as would a polarizing filter ... but that, when set to reduce the haze might also kill the refelction in the water. Was the sky cloudless? Looks very hazy white but there is a bit of blue in some of the water reflections in one of the shots. At a course recently the instructor mentioned that nothing kills a color photo more than a lot of featureless white sky... Sometimes best to let the shot go if the light isn't right and come back another day after a cold front has gone through and moved all the haze out. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Alan,
Thanks for taking your time commenting on these images. Alan Browne wrote: Sure. I have picked two series of pictures, but unfortunately I don't have my exact settings. http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/ http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/ Simply put there is a lot more tonal range in the image than the film is capable of capturing. Notice that as you get more color in the plants in the FG that the BG white really merges to pure white... Yes. I realized that, but mostly when I got the film back from the development. An ND grad could help, but the reflection in the water gives us an idea about how that would have looked (bleak). The real problem was the haze. A UV filter (a good one) would help with that, as would a polarizing filter ... but that, when set to reduce the haze might also kill the refelction in the water. I have a ND grad, but I didn't think about using it at the time (lack of expierence) and I always have a hard time understanding how to place it so it doesn't cut the other elements in the picture. My UV filter is probably not at all good enough and I never thought about the polarizer. I will try think about that next time. Was the sky cloudless? Looks very hazy white but there is a bit of blue in some of the water reflections in one of the shots. There were almost no clouds the two days I tried to shoot from that location and after that comming back involves quite a bit of planning ;-) At a course recently the instructor mentioned that nothing kills a color photo more than a lot of featureless white sky... I believe so, and more so after some of my latest expierences. I have often read this comment, but not before I reviewed my good pictures I actually realized that they never had bleak sky. Sometimes best to let the shot go if the light isn't right and come back another day after a cold front has gone through and moved all the haze out. ;-) Thanks again Alan for commenting on the pictures. So if I would have wanted to get a better picture, in this situation, while taking this pictu http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta...-0009.800.html I should have metered the top of the mountain abd metered the trees (these two things I did and there were about 5 stops between them). I could also meetered the sky (I'm sure I did, but I don't remember the results). Now if I want detail in the mountain as the most important part, where would you have placed the mountain (I know this is probably not easy to say just like that)? Placing it in -2 would make it white, which would make it disappear (as my slides also show). I could probably have placed it in -1, and lost all details in the trees. Since there are 5 stops from the mountain to the trees I could have used a 3 stop ND (hard?), placed so it followed the line of the treetops. This would have placed the trees in +1 (thus leaving details in the trees). To remove some of the haze I could have used a polarizer. What do you think? Is that the kind of thinking I should have deployed? Martin |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Djernæs wrote:
Hi Alan, Thanks again Alan for commenting on the pictures. So if I would have wanted to get a better picture, in this situation, while taking this pictu http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta...-0009.800.html I should have metered the top of the mountain abd metered the trees (these two things I did and there were about 5 stops between them). I could also meetered the sky (I'm sure I did, but I don't remember the results). If you look at the third shot in that series you are starting to get interesting detail on the mountaing at the expense of detail in the trees ... etc. 5 stops between areas where you want to record detail is right at the limits of 'wide' latitude slide film like Sensia... for Velvia, forget it... What do you do after you meter? I would have metered the white of the mountain and opened up 1 2/3 (or given the 'dirty mountain' only 1 1/3 stops. Now if I want detail in the mountain as the most important part, where would you have placed the mountain (I know this is probably not easy to say just like that)? Placing it in -2 would make it white, which would make it disappear (as my slides also show). I could probably have placed it in -1, and lost all details in the trees. Since there are 5 stops from the mountain to the trees I could have used a 3 stop ND (hard?), placed so it followed the line of the treetops. This would have placed the trees in +1 (thus leaving details in the trees). To remove some of the haze I could have used a polarizer. For a non ND Grad shot, and Velvia, place a pure white 1 2/3 stops over the exposure (meter the white, open up 1 2/3)... or as little as 1.5 stops will do... 2 stops is too much, the whites will blow out. Of course in a 5 stop scene, you _will_ lose detail at the low end. Then you meter the trees and you see they are too far from the whites ... so in goes the ND Grad (which I've never shot, so read the other Velvia thread that is currently going.) Meter the white (mountain) via the dark part of the Grad ... you should now have it a stop or 2 closer to the lower area darks (via the clear area)... (say 3 stops away instead of 5). Again, set the exposure for the whites being 1 2/3 open from the whites _via_ the Grad. Compose, place the grad along the horizon (a little tilting might help in some situations) and shoot the shot. But read Bandicoot's "Exposing Velvia" reply before you take my advice. Esp. where he talks about allowing a stop under exp in the foreground so the shot does not look aretificial (unless you *want* that artificial shot, of course!) Cheers, Alan What do you think? Is that the kind of thinking I should have deployed? Martin -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Alan,
Thanks again for you information. You have helped me a lot with this thread and I'll try to use this information next time I'm at a "good location". Alan Browne wrote: But read Bandicoot's "Exposing Velvia" reply before you take my advice. Esp. where he talks about allowing a stop under exp in the foreground so the shot does not look aretificial (unless you *want* that artificial shot, of course!) I read that thread as well, and have also noted his tips. Martin |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Dmitry" wrote in message om... Hi All, I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed via dx. Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even exposure? Should I bracket my next film? Marc There's no way around it: the more vivid colors you want, the more narrow the range of light accepted. If you want Velvia colors, you are going to get a lot of blacks and or whites depending on what you expose FOR. You can use NPS or Portra, and get a very wide range, but all the colors will seem washed out by comparison. The whole trick is to find a combination you can live with. It's all compromise. Something like Superia 100 or Agfa Optima 100 with a polariser might be a fair trade-off. Bob Hickey |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Hickey" wrote in message ... "Dmitry" wrote in message om... Hi All, I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed via dx. Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even exposure? Should I bracket my next film? Marc There's no way around it: the more vivid colors you want, the more narrow the range of light accepted. If you want Velvia colors, you are going to get a lot of blacks and or whites depending on what you expose FOR. You can use NPS or Portra, and get a very wide range, but all the colors will seem washed out by comparison. The whole trick is to find a combination you can live with. It's all compromise. Something like Superia 100 or Agfa Optima 100 with a polariser might be a fair trade-off. Bob Hickey I shoot slides almost exclusively with Nikon equipment, and I find that adding about 1/2 an EV to my exposure is the norm........(With ISO 100 Sensia or Provia.....) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Hickey" wrote in message ... "Dmitry" wrote in message om... Hi All, I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed via dx. Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even exposure? Should I bracket my next film? Marc There's no way around it: the more vivid colors you want, the more narrow the range of light accepted. If you want Velvia colors, you are going to get a lot of blacks and or whites depending on what you expose FOR. You can use NPS or Portra, and get a very wide range, but all the colors will seem washed out by comparison. The whole trick is to find a combination you can live with. It's all compromise. Something like Superia 100 or Agfa Optima 100 with a polariser might be a fair trade-off. Bob Hickey I shoot slides almost exclusively with Nikon equipment, and I find that adding about 1/2 an EV to my exposure is the norm........(With ISO 100 Sensia or Provia.....) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newbie question (need advice!) | GameFan72 | Digital Photography | 18 | September 11th 04 01:03 AM |
Help: Newbie 35mm Film Question | Keith | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 14th 04 06:26 PM |
Digital Exposure Question -- Middle Gray vs Exposure At Highlights | MikeS | Digital Photography | 1 | June 24th 04 08:04 AM |
Stopping Down Enlarger Lens Focus Question Newbie | SofaKing | In The Darkroom | 18 | April 19th 04 12:03 AM |
Newbie question: metering the GG | MikeWhy | Large Format Photography Equipment | 4 | February 2nd 04 04:55 AM |