A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Newbie question - Correct exposure for Velvia



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 12th 04, 03:05 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 12th 04, 07:27 PM
Martin Djernæs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 12th 04, 08:06 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 12th 04, 08:06 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 12th 04, 10:47 PM
Martin Djernæs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 12th 04, 11:18 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 12th 04, 11:57 PM
Martin Djernæs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 13th 04, 12:16 AM
Bob Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 13th 04, 12:21 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 13th 04, 12:21 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.