So if you have ISO 100 and can only set shutter speed of 1/125 then you have to set your aperture at f/14.
Why? Most cameras today can be set to f/14 but they also can be set to 1/100 too. With old camera you can't set the shutter speed to 1/100 but you can set the aperture to f/14 by setting the aperture ring in between the click stops.Good luck with that.
I am amazed you can accurately guess the exposure to 1/3 of a stop, and even more amazed that you can accurately set the aperture to 1/3 of a stop between click stops. Assuming your shutter speeds are accurate of course.Why? Most cameras today can be set to f/14 but they also can be set to 1/100 too. With old camera you can't set the shutter speed to 1/100 but you can set the aperture to f/14 by setting the aperture ring in between the click stops.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
You quoted my original post and in that post I said my meter said.....I didn't guess.I am amazed you can accurately guess the exposure to 1/3 of a stop, and even more amazed that you can accurately set the aperture to 1/3 of a stop between click stops. Assuming your shutter speeds are accurate of course.
I am amazed you can accurately guess the exposure to 1/3 of a stop.
An intentional oxymoron for effect.The term "accurate guess" is a bit of an oxymoron.
OMG what a thread. Use the meter you have and learn how to use it. Film development , camera shutter speed. lens aperture are all variables. Develop your film, keep notes, and find what works or you.
OMG what a thread. Use the meter you have and learn how to use it. Film development , camera shutter speed. lens aperture are all variables. Develop your film, keep notes, and find what works or you.
Friend, if you're going to say the sun is cooling or whatever on the same forum where that post happened, a little more lighthearted fun at your expense may happen.][/QUOTE
As I said, the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface, is the main factor and my 9/11 example showed just one small factor that obscures everyday sunlight that was no there, say before the many thousands of jets constantly crossing the sky's, prior to 1950, for example.
Just as any effect that results from multiple causes, even in tiny percentages, the totality of the condition is often no as simple as a singular cause, but significant, in impact, none the less.
That includes solar cycles, whatever the fractional real world numbers may be.
As I said, the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface, is the main factor and my 9/11 example showed just one small factor that obscures everyday sunlight that was no there, say before the many thousands of jets constantly crossing the sky's, prior to 1950, for example.
Just as any effect that results from multiple causes, even in tiny percentages, the totality of the condition is often no as simple as a singular cause, but significant, in impact, none the less.
That includes solar cycles, whatever the fractional real world numbers may be.
Much less any basis in climatology or physics. The amount that contrails change the albedo of our planet is probably barely measurable, and that's what's really at issue... the reflectivity of the overall atmosphere.You are attempting a hypothetical argument that has no basis in practical photography.
I blame cataracts for the dimming of the sun!
Agreed.
Sunlight, reaching Terra's surface, has dimmed over the last decades but the Sunny 16 guideline has stayed the same.
When was it first established and when did Kodak start including that guide with our films?
I'll also add that though I do no shoot much colour, I've always found rating colour negatives at one third (⅓ F. Stop) lower than box speed gave me better (and other's) better results.
That's with a Sunny F11 guide.
A lot of us are older Generations, pre-digital shooters and need the lighting we see out of doors, has changed, like so many other things.
Cheers.
Okay, I'm sorry, that does indeed say a great deal of what you alleged. I made an assumption based... if you'll believe this, and I swear it's true... not on anything I may have perceived about you, but on the fact that, if you squint, it might almost seem like people might bring up global dimming as a counterargument to global warming. Now, of course, two things can both be true: global temperatures can increase while the net insolation decreases due to atmospheric effects. In fact I can see how there could actually be a correlation between increased reflectivity of the atmosphere and greenhouse effect. I hyperfocused on the contrails example, and while that seems discredited or at least dubious, the balance of what you said appears to be true at least to this layman. I should have read you more carefully and seen that the contrails thing was not your only point.Two quick links to these topics.
Any additional reading will have to be on your part, however, observable cause and effect science denying is popular since the days of Thad and Ugh argued the results of climbing out of the trees while lyons are in the area.
Cheers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
https://globalnews-ca.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16300841622618&referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s
Does that include Agatha's "Old Cataract" in AswanI blame cataracts for the dimming of the sun!
It could readily be nothing to do with scanning process...shoot daylight balance film in cloudy conditions (6000k) will result in cool cast to the photo; a lot of times the color neg shooter never realizes that because the automated print making machine corrects it in the print.I take it that the overall blue look to what should be a grey cloudy sky is a scanning issue?
pentaxuser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?