The M6 was CLA'd a year ago and the FM2 also. The rest, no. I think the constant is my technique.
The M6 was CLA'd a year ago and the FM2 also. The rest, no. I think the constant is my technique.These are all mechanical and if they haven't been checked for precision of the shutter speeds recently, they can go out of spec, especially as some of your cameras cab be over 40 years old.
By looking at the negatives. The "bad" ones are thin. The ones where there was more light (but still sort of dim house lights) are thicker. I guess I'm saying that when the light levels get to a certain point and there are no bright lights in the scene, I get a really thin negative.It might be.
A question: how are you viewing the pictures and how are you judging the exposures: by looking at the negative or a positive, be it a s***n or a print?
You know, I don't know.
The exposure times I'm talking about are f/2, ISO 400, 1/4 second ss. That sort of ballpark. Not minutes or anything...just a pretty dark house. Example. I can take a shot right under the kitchen table of some object and the exposure is f/2 for 1/30 or 1/60...something like that. When I do, though not optimum, I can get an image that's expected.
If I swing the camera around and shoot something away from the light I get 1/2 second or 1/4 second for SS and that's when things fall apart. I've thought that maybe I'm inadvertently underexposing so I've purposefully shot an extra stop of shutter speed and that didn't help.
The shots look underexposed even though the meter says "one stop over"
Thank you. I guess I knew that but didn't really give it enough thought.in a situation like this you have to consider the meter to be advisory at best.
In fact, in most situations, that is the case. Their word is not final, can never be final. You have to use the worlds most sophisticated data processing device in addition to this meter -- this device is located between your ears.
So, truth:
Meters are stupid electronic devices -- they have limitations, they are dumb, they don't know what they're looking at. They think the entire world is 18 percent gray. No picture is, and the situation you describe is definitely not.
So what you need to do is look at the situation you are shooting, consider what the meter tells you, take a shot following that, then take another shot at double the exposure, and maybe another one at double that. This is especially true in the situation you are describing since the situation sounds pretty dark and what your meter is doing is trying to give you an end-result that also looks pretty dark, but you want more than that.
So do all this - experiment around, take notes, learn what your equipment will do in situations like this, and learn.
Same goes for taking pictures of folks with dark skin, by the way. Unless you want them to look like people-shaped holes in your film, ur gonna have to adjust what the meter says.
Thanks Brian, I'm aware of Roger, but wasn't aware of this book. Sounds like something that would benefit me.You may want to consider a book, Perfect Exposure by Roger Hicks. You can easily find it on the used book sites like ABEBOOKS.com. I bought a copy at $.99 plus $3.99 shipping, which was the best four bucks I've ever invested in basic photographic advise.
Looks like inflation caught up. Now the lowest priced is $3.49. Still would be a good investment. It could be the best eight bucks you invest in basic photographic advise.
By looking at the negatives. The "bad" ones are thin. The ones where there was more light (but still sort of dim house lights) are thicker. I guess I'm saying that when the light levels get to a certain point and there are no bright lights in the scene, I get a really thin negative.
No, not yet. I see what you mean though.You're shooting a dark area, so when you print you'd want it to look dark, right? So the neg does need to be thinner or it would print as lighter than it was. There's thin and then there's too thin. Have you tried printing these thin negs?
Expose at your meter reading as usual, then take additional shots -- adding twice as much light each time (double the exposure time) -- try three or five more times and see when you get better negatives (or transparencies).
Great! That will give you a base of real-world information to build on.
No, at this point i'm just judging the negatives and sc**nning them. I'm certain that I've underexposed them...that's the crux of it. You know how underexposed film has that murky blacks, grey-blacks -over-grainy look?Are these films being commercially developed or printed? Automatic printers can give a poor set of dark tones if there is a highlight in the frame. I would also suspect under exposed (box speed or faster) and over developed under these circumstances.
I certainly will.When you've done that, can you show us the negatives?
Keep that thought because it is theoretically correct.Exposure is the product of light intensity(controlled by the aperture)and time(controlled by the shutter)or E=I*t;a reduction or increase in one can be compensated by a reduction or increase of the other;that's called exposure reciprocity;Nevertheless,very dim or very bright conditions ma y force you to use very long or very short exposure times which in turn cause reciprocity failures where the above equation fails and typically underexposure is the result.So, exposure is exposure unless it isn't.But you have to run into very long exposures(several seconds to minutes)or very brief exposures <1/10,000s to get problems.Other than that, your reasoning is correct.I'm trying to reconcile something in my mind. I'm not a veteran film shooter, I've only taken up shooting film for less than a year but as I progress, a question has come to my mind.
I had assumed that whatever conditions I shoot in, dark house vs outside on a sunny day, that exposure is exposure. That is, as long as the shutter lets in enough light, then all is equal the results should be equal.
What I have noticed is that there is an amount of light, a threshold of sorts where my images start to look very grainy with milky blacks. Above that threshold the exposure equality that I mentioned pretty much is in effect but at some reduced light level, it just doesn't work. I could leave the shutter open for twice as long and the images just don't hold up.
I hope I explained it correctly. I'm just wondering about it, that's all.
Thanks Ralph, that was very clear.Keep that thought because it is theoretically correct.Exposure is the product of light intensity(controlled by the aperture)and time(controlled by the shutter)or E=I*t;a reduction or increase in one can be compensated by a reduction or increase of the other;that's called exposure reciprocity;Nevertheless,very dim or very bright conditions ma y force you to use very long or very short exposure times which in turn cause reciprocity failures where the above equation fails and typically underexposure is the result.So, exposure is exposure unless it isn't.But you have to run into very long exposures(several seconds to minutes)or very brief exposures <1/10,000s to get problems.Other than that, your reasoning is correct.
Thanks very much for that detailed comment, I can see I have a lot to consider now.RP, that sounds exactly right - your meter is assuming you want a "normal, daylight" sort of shot. Shoot in a dark room and meter will expect an average room. Basically, a meter is saying that a gray card sitting in that room will need x-amount of exposure to be reproduced as middle gray - when in reality, a gray card in a dark room would be very dark grey. Move the camera so a bright window or light comes into view, and the meter compensates for this and everything else gets darker in the final. Keep the same exposure and the window "flares" out and can even wash out your shadows.
You really have to envision how you want the final print to look; if you want the room to seem as dark as it was when shot, take that into account. If you want it to seem lit with average daytime light, the meter should be close. Want the window blown out, you have to meter without it. Want to hold the window detail, you'll need a combo of exposure and development.
I hate to say it, but a decent digital SLR with manual controls is a very fast way to learn some of this stuff. We used to have to wait for film dev'd or prints to start learning just what we did right or wrong (or blow through a lot of polaroid). It can be a good way to learn about metering vs. ISO, shutter and aperture vs. scene conditions. Just keep in mind the digital may not hold nearly the highlight and shadow detail the film will.
Final thought - as you dial this stuff in, you'll find your negs can hold more dynamic range (shadow detail through highlight detail) than paper or scans can. Negs under the loupe can have far more shadow detail than final prints. At some point you'll need to start seeing how much you have to "compress" dynamic range into the film to get good prints, usually by blowing through some paper and chemistry and comparing negs to prints. Many of us work towards negatives that a print full range of detail on #2 or 2.5 paper grade, without lots of effort, dodging, burning, etc.
Thanks very much for that detailed comment, I can see I have a lot to consider now.
M Carter said:getting a basic grasp of
the zone system is really something that (in the pre-PC age
I'd say "separates the men from the boys") separates the
point & shoot amateur from - well, from the "advanced
hobbyist-to-professional"? How about "the photographer
that consistently gets negs that will produce a final print that
matches his/her visualization of the scene when they hit
the shutter button".
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?