Fair enough.
Yes, I see now where the futzing around part factors in, a switch to regular briefs might help.
Perhaps I took it wrong. But I also don't wear tight jeans any longer, I like a little room.
1)They're bulky. To me.
2)I don't read shadow & highlight to obtain contrast range
3)I Don't use sheet film or the Zone system.
4)I don't have a Sinar F.
5)I can eyeball exposure closely enough if I need to compensate for deep shadow
or bright highlight if I need to.
6)My negatives are good enough with an incident meter.
7)I wear hiking boots year round.
8)I don't wear long johns in the summertime.
9)I like boxer briefs.
10)I also find a RF easier to focus in dim/dark areas.
I don't think they're troublesome to use. For you. Just not my thing.
WOW...when I asked the question I had no idea it would cause such a "dust up"!!! ...
A talent for asking questions that get everyone worked up??? If I only had a talent for photography!
A talent for asking questions that touch 'the heart of the matter', i'd say.
Keep it up!
So Barry,
How did your test go?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Here are 4 shots off the same roll with my RB. Neopan 400 in XTOL 1:1
neg scans.
First two are reflective the second two are incident. I am not sure that I can really see a lot of difference????
Well then the subject matter was "normal" and "flat" enough to render very similar results with reflective or incident readings. This is certainly NOT always the case. Again though, I like the pics.
Barry, next time you do any testing, try the same scene with both methods, and try challenging ones with strong highlights and shadows. The light seems to be very even, flat.
I am planning on shooting this violin this evening for the customer. I always shoot violins on a table with a black drape and two hot lights. I will shoot both digital for the customer and film for me.
A question to add to the confusion: in a studio setting, like on a tabletop, if I use reflective metering really close to the subject, pointing directly towards the part of the subject I wanna expose according to, can that reading be used and placed in the zone system? (provided I know what area I'm measuring..)
E.g;
[refer to the attached pic] I meter the tailpiece really close and the meter gives me a reading of EV 8, I place it in zone III, the upper bout gives me a reading of EV 10, which then will fall in zone V which is consistent what what I have visualized.
Will this work with an ordinary reflective meter or do I have to have a spot to this metering? Does the metering at close range get influenced by light fall off etc.?
A question to add to the confusion: in a studio setting, like on a tabletop, if I use reflective metering really close to the subject, pointing directly towards the part of the subject I wanna expose according to, can that reading be used and placed in the zone system? (provided I know what area I'm measuring..)
Will this work with an ordinary reflective meter or do I have to have a spot to this metering? Does the metering at close range get influenced by light fall off etc.?
Yes.
In this studio setting, you are able to use your wide area reflective meter just like a spot meter. So, "placing" the tail piece on zone III and then reading the upper section to see where it "falls" in relation to it, is the ZS procedure to use. Then development would be decided by where that highlight falls, if you wanted the Zone V reading to be higher in final print value, then you could try an N+1 development, or some percentage of time increase in development.
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?