School me on ISO.

[Sirius Glass]

Ok, will do. I confess to being confused about this whole photography thing. I thought all you had to do is point a camera at something and mash the shutter.

See post #34 part 1. Start with the simple plan for now.

 

[MattKing]

Ok, will do. I confess to being confused about this whole photography thing. I thought all you had to do is point a camera at something and mash the shutter.

That is all you have to do - assuming your camera has auto-focus and auto-exposure. Some of the results will be improved a bit though if you learn a bit more and apply the knowledge. And if you learn even more, you can fine tune the results a bit more.
Oh by the way, it will help you a lot if instead of mashing the shutter (release), you carefully squeeze the shutter release.

 

[KerrKid]

That is all you have to do - assuming your camera has auto-focus and auto-exposure. Some of the results will be improved a bit though if you learn a bit more and apply the knowledge. And if you learn even more, you can fine tune the results a bit more.
Oh by the way, it will help you a lot if instead of mashing the shutter (release), you carefully squeeze the shutter release.

I guess my sense of humor got lost in translation. My statement was tongue-in-cheek, not literal. I have SRT-101’s, a 201, and a Pentax KM so I’m doing the heavy lifting with those. Yes, learning more is on the agenda and I appreciate everyone’s help with that.

 

[MattKing]

I guess my sense of humor got lost in translation.

Nothing was lost here - your post made me smile.
But one of the hardest things to communicate through the internet is the relative importance of things. That includes learning that in most cases it isn't necessary to sweat the small stuff.
And one of the hardest things to appreciate, once you've learned not to sweat the small stuff, is what constitutes small stuff, and how small, small actually is.

 

[grat]

Side note: Create your own DX code label.

 

[KerrKid]

Nothing was lost here - your post made me smile.
But one of the hardest things to communicate through the internet is the relative importance of things. That includes learning that in most cases it isn't necessary to sweat the small stuff.
And one of the hardest things to appreciate, once you've learned not to sweat the small stuff, is what constitutes small stuff, and how small, small actually is.

Very well put. This applies to life in general.

 

[KerrKid]

Side note: Create your own DX code label.

Great link. Thank you!

 

[Bill Burk]

@wiltw checked and you’re right. I remember the Velvia advice was “40” but I also remember the generalized advice to decrease exposure slightly for better saturation. Something sounded wrong. The two recommendations contradict each other. So we need to give context.

They are both correct memories of the advice given by Galen Rowell in Outdoor Photographer magazine. He was talking about two different films.

In context he wrote “I have found it (Velvia 50) to be a bit slower than older films. Instead of shooting it at ISO 64 as I do with Fuji Pro 50 to get richer tones from slight underexposure, I set my camera right on ISO 50 for rich colors and on ISO 40 for more open shadows.”

So there you have it: Velvia at 50 or 40 depending…

This has been bothering me for years so glad it’s clear now.

 

[radiant]

Ok, will do. I confess to being confused about this whole photography thing. I thought all you had to do is point a camera at something and mash the shutter.

What? Unheard talk on this forum

Take a roll of Kodak or Ilford, shoot it on box speed + develop based on manufacturer datasheet and enjoy photography. Forget everything else. Trust me, I've been there.

 

[radiant]

Ok, good to know, because I probably would have just pointed my camera at a shadow area. I need to look up AA's Zone System so I know what you guys are talking about.

Zone System is a way to squeeze/expand the scene dynamic range on film by adjusting both exposure and development for the frame. Mostly applicable when photographing on sheet film but if your lightning conditions stay the same during whole roll you can kinda use it on roll film. Zone system was a solution to get good prints on constant grade darkroom papers and quite much limited film that was produced in the days.

Modern films and multigrade papers are so good combo that only thing you need to take care of is: enough exposure and enough development. In other words: follow the instrucions given by manufacturer. Just forget everything else or you will drop to a rabbit hole where you start questioning everything and yourself and get many many bad negatives. Again.. speaking from my own experiences.

 

[wiltw]

Wouldn;t ISO40 overexpose the highlights in Velvia?

Well, so many folks agreed about EI40, that was apparently not an issue!

Velvia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Velvia (RVP)​

The original Velvia (RVP) was an ISO 50 film. In practice, many photographers used an exposure index (EI) of 40 or 32 to increase exposure slightly (one or two thirds of a stop respectively) in order to yield less saturated colors and more shadow detail.[citation needed] It was discontinued in 2008."​

 

[Bill Burk]

Next chance I get I will cite Galen Rowell on that Wikipedia page.

 

[foc]

labs know films better than all the photographers who know it all !!

That comment made me smile (in a good way) and in most cases, it is very true.
Just like most restaurant diners know more than the chef.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What can you tell me about ISO? For example, why shoot at a different ISO than box speed? Thanks!

That is a useful technique to deal with high or low contrast situations. When you read some text about the Zone System it will become clear. Also old and outdated film may need more exposure.

 

[Paul Howell]

That's how I stated in Jr. High School, a Bell and Howell point shoot fixed lens plastic camera with 127 film and M2 flash bulbs. I was doing a shoot in Witchal Falls Tx, 1973 or so, I stopped by the lone camera shop for film. The owner was loading a Hasselblad with a roll of color film, had the set the shutter to 1/125th F stop to F 16, focus at infinity, told the woman not change anything, just crank to the next frame. She and her husband had land with many oil wells, just wanted a really good box camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Zone System is a way to squeeze/expand the scene dynamic range on film by adjusting both exposure and development for the frame. Mostly applicable when photographing on sheet film but if your lightning conditions stay the same during whole roll you can kinda use it on roll film. Zone system was a solution to get good prints on constant grade darkroom papers and quite much limited film that was produced in the days.

Modern films and multigrade papers are so good combo that only thing you need to take care of is: enough exposure and enough development. In other words: follow the instrucions given by manufacturer. Just forget everything else or you will drop to a rabbit hole where you start questioning everything and yourself and get many many bad negatives. Again.. speaking from my own experiences.

Yes the Zone System can provide expansion and compression, but for modern films that is not necessary. The Zoom System has a method for getting shadow [or highlight] details with exposure modification without the expansion and compression along with the wasted time of extensive exhaustive endless testing and diddling around. If one wants to add shadow or highlight detail, learn about the exposure modification of the Zone System and leave the rest of the Zone System to those people who have nothing else in their lives to keep them busy or to live for.

​

 

[KerrKid]

What? Unheard talk on this forum

Take a roll of Kodak or Ilford, shoot it on box speed + develop based on manufacturer datasheet and enjoy photography. Forget everything else. Trust me, I've been there.

Ha. That describes my photography in the mid-70's. Seriously, I was even one of two yearbook photographers in High School and didn't seem to have any trouble taking good photos. I had my SRT-101 with a 58mm lens bought from a pawn shop that I doubt had ever been serviced. I didn't even know there was such a thing as other lenses. I just stuffed Tri-X in the camera and pulled the trigger. Yes, sometimes simple is best, but it never hurts to learn more than you think you need.

 

[KerrKid]

That's how I stated in Jr. High School, a Bell and Howell point shoot fixed lens plastic camera with 127 film and M2 flash bulbs. I was doing a shoot in Witchal Falls Tx, 1973 or so, I stopped by the lone camera shop for film. The owner was loading a Hasselblad with a roll of color film, had the set the shutter to 1/125th F stop to F 16, focus at infinity, told the woman not change anything, just crank to the next frame. She and her husband had land with many oil wells, just wanted a really good box camera.

My dad had an Argus C3 that I used. It was fine until a doctor on a canoe trip to Canada that we took, put one foot in our canoe and kept the other on land. Doc did the slow splits and the camera went swimming. End of that. So, dad took me down to a pawn shop in Dayton, OH (around 1972-3) and I bought the SRT-101. I think I shot it at 1/125th and F16 most of the time. I'm not sure what settings I used during the day. I kid, I kid.

 

[MattKing]

My dad had an Argus C3 that I used. It was fine until a doctor on a canoe trip to Canada that we took, put one foot in our canoe and kept the other on land. Doc did the slow splits and the camera went swimming. End of that. So, dad took me down to a pawn shop in Dayton, OH (around 1972-3) and I bought the SRT-101. I think I shot it at 1/125th and F16 most of the time. I'm not sure what settings I used during the day. I kid, I kid.

How was the doctor?

 

[KerrKid]

How was the doctor?

Considerably wet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My dad had an Argus C3 that I used. It was fine until a doctor on a canoe trip to Canada that we took, put one foot in our canoe and kept the other on land. Doc did the slow splits and the camera went swimming. End of that. So, dad took me down to a pawn shop in Dayton, OH (around 1972-3) and I bought the SRT-101. I think I shot it at 1/125th and F16 most of the time. I'm not sure what settings I used during the day. I kid, I kid.

What about the dock? Did it survive?

 

[radiant]

Ha. That describes my photography in the mid-70's. Seriously, I was even one of two yearbook photographers in High School and didn't seem to have any trouble taking good photos. I had my SRT-101 with a 58mm lens bought from a pawn shop that I doubt had ever been serviced. I didn't even know there was such a thing as other lenses. I just stuffed Tri-X in the camera and pulled the trigger. Yes, sometimes simple is best, but it never hurts to learn more than you think you need.

Almost same here, but 110% shooting Tmax 400 with Tmax developer. I didn't understand why to use anything else. My negatives were easy to print. It was only some years ago when I started film photography again and realized what the "multigrade" in paper box means. Back in the days I thought it was just some marketing yadayada. Nobody told me!

My negatives started to go much worse when I started to "push" or try some "awesome" developing techniques which I thought make my photographs so much better. They didn't. Actually I ruined many good shots. Can I forgive myself?

 

[wiltw]

@wiltw checked and you’re right. I remember the Velvia advice was “40” but I also remember the generalized advice to decrease exposure slightly for better saturation. Something sounded wrong. The two recommendations contradict each other. So we need to give context.

They are both correct memories of the advice given by Galen Rowell in Outdoor Photographer magazine. He was talking about two different films.

In context he wrote “I have found it (Velvia 50) i...nstead of shooting it at ISO 64 as I do with Fuji Pro 50 to get richer tones from slight underexposure, I set my camera right on ISO 50 for rich colors and on ISO 40 for more open shadows.

So there you have it: Velvia at 50 or 40 depending…
This has been bothering me for years so glad it’s clear now.

For as long as i can remember, I was aware that less exposure resulting in better color saturation with color transparency (it is how you make sunset colors more vivid), and it is intuitively obvious that more exposure makes for less dense shadow areas.
So carrying that same principle over to exposing Velvia at EI40 was not mysterious. It had tons of color saturation to start with (in fact, a bit too much for some kinds of photos), so use of a lower Exposure Index than box rating made the shadows less blocked up without hurtful loss of color saturation.

 

[KerrKid]

What about the dock? Did it survive?

What dock? It was on the bank of a middle-of-nowhere boundary water's island in Canada. Idjit lost the only drinking cups we had, too.

 

[KerrKid]

Almost same here, but 110% shooting Tmax 400 with Tmax developer. I didn't understand why to use anything else. My negatives were easy to print. It was only some years ago when I started film photography again and realized what the "multigrade" in paper box means. Back in the days I thought it was just some marketing yadayada. Nobody told me!

My negatives started to go much worse when I started to "push" or try some "awesome" developing techniques which I thought make my photographs so much better. They didn't. Actually I ruined many good shots. Can I forgive myself?

There are different grades of paper!? Now you tell me. This changes everything. Lol.