The adjustment was of the scanned CD sent on my old Mac…!
Even the best meter isn't going to change your scene. No matter how you meter a scene, you're never going to change these two things:
1: the inherent contrast of the scene. In this case, it's a big difference between the shadow areas and the sunlit trees.
2: the quality of the light, in particular the already mentioned difference in wavelength distribution (color) between shadows and direct evening sunlight.
Concerning (1): what measurement result did you get for the shadows vs. the sunlit areas? Did you measure the different light levels in your scene? How did you strike a compromise between the conflicting exposure settings? Which side did you balance towards in this compromise?
Overexposure can sometimes do funny things on film due to crossover, but that's not the main issue in these shots. It may have contributed slightly, but other problems are far more dominant in this case.
I’ll meter the parts that showed excessive yellowing and roll the dice…!YES..... That's what filters are for. But it sounds like you're trying to juggle so many out of control variables at once that any outcome is hard to predict until you iron out the primary chuckholes one at a time. You report camera inconsistencies, there are scanning issues, you expect quality prints by cheap means, and frankly, don't understand the basics of color film exposure.
Gosh, I'm glad I grew up the era when people shot color slides. It was a lot easier to evaluate what the camera and film were doing, if you were metering correctly or not, because you could just put the result atop a light box and see it with you own eyes. Now there's a whole complicated workflow one step after another, and if something goes wrong, you have to backtrack all along the way to identify the culprit.
I’ll meter the parts that showed excessive yellowing and roll the dice…!
Gosh, I'm glad I grew up the era when people shot color slides. It was a lot easier to evaluate what the camera and film were doing, if you were metering correctly or not, because you could just put the result atop a light box and see it with you own eyes. Now there's a whole complicated workflow one step after another, and if something goes wrong, you have to backtrack all along the way to identify the culprit.
But what you just posted is in fact a mixed lighting scene. A lot of deep blue shade plus some warm open sun. If you or some automated device tries to correct the excess blue percent, due to the shade, it simply warms the entire scene, and the rest comes out too yellow, or visa versa. Although I love Ektar and know how to handle such situations, my advice to you is to switch your film and try something like Portra 400 instead (presuming you did shoot it on Ektar).
The other issue is that you have to choose what is more important to you in the scene. The stream and trees are obviously overexposed. If you lower the exposure, the dark foreground conifers will go black, but that would be less annoying than what you have now.
So yeah, that's a hard scene for an in-camera averaging meter to psychoanalyze. I would have aimed the camera to the right to take the reading, minus the dark portion, use that setting, and then reorient the composition. To me, bold black in the final result would be more acceptable than bleached-out crossed-over yellows. You can't have it both ways at once. But again, you might compare the results of a wider-latitude film like Porta 400.
Good luck! You'll get there.
8 out 10 times, the culprit is poor exposure. From a technical point of view, it's the hardest part of photography, and it's the one people spend the less time figuring out. Partly to blame today are the gazillion videos on YouTube stating "Don't worry too much about exposure, film has great latitude!"
You have 36 exposures on your film. That's six different ways of metering your scene if you also bracket one up, one down, + six different filters you can try if you bracket one up, one down. There are also other ways you can split this up. Doesn't matter. Important is to try to understand the scene, understand the light. Take notes, compare them with what's good once you get the photos back. You'll have learned how to deal with such a scene with this film.
Or you can roll the dices. I don't know anybody who has learned anything from rolling the dices.
Learning from your mistakes…!
Some of my prints show too much yellow on trees that should be green.
Only the trees that have the direct intensive sunlight show the yellow.
Stopping down doesn’t seem to work.
The lab technician said the film I’m using, Kodak Ektar 100, has this problem and shows extensive yellowing in extreme lighting. He suggested using a different film, Kodak Portra or Gold. Can a filter help?
The scans sent don’t show the yellowing as much as the prints...!
Realized I stopped down on this shot.
Different day and later on in the morning…!
the one you called stopped down looks a lot crisper than the other, so I assume the other was shot wide open.
What do you mean? You didn't use a wide aperture or you stopped down further from what the meter told you or...?
On the comparison you posted earlier, of two pictures of the same scene, the one you called stopped down looks a lot crisper than the other, so I assume the other was shot wide open. Not a good choice for such a scene. But we're discussing exposure here, and as that's the result of both aperture and exposure time, you could be clearer in what you actually did differently.
It's a fluke most likely. We're looking at phone snaps of prints in some cases and phone snaps of digital edits of scans in other instances, and probably edited scans directly in yet other cases. There's a whole lot going on here that mostly remains implicit and that you have to specifically ask for to bring to light.
Yeah, digital technology is great - if it works; it can be a pain in the ... if it doesn't!
Next time I’ll take a reading from the top part and sky and see what happens…!
8 out 10 times, the culprit is poor exposure. From a technical point of view, it's the hardest part of photography, and it's the one people spend the less time figuring out. Partly to blame today are the gazillion videos on YouTube stating "Don't worry too much about exposure, film has great latitude!"
You have 36 exposures on your film. That's six different ways of metering your scene if you also bracket one up, one down, + six different filters you can try if you bracket one up, one down. There are also other ways you can split this up. Doesn't matter. Important is to try to understand the scene, understand the light. Take notes, compare them with what's good once you get the photos back. You'll have learned how to deal with such a scene with this film.
Or you can roll the dices. I don't know anybody who has learned anything from rolling the dices.
Yea. Right.When HIE was discontinued
8 out 10 times, the culprit is poor exposure. From a technical point of view, it's the hardest part of photography, and it's the one people spend the less time figuring out. Partly to blame today are the gazillion videos on YouTube stating "Don't worry too much about exposure, film has great latitude!"
You have 36 exposures on your film. That's six different ways of metering your scene if you also bracket one up, one down, + six different filters you can try if you bracket one up, one down. There are also other ways you can split this up. Doesn't matter. Important is to try to understand the scene, understand the light. Take notes, compare them with what's good once you get the photos back. You'll have learned how to deal with such a scene with this film.
Or you can roll the dices. I don't know anybody who has learned anything from rolling the dices.
Yea. Right.When HIE was discontinued and I had only one roll of HIE some wide self appointed sage recommended that I use all 36 exposures of exactly one subject and then I would know everything about using infrared HIE on one subject. Of course I would not have any HIE to use after that. Wise move --- NOT!
But OP is shooting Ektar 100. There's lots more where that came from. At least as of yet.
My point is that one size fits all solutions, do not fit all solutions.
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?