The F6 is a film camera, so no histogram.I assume you're setting the digital cameras exact settings. Do you check clipping at either end? How do you deal with it if there?
Just curious............i have only shot Provia. It is fine for my needs.
Do you prefer Velvia quite a bit more.?
So in that sense you probably still have to you probably need to go through at least part of the zone system process and determine for a specific camera/lens/film/development method what ISO number to put in.
Yes.Just curious............i have only shot Provia. It is fine for my needs.
Do you prefer Velvia quite a bit more.?
Thank You
Oh gawd, 105 sheets of 4x5, and developer to process all that...I do not wonder why I never bothered with ZS beyond exposure determination methodology.I ended up needing to measure the density of 105 exposures for each film/developer combo to obtain enough data to input into the computer program to generate the charts. Once all that is done, then the charts tell me my personal ISO and can use that in any meter.
Wait, I thought you did all kinds of testing?Oh gawd, 105 sheets of 4x5, and developer to process all that...I do not wonder why I never bothered with ZS beyond exposure determination methodology.
No no, 105 measurements with the densitometer. It's contact printing a 21 strip step wedge onto a sheet of 4x5. I expose 5 sheets identically, then develop at 4min, 5:30 min, 8min, 11min, and 16min - a familiar sounding progression, isn't it? 21 measurements per sheet, over 5 sheets.Oh gawd, 105 sheets of 4x5, and developer to process all that...I do not wonder why I never bothered with ZS beyond exposure determination methodology.
Wait, I thought you did all kinds of testing?
Which Nikon DSLR and film SLR you use to compare the meters? Mine do read the same.The F6 is a film camera, so no histogram.
I do also have a Nikon DSLR, and I find the meters are calibrated differently. The reading I might get at ISO 100 on a film camera is not necessarily the same as with a digital camera. So I only use a film SLR, not a DSLR as a meter when using film in a meterless LF camera.
In film I have F4 and F6, in digital I have a Df. It's very close, but you might notice a difference with slide film, doubtful on B&W.Which Nikon DSLR and film SLR you use to compare the meters? Mine do read the same.
Craig, Do you recall the differences?The F6 is a film camera, so no histogram.
I do also have a Nikon DSLR, and I find the meters are calibrated differently. The reading I might get at ISO 100 on a film camera is not necessarily the same as with a digital camera. So I only use a film SLR, not a DSLR as a meter when using film in a meterless LF camera.
It depends. I just did a measurement out my front window,. and the difference was about 1/3 of a stop. However, digital is much like slide film, if you blow out the highlights they are gone forever, However, much can be pulled out of the shadows, so I usually leave the Df exposure compensation set to -2/3. If I was using the Df meter with film, I'd have to remember to adjust for the compensation.Craig, Do you recall the differences?
Differences in metering patterns, differences in programming of matrix/evaluative metering and how metering zones are biased...create differences when pointing different meters at a scene.It depends. I just did a measurement out my front window,. and the difference was about 1/3 of a stop. However, digital is much like slide film, if you blow out the highlights they are gone forever, However, much can be pulled out of the shadows, so I usually leave the Df exposure compensation set to -2/3. If I was using the Df meter with film, I'd have to remember to adjust for the compensation.
Hmmm. I can't even remember when I last used the TTL meter on my Pentax 6x7. In fact, I have to pause to remember which 6x7 body has the meter prism and which the plain one. Pentax 645's are somewhat different animals because they were marketed to the wedding crowd to a certain extent, who often needed those quickie exposure bells n whistles. Journalism, spots, and wildlife photography is often analogous, though I suspect digital has largely taken over in all those categories. Wish I had a small convenience roll film camera with me today just driving around town a for scheduled minor chores like the bank and picking up some C41 developed film; the light was fantastic.
I stopped subscribing to Natl Geo once the pictures started getting patently digitish, including HDR, and the editorial content got just too predictably politicized. Don't want to see and hear it all again there too. The combination of flat versus glossy paper made it even worse. They've never been much in terms of serious "art" photography, but at least the pictures in the past matched the journalistic stories reasonably energetically. Now the look resembles week-old soggy milk toast.
Hey, I resent that. I like Velveeta! Velvia 50 too. Ektachrome just doesn't have the same punch.Mark - Velveeta is an almost inedible fake junk cheese. I hate it. So when people refer to Velvia as Velveeta, it's not in the sense of flattery. But most of this is becoming moot, because in sheet film version at least, Fuji color films are all getting close to the brink of either unaffodability or outright extinction. Nearing the end of an era. Hopefully, the newly introduced Kodak E100 will survive as an excellent mid-range chrome film option.
NatGeo has become anti human, a strange position for a natural science magazine to take. Man is bad, destroys the environment and can't be trusted with a gun or a gallon of gasoline. They were more even handed in the old days when the showed naked women from the waist up. And the photos were better.Hmmm. I can't even remember when I last used the TTL meter on my Pentax 6x7. In fact, I have to pause to remember which 6x7 body has the meter prism and which the plain one. Pentax 645's are somewhat different animals because they were marketed to the wedding crowd to a certain extent, who often needed those quickie exposure bells n whistles. Journalism, spots, and wildlife photography is often analogous, though I suspect digital has largely taken over in all those categories. Wish I had a small convenience roll film camera with me today just driving around town a for scheduled minor chores like the bank and picking up some C41 developed film; the light was fantastic.
I stopped subscribing to Natl Geo once the pictures started getting patently digitish, including HDR, and the editorial content got just too predictably politicized. Don't want to see and hear it all again there too. The combination of flat versus glossy paper made it even worse. They've never been much in terms of serious "art" photography, but at least the pictures in the past matched the journalistic stories reasonably energetically. Now the look resembles week-old soggy milk toast.
Hey, I resent that. I like Velveeta!
Hey, I resent that. I like Velveeta! Velvia 50 too. Ektachrome just doesn't have the same punch.
Maybe Velveeta is more like bland Provia.Well, I honesty miss the former trio of Astia / Provia / Velvia, which covered a better span of potential chrome contrast issues than any single product can. But what I don't miss is that miserable decade when nearly all chrome sheet films from both Fuji and Kodak were on miserable floppy, dimensionally-unstable triacetate base instead of superior polyester stock. That is still the case with Provia.
So yeah, maybe Velveeta, the floppy cheese substitute, was named after the floppy version of Velvia, instead of the other way around.
Well, I moved up to American cheese, However, I understand that foreigners don't even consider that real cheese either.Maybe compose an interesting photo of Velveeta using Velvia! After taking the photo, you can eat the Velveeta and develop the Velvia.
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?