corposant wrote:
Sebboh - great moment you caught with your little one. Is this new Portra 160? The grain looks interesting in your "landscape" shot - more than I expected. I also would enjoy a stitching seminar - you should start a new thread and create a new FM legacy for yourself.
thanks. yes, it's the new portra 160. the visible grain is a result of me forgetting i'm shooting film and exposing for the rocks and trying to use a graduated filter in post to bring back some of the drama in the sky. shooting landscape at f/1.4 doesn't help either as there is less detail to hide the grain. here is what the original looked like:
as far as stitching goes, i think i've gone over my "method" in the pano-mania thread. my method is far too lazy to merit me giving a seminar i'm afraid. software has made things easy, the only difficult part is visualizing framing and getting exposure right.
sebboh wrote:
thanks. yes, it's the new portra 160. the visible grain is a result of me forgetting i'm shooting film and exposing for the rocks and trying to use a graduated filter in post to bring back some of the drama in the sky. shooting landscape at f/1.4 doesn't help either as there is less detail to hide the grain.
That method works well when shooting medium format, fyi.
sebboh wrote:
thanks. yes, it's the new portra 160. the visible grain is a result of me forgetting i'm shooting film and exposing for the rocks and trying to use a graduated filter in post to bring back some of the drama in the sky. shooting landscape at f/1.4 doesn't help either as there is less detail to hide the grain. here is what the original looked like: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7048/6864796885_23b533f5db_o.jpg
as far as stitching goes, i think i've gone over my "method" in the pano-mania thread. my method is far too lazy to merit me giving a seminar i'm afraid. software has made things easy, the only difficult part is visualizing framing and getting exposure right....Show more →
First of all nice shots and nice lens . Second, I'm still newish to film (and photography in general), so please excuse my ignorance, but aren't you supposed to expose for the shadows (rocks in this case) with film?
Katie, nice shot (love the skin tones!), I'm sure your boy had a blast!
Here are a few with the Hassy, 50mm and Provia. I'm not sure how I exposed them, I think for some I just sunny f/16'd it (with various success) and the others I used my digicam.
1.
2. I think I missed the focus with this... (not sure why I was shooting wide open)
zalmyb wrote:
Here are a few with the Hassy, 50mm and Provia. I'm not sure how I exposed them, I think for some I just sunny f/16'd it (with various success) and the others I used my digicam.
corposant wrote:
Zalmy - the answer is "it depends." Slide film's latitude varies somewhat between which one you use. Unlike print film, you definitely do not want to overexpose it. The fun with slide film is how quirky each particular type is. You can also cross-process if you get bored with it or don't want to pay for E-6 chemistry.
Yeah, I kind of figured. I just wanted a one size fits all answer... never works like that
I guess I'll just have to go out and try it. Do you send yours out to be processed and scanned? If so where?
Unfortunately I don't have an iphone... But I do (now) have a lightmeter . With negative film I usually keep the bulb in and take a reading (with the new portra and ektar at least). I'm just wondering If you use a spot meter for slide and where to take the reading off of...
zalmyb wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have an iphone... But I do (now) have a lightmeter . With negative film I usually keep the bulb in and take a reading (with the new portra and ektar at least). I'm just wondering If you use a spot meter for slide and where to take the reading off of...
It depends on the camera, film, and what I want my result to be like.
The Mamiya 7 has a built in spot meter practically on top of the RF patch, so I don't have to take my eye away from VF to meter (it also has AE/AEL). For quick shots with manageable DR, this is great - meter your subject, recompose and fire. For more complicated compositions, like the one you liked above, it's more time-consuming, since I will meter the shadows/hightlights, and then decide how I want to bias my shot - and this is where the film stock becomes important. I have shot Portra enough to know that metering the wet sand will keep detail where I want - and I checked the EV of the little pool just to confirm.
Now, this scene (which I have posted, I believe), is totally different. Velvia doesn't come close to Portra in terms of DR, but obviously has other redeeming factors that makes me want to shoot it (awesome colors, resolution, grain, less granular). I had to make a choice here, and while there's actually plenty of detail in the sand and the lifeguard shack (a progressive scan would have probably allowed me to access it), I let it fade to maintain the sky and balance with the silhouette:
This is also with my Ikon, which uses an average meter which in 95% of the circumstances I shoot it, it nails it. This is one where it wouldn't have given me what I wanted.
I would suggest you find Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" - he goes through a lot of tricks and tips for metering complicated shots and he's a relatively approachable author. It was helpful to me when I started shooting color about 10 years ago and I still pick it up every once in a while.
zalmyb wrote:
First of all nice shots and nice lens . Second, I'm still newish to film (and photography in general), so please excuse my ignorance, but aren't you supposed to expose for the shadows (rocks in this case) with film?
depends on what you want. with digital you never add grain by pulling exposure down whereas film will as it did here. since i wanted an under exposed look i should have actually under exposed the shot instead of expecting to pull down the highlights in post.
"Understanding exposure was actually the first book I ever read about photography. I haven't read it in a few years and forgot that he spoke about metering for specific situations. Thank for the reminder and I'll definitely go through that part agin. Thanks!
sebboh wrote:
depends on what you want. with digital you never add grain by pulling exposure down whereas film will as it did here. since i wanted an under exposed look i should have actually under exposed the shot instead of expecting to pull down the highlights in post.
sebboh wrote:
depends on what you want. with digital you never add grain by pulling exposure down whereas film will as it did here. since i wanted an under exposed look i should have actually under exposed the shot instead of expecting to pull down the highlights in post.
How are you scanning your negatives Sebboh? I find that scanning them as slide film will recover all the details without adding grain, unless you really boost the contrast dramatically.
edwardkaraa wrote:
How are you scanning your negatives Sebboh? I find that scanning them as slide film will recover all the details without adding grain, unless you really boost the contrast dramatically.
the lab is scanning them for me, i don't have a scanner. i'm just just pulling down the exposure of the tif from the scan. it's always been my experience though, that film scans increase grain with a decrease in exposure in highlight regions similar to an increase of exposure in shadow regions.
. Second, I'm still newish to film (and photography in general), so please excuse my ignorance, but aren't you supposed to expose for the shadows (rocks in this case) with film?
