SergeyT wrote:
Good luck. I'm certain it can be figured out.
It turns out that I was making at least three mistakes. 1. Metering. I was trusting my incidence meter too much when I should have been verifying the scene with a spot meter. 2. I made no adjustments to the exposure (correcting for over/under exposure) in Silverfast as I didn't think it could be better than Capture One. I was wrong. 3. I was leaving a color option in Silverfast in auto when it should have been unchecked. This introduced an extra color shift after dust and scratch removal. With all these errors, it is easy to see how they can accumulate and mess things up. But now that I have identified them, I have gotten my first wow-roll from Ektar. There is still room for improvement in my skills of course, but at least I have a workflow that is more consistent.
theHUN wrote:
...But now that I have identified them, I have gotten my first wow-roll from Ektar. There is still room for improvement in my skills of course, but at least I have a workflow that is more consistent.
I am happy to see you made Ektar work for you! It renders beautiful Blues that are usually the hardest task for other color negative film emulsions.
Severe underexposure is bad for color negatives, unless used on purpose for some special effects.
Overexposure of less than a stop is fine. Above that is ok too , but in my experience for best results it should be dealt with in post in fully "manual" mode . Too dense highlights throw off many conversion algorithms.
theHUN wrote:
A wonderful image which demonstrates that people should not be afraid of diffraction-limited apertures!
Thanks! I feel people make way too much of diffraction anyways... That being said, I would very rarely go to f/22 on 35mm. The larger the format, the smaller the apertures will have to go to get proper DOF of course.
I have a hot take on that one too..... In the calculations they never seem to factor in focal length, but would the aperture being further from the film plane/sensor not make the angle of the light less oblique?
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
helimat wrote:
I have a hot take on that one too..... In the calculations they never seem to factor in focal length, but would the aperture being further from the film plane/sensor not make the angle of the light less oblique?
There is a note on that at the very bottom of the page:
"Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel farther before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size)."
theHUN wrote:
There is a note on that at the very bottom of the page:
"Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel farther before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size)."...Show more →
Desmolicious wrote:
It's funny, I have never even thought about diffraction when I am out shooting!
I have only thought about it when doing macro shots as that's where I would want to maximize DOF without sacrificing resolution of the in focus area too much. But typically the only issue I see at these apertures is dust on the (digital) sensor.
This is where DF96 is not good. At pushing TMY3200 film. This film is actually rated at ISO 800, and you can push it to 3200 w the appropriate developer. Which is not DF96 Monobath! Becomes super grainy and blocks up the shadows. With a helping of too much contrast.
Works great at ISO 800. Or pushing regular films like Arista 100/200 one stop. But not Kodak or Ilford Delta 3200.
