Some questions..


Status
Not open for further replies.

thomas.h

New Member
Apr 14, 2005
123
0
0
Yewtee
#1
Please bear with my questions..
1. how it is possible that i see pple shooting with a long lens in low light conditions and yet able to capture movement so sharply?

With a DSLR, one would probably bump up the ISO? let's say you're shooting kids at e bugis fountain. wad would u use?

what would you do with film?

2. i went overseas with an SLR, alot of my shots had a completely washed out
sky. why is this so? did i meter wrongly? (i simply focused one subject and fired)

thanks.
 

foxtwo

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2004
2,522
0
0
singapore
#2
1. shoot with fast lense.
push film.

2. The brightness range between your subject and sky was possibly around than 2-3 stops in range, with the subject darker than the sky. the slr, presuming it was using centre-weighted metering, metered 18% grey off your subject and was exposed for correctly. The sky on the other hand, is overexposed by 2-3 stops, hence it was blown.
So yes, you did meter wrongly IF you had wanted both subject & sky to be correctly exposed. It is possible to correct, most prolly by using GND (or using a film with greater latitude), but one should note that sometimes you have to decide which to give up. Is the subject more impt or is the emphasis on the sky. You have to decide.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#3
foxtwo said:
It is possible to correct, most prolly by using GND (or using a film with greater latitude).
I have to correct this.

The inherent contrast within a scene will remain the same IRRESPECTIVE of the nature of sensors (digital or film, and ANY type of film) or "bracketting". Bracketting only move the ENTIRE contrast range up or down. Bracketting do NOT alter inherent contrast.

This inherent contrast can be changed by

1 As mentioned, GND

2 Digital post-processing, from a digital source or scanned from film

3 In the case of black & white films, use of filters, or developing techniques, and printing.

4 Multiple shots of the same scene, alternatively exposed for background and subject (film or digital) and then stitched them together digitally.
 

foxtwo

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2004
2,522
0
0
singapore
#4
student, wouldn't using a film of greater latitude help 'fit' the brightness range in? And hence not blow the sky (in reference to the 1st post).
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#5
foxtwo said:
student, wouldn't using a film of greater latitude help 'fit' the brightness range in? And hence not blow the sky (in reference to the 1st post).
The inherent contrast cannot change with any sensor medium.

However, positives (Slides and I was told, digital sensors) have a narrower tolerances for contrast. In contrast, black & white films have a contrast range from (sorry to use evoke the zone sysem again) something like zone 3 (useable as far as some details is concern) to even zone 14 (with usable details). Now that is an amazing contrast of more than 10 stops!

If one exposes a 7 zone scene, placing the darkest area at say zone 4, the brightest area will be at say zone 11. If he "overexposes" by two stops, placing the shadows at zone 6, the high values will be at zone 13. The contrast relationship is still the same. The whole contrast moves up and down in relative values.

Note that these are printable values and data stored in the negative. The problem is that papers, like slides, have a narrower range, and cannot accept the extreme contrast. So methods have to bring the contrast range down to a level that the paper can handle.

This can be achieved by reducing development time, usin a flatter contrast printing technique etc. But in a straight print, either the high values or the shadows have to be sacrificed, unless such extreme range with very deep blacks and extreme whites is your objective. A good example of such images are those of Ralph Gibson. I like his images.
 

NC30

New Member
Apr 22, 2005
28
0
0
taipei, Taiwan
#7
student said:
The inherent contrast cannot change with any sensor medium.

However, positives (Slides and I was told, digital sensors) have a narrower tolerances for contrast. In contrast, black & white films have a contrast range from (sorry to use evoke the zone sysem again) something like zone 3 (useable as far as some details is concern) to even zone 14 (with usable details). Now that is an amazing contrast of more than 10 stops!

If one exposes a 7 zone scene, placing the darkest area at say zone 4, the brightest area will be at say zone 11. If he "overexposes" by two stops, placing the shadows at zone 6, the high values will be at zone 13. The contrast relationship is still the same. The whole contrast moves up and down in relative values.

Note that these are printable values and data stored in the negative. The problem is that papers, like slides, have a narrower range, and cannot accept the extreme contrast. So methods have to bring the contrast range down to a level that the paper can handle.

This can be achieved by reducing development time, usin a flatter contrast printing technique etc. But in a straight print, either the high values or the shadows have to be sacrificed, unless such extreme range with very deep blacks and extreme whites is your objective. A good example of such images are those of Ralph Gibson. I like his images.
what is zone? got foto to demostrat?
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#8
NC30 said:
what is zone? got foto to demostrat?
Do a search on "Zone System" and you will see a lot of discussions on this.
 

Feb 22, 2005
1,343
0
0
Cowtown
#9
student said:
Do a search on "Zone System" and you will see a lot of discussions on this.
Or pay a visit to your friendly neighbourhood library. There's some material there on the zone system as well.
 

thomas.h

New Member
Apr 14, 2005
123
0
0
Yewtee
#10
thanks for your replies.
just to ask, if i were to meter for the sky, i'd hv to point the
cam at e sky first, adjust for e exposure then point at e subject
with e same readings and use flash as fill in.. would both sky and subject
be exposed correctly?

thank you.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#11
thomas.h said:
thanks for your replies.
just to ask, if i were to meter for the sky, i'd hv to point the
cam at e sky first, adjust for e exposure then point at e subject
with e same readings and use flash as fill in.. would both sky and subject
be exposed correctly?

thank you.
I am not the best person to advise you on this. I do not photograph with flash.

Assuming you are photographying a person against a bright background. Your subject will in relative darkness. When you use flash on the subject, you are in fact equalising the light values between the subject and the background, thereby reducing the contrast range.

But someone will have to give you specifics on how to do this.
 

rchia23

New Member
Jul 4, 2004
38
0
0
#12
thomas.h said:
thanks for your replies.
just to ask, if i were to meter for the sky, i'd hv to point the
cam at e sky first, adjust for e exposure then point at e subject
with e same readings and use flash as fill in.. would both sky and subject
be exposed correctly?

thank you.
Tried this a couple of time myself. From my own experience, the light from the built in flash is quite harsh on the subject so you get this un-natural look, thus personally am not a big fan of using flash for outdoors. Perhaps if I can try to soften the flash light somehow + add some warmth to it :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom