 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2007ISO settings Minolta Dynax
Hi to all. After using a 5MP Kodak digital camera for the past 5 years I've decided to go back to film camera. While I was taking the dust of my old Minolta Dynax I noticed it had ISO settings similar to those on the digital camera. The manual says it can can override the value of the ISO value on the film.Has anyone experimented with these settings. The range is pretty exciting from 16 to 6400. Gerard > Hi to all. > After using a 5MP Kodak digital camera for the past 5 years I've [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Gerard I am a bit rusty as far as this technique goes, but here are a few of the basics, and I'll leave the detailed stuff to someone else lol. Overriding the iso refers to "pushing/pulling" the film i.e. If you were to load the camera with iso 100 film, but set the cameras iso setting to iso 200, you would be "pushing" the film by 1 stop, (exposing it at a higher iso setting) When it is time to develop the film you would have to tell the developers that you have pushed it so they can allow for it in the developing process. If I can remember right, doing this causes the image to be more grainy, and also alters the colours to some extent. Oh well I'll hand over to someone else now as that is about my limit as far as pushing film goes. :) ATB Mick PS. here's a few links about it, but a more extensive search should find something more in depth. http://www.jafaphotography.com/pushing_film.htm http://www.charlescampbell.com/photoforum/Articles/Pushing.pdf http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Pushprocessing > Hi to all. > After using a 5MP Kodak digital camera for the past 5 years I've [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Gerard Hello Gerard. The film speed can be overridden by the camera's setting but the film will still remain at its original ASA value. Put a 400 ASA film in the camera and it remains a 400 ASA film. Set the camera to 800 ASA and the film will be under-exposed by one stop. Set the camera to 200 ASA and the film will be over-exposed by one stop. You can use this to "push" or "pull" the film but I always preferred to start with the ASA setting I wished to use and not override a film with a different ASA setting. By the way - hope I've got the numbers correct! You quoted ISO and 16 to 6400 but ISO values would be 21, 24, 27 etc whereas ASA values would indeed be in the range of 16 to 6400. Regards, Ian. > > Hi to all. > > After using a 5MP Kodak digital camera for the past 5 years I've [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Regards, Ian. Thanks Ian for your reply. The manual says the ISO values change from 16 to 6400. Gerard >> By the way - hope I've got the numbers correct! You quoted ISO and 16 to >> 6400 but ISO values would be 21, 24, 27 etc whereas ASA values would indeed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Gerard Yep, ISO linear scale. >By the way - hope I've got the numbers correct! You quoted ISO and 16 to >6400 but ISO values would be 21, 24, 27 etc whereas ASA values would indeed >be in the range of 16 to 6400. The 21,24,27... are DIN film speed numbers. The 16-6400 are ASA. Combine the two in the format ASA/DIN and you get ISO, which is usually stated using the ASA number only. Stephen -- > By the way - hope I've got the numbers correct! You quoted ISO and 16 to > 6400 but ISO values would be 21, 24, 27 etc whereas ASA values would indeed > be in the range of 16 to 6400. It's DIN (Deutsche Industrie Norm - German Industry Standard) that comes 21, 24, 27 ... actually 21°, 24°, 27° ... Film used to be rated both ASA & DIN, but the ISO standard absorbed both with a linear ISO scale that corresponds to the old ASA scale and logarithmic ISO scale that corresponds to the old DIN scale. So, where you used to have film that was 100 ASA/21° DIN, you now have film that's ISO 100/21°. > Hi to all. > After using a 5MP Kodak digital camera for the past 5 years I've [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Gerard One nifty use for this capability involves the use of K200 with flourescent lights. If you set the ISO to 400 or above while using this film, and employ push processing, the color shift that takes place between the layers makes the image look almost correct. Once ujpon a time, Kodak mentioned this result. Jim >> Hi to all. >> After using a 5MP Kodak digital camera for the past 5 years I've [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jim Although, as I recall, they suggested a 1-1/3 stop push to ISO 500. > Hi to all. > After using a 5MP Kodak digital camera for the past 5 years I've [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Gerard Most film cameras made to read DX coded film have this feature. I pretty much limit it to rating color print (C-41) about 1/3 stop lower (i.e. ISO 400 film rated at ISO 320) and slide film (E-6) about 1/3 stop higher (ISO 64 film rated at ISO 100). No need to adjust processing to get slightly denser negatives or slightly more saturated slides. You can also use it to Push/Pull whole stops, but you then have to remember to tell whoever processes the film what you've done ... "I shot this roll of ISO 400 film at ISO 1600" (2 stop push). If you forget, you're gonna' end up with some mighty thin negatives (or slides for that matter). > I pretty much limit it to rating color print (C-41) about 1/3 stop lower > (i.e. ISO 400 film rated at ISO 320) and slide film (E-6) about 1/3 stop > higher (ISO 64 film rated at ISO 100). > > No need to adjust processing to get slightly denser negatives or > slightly more saturated slides. Color print film designed for the mass market is very happy when overexposed 1 or 2 stops. It produces less highlight detail, more shadow detail and more saturated colors. Many people like the results, and set the color level on their TV and computer monitors to match. If the newscaster on the evening news on YOUR TV looks like Homer Simpson, then you will be happier that way. > You can also use it to Push/Pull whole stops, but you then have to > remember to tell whoever processes the film what you've done ... "I shot > this roll of ISO 400 film at ISO 1600" (2 stop push). There is some black and white film that is processed as color negative film (called chromogenic), for example Ilford XP2, that can be exposed at ISO's from 100 to 1600 and produce a useable negative. The film itself is actually a high speed and a low speed film sandwiched together. Agfa's product was similar. I have never used the Kodak chromogenic films in that way, so I can't speak about them. Geoff.  SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. I still got a question.Does that mean when I go through the developing of the film I don't necessarily have to tell the developers that I pushed or pulled the film or does that apply only to cases for high ISO changes above a third as Pudentame says? Gerard > > I pretty much limit it to rating color print (C-41) about 1/3 stop lower > > (i.e. ISO 400 film rated at ISO 320) and slide film (E-6) about 1/3 stop [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 > Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gerard yes yes yes you do have to tell them. Read my other posts. OK so C41 film has a very wide latitude and will cope with a stop or two but the pictures will still end up crap if you don't overdevelop to compensate. >> Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > but the pictures will still end up crap if you don't overdevelop to > compensate. One or two stops OVER-exposed, I can still pull a good print from the negative. But if it's under-exposed, there ain't a thing I can do. I *run* a mini-lab, and only process a few dozen rolls of C-41 every day. Trust me on this. If it's 400 speed film and you shoot it at 200, I can still give you good images. If it's 400 speed film and you shoot it at 800, I'm gonna send you to the PRO LAB downtown where I know they can handle push processing C41. You ain't gonna' get it in one hour, but you WILL get your film back in usable condition. Same deal if it's anything other than C-41 film. Where the break-down occurs is if you arrive at the lab when I'm not there. I don't have good help, and the corporation won't fire the idiots and let me hire good help. It don't matter what it is; what you tell them; if you leave the film, they'll send it through the film processor. If it was pushed, it's going to come out WAY under-exposed. If it's E-6, you're going to get some strange looking negatives. If it's Tri-X, T-Max or Plus-X, it's going to get ruined and I'm going to have to listen to my clowns whining about how "This lady said we ruined her film." That's an actual quote - the customer dropped off a roll of Tri-X, and my idiots sent it through the C41 processor. >>> Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Trust me on this. If it's 400 speed film and you shoot it at 200, I can > still give you good images. But who would purposely overexpose it? If they didn't want to underdevelop it to get those ghostly low-contrast effects? I'm sure you can correct a mistake, but this guy was asking about overriding DX coding. He was wondering if he'd get the effect of a slow film by overexposing it (no) or can he just underexpose it (not without overdeveloping in the lab). > If it's 400 speed film and you shoot it at 800, I'm gonna send you to > the PRO LAB downtown where I know they can handle push processing C41. > You ain't gonna' get it in one hour, but you WILL get your film back in > usable condition. Yeah thanks for agreeing with me. > Same deal if it's anything other than C-41 film. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It don't matter what it is; what you tell them; if you leave the film, > they'll send it through the film processor. Thanks for the advice. Where is your lab so I can avoid it? > If it was pushed, it's going to come out WAY under-exposed. If it's E-6, > you're going to get some strange looking negatives. If it's Tri-X, T-Max [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's an actual quote - the customer dropped off a roll of Tri-X, and > my idiots sent it through the C41 processor. Which is why you always take anything BUT C-41 to a decent lab. >Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: > >But who would purposely overexpose it? If they didn't want to underdevelop it >to get those ghostly low-contrast effects? I routinely "overexpose" negative film, by 0.7 to 1.0 stop. I routinely "underexpose" slide film by 0.3 stop, except for Velvia 50 which I "overexpose" by 0.3 top. But this isn't really "underexposing" or "overexposing", because the ISO printed on the film pack is only a guide. You should experiment with different ISO settings in order to get the best out of each film. >> Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I routinely "underexpose" slide film by 0.3 stop, except for Velvia 50 > which I "overexpose" by 0.3 top. With or without "underdeveloping" or "overdeveloping". > But this isn't really "underexposing" or "overexposing", because the > ISO printed on the film pack is only a guide. You should experiment > with different ISO settings in order to get the best out of each film. Fair point, but we all know what we mean. >>> Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >With or without "underdeveloping" or "overdeveloping". Without, of course. Otherwise, there would be no point. >>>> Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Without, of course. Otherwise, there would be no point. I was just thinking I should try overexposing C41 film but was worried about the blown out highlights I got the other day. Then remembered that was using digital. Hah! >>>>> Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the blown out highlights I got the other day. Then remembered that was using >digital. Hah! Shooting digital is like shooting slide film, but with an even smaller "dynamic range" than slide film offers. > Shooting digital is like shooting slide film, but with an even smaller > "dynamic range" than slide film offers. eh? Surely you know that raw provides more shadow detail than slide? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Shooting digital is like shooting slide film, but with an even smaller >> "dynamic range" than slide film offers. > > eh? Surely you know that raw provides more shadow detail than slide? Oh f.ck here we go... >>> Shooting digital is like shooting slide film, but with an even smaller >>> "dynamic range" than slide film offers. >> >> eh? Surely you know that raw provides more shadow detail than slide? >> >Oh f.ck here we go... Exactly. Tha man who doesn't understand lighting, dishing out advice. Pass the sick bag ... >>>> Shooting digital is like shooting slide film, but with an even smaller >>>> "dynamic range" than slide film offers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pass the sick bag ... Polson, Ya blew it and ya know it... 'Course ya could provide better photos than: http://www.pbase.com/paris_polson/examples Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Shooting digital is like shooting slide film, but with an even smaller >> "dynamic range" than slide film offers. > > eh? Surely you know that raw provides more shadow detail than slide? Lost detail is LOST. Doesn't matter what format. >> Where the break-down occurs is if you arrive at the lab when I'm not >> there. I don't have good help, and the corporation won't fire the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks for the advice. Where is your lab so I can avoid it? We're the nearest one to where-ever you happen to be at the moment. > Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gerard High? That's a THIRD of a STOP. Almost no change. Always inform the lab if you are making a change of a stop or two. And believe me, if you want to make a difference then you'll need to make it a whole stop or two. Of course you can use it for 1/3 stop compensation, but that's what the exposure compensation setting is for. > Always inform the lab if you are making a change of a stop or two. And believe > me, if you want to make a difference then you'll need to make it a whole stop > or two. That depends upon the lab. Don't expect a "one hour photo" type place to be able to do anything. You may also pay significantly more for developing. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> Always inform the lab if you are making a change of a stop or two. And believe >> me, if you want to make a difference then you'll need to make it a whole stop [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Geoff. Expect a "one hour photo" lab to say "Ok, ok" and run it through the film processor "AS IS". 99 out of 100 won't know what you're talking about. Bring 'em a roll of E-6 and they'll run that through there anyway. Bring 'em a brand new roll with the leader hanging out, and 99 out of 100 won't even ask "Are you sure this film has been exposed?" Had a customer bring me a bunch of one use cameras the other day, and one of them was UN-USED; still showing 27 exposures left. After the customer left, I had one of my clowns ask "Why'd you give that camera back? I'd of just run it through." >> Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Of course you can use it for 1/3 stop compensation, but that's what the > exposure compensation setting is for. The reason I recommend using the DX over-ride to rate C41 film about 1/3 under (so it'll OVER-expose by about 1/3 stop) is I deal with thin negatives all day long. I get roll after roll of film in that's got more than half the images so underexposed I can't even see where the frame edge is located so I can sleeve the negatives, much less get a print from it. An underexposed negative cannot give a good print. For some reason people are more likely to underexpose than to over-expose. I recommend setting the metering to compensate for this, which is what over-riding the DX coding is doing. >>> Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I recommend setting the metering to compensate for this, which is what > over-riding the DX coding is doing. Why is this, do you reckon? Are all cameras meters that poor? I'm assuming that these cameras are typically fully automatic. >> The reason I recommend using the DX over-ride to rate C41 film about >> 1/3 under (so it'll OVER-expose by about 1/3 stop) is I deal with thin [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why is this, do you reckon? Are all cameras meters that poor? I'm > assuming that these cameras are typically fully automatic. No, as I said, I think it the photographers. They're more likely to underexpose than to overexpose. I can't tell you why that is, it's just something I observe in my daily routine. I *think* it's because most photographers will push the envelope. It's almost enough light to get a good shot, so trip the shutter. If the meter tells them it's a little bit low or a little bit over they'll take the picture anyway. Admittedly, since I can still usually pull a good print from an over-exposed C-41 negative, I might be less likely to notice over-exposure. So, it might just be I'm more sensitive to under-exposure because the under-exposures affects my ability to give the customer a good print. OTOH, over-exposure happens so rarely that I think I do notice the disparity; i.e. it's notable by its rarity. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the photographer, using C41 film takes 1/3 of their shots over-exposed by one stop, 1/3 properly exposed, and 1/3 UNDER-exposed by 1 stop - according to the meter. What happens if you set the meter so it consistently recommends a aperture/shutter speed combination that's 1/3 stop over? They shoot something that the meter reading says is 1 stop over (i.e. = +1-1/3 stop) ... I can still give them a good print. Or they shoot what the meter tells them is properly exposed (= +1/3 stop)... I can still give them a good print. Or they shoot what the meter tells them is 1 stop UNDER (=-2/3 stop) ... I *might* be able to give them an *acceptable* print. That's my experience from processing & printing my own C41 film where I do compensate the DX coding to over-expose by 1/3 stop. But if the exposure is really a whole stop under, or more, with C41 film there's not enough image there to print. > Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. > > I still got a question.Does that mean when I go through the developing > of the film I don't necessarily have to tell the developers that I > pushed or pulled the film or does that apply only to cases for high > ISO changes above a third as Pudentame says? Small variations +/- 1/3 stop won't matter. For Color Print film, even one or two stops OVER Exposure won't be insurmountable; i.e. if you over-ride the DX coding for 400 speed film and shoot it at 200 or 100. If you shoot 400 speed film at 800 or 1600, you need to tell the lab to push process the film. Most mini-labs, the one hour kind you find at Wallgreens, Eckerds, Walmart ... won't be able to push process the film. Slide film is less tolerant than print film. That one or two stop OVER-exposure will ruin your slide film. Slide film can also be pushed, but it must be push *processed* as well. >> Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > insurmountable; i.e. if you over-ride the DX coding for 400 speed film > and shoot it at 200 or 100. The question remains: why on earth would you? > If you shoot 400 speed film at 800 or 1600, you need to tell the lab to > push process the film. Which at least has its reasons. You can get photos in low light. > Most mini-labs, the one hour kind you find at Wallgreens, Eckerds, > Walmart ... won't be able to push process the film. Which is another good reason not to bother with them. > Slide film is less tolerant than print film. That one or two stop > OVER-exposure will ruin your slide film. > > Slide film can also be pushed, but it must be push *processed* as well. Or pulled. (I've lost who wrote this) >> For Color Print film, even one or two stops OVER Exposure won't be >> insurmountable; i.e. if you over-ride the DX coding for 400 speed film >> and shoot it at 200 or 100. > > The question remains: why on earth would you? Because consumer grade color print film is designed to take overexposure "gracefully", and minilabs to print it properly. The results are more saturated color and better shadow detail. Some people like it, some don't. I line it on cloudy days, it really makes some interesting shots. Kodak recently came out with film for P&S cameras that is ISO 800. The idea was that many cameras would not have the ability to properly expose it (fixed or limited range auto exposure) at ISO 800 in bright sunlight, but the 3 to 4 stop overexposure (ISO 100 exposure in bright sun, or on the beach/snow) would still produce good prints and in lower light you would still get good prints and more range from a built in fixed exposure flash. Personally, I recommend that you try it color print film with one or two stops extra exposure with regular processing. If you like the results, do it all the time. You can do this on one roll try a shot and bracket the exposure (take several shots with increasing exposure between them) in several conditions (open shade, closed shade, direct sun) and see what you like. >> Most mini-labs, the one hour kind you find at Wallgreens, Eckerds, >> Walmart ... won't be able to push process the film. > > Which is another good reason not to bother with them. It depends. We use one of the local one hour photo places at the mall. We get the film developed, scanned at 2mp per negative and printed. The prints go in an album, the 2mp jpegs get emailed and the ones we want to hang on the wall get enlarged. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >>> Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The question remains: why on earth would you? People do make mistakes. I even thought I'd made one once. Of course, I was wrong about that. >>>> Thanks to all for your enlightening replies. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I even thought I'd made one once. Of course, I was wrong about that. Yik. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.