Note,  I should have added large smilieys in case anyone read this the wrong
way.

Pete

On 3/17/2005 12:05 PM Peter Chant spake thus:

No, you should take another 2-3 steps backwards from that! I recommend a
totally manual RF. My preference: FEDs and Zorkis (a later one w/slow speeds
would be just the ticket).

If you're going to have more cameras than you need, they might as well be
weird ones.

I got a bunch myself.  But if you don't have a rangefinder with
full manual exposure control and a fast lens - you are missing
out on a camera which could really help with available light
photography.

Good. There's nothing wrong with adding another tool to
your kit, especially if it makes it easier to do something
you want.

They are nice cameras, but the nature of available light work
is that you decide on the widest aperture and slowest speed
you can get away with, and then figure out how you are going
to make that work with the light available.

Automated exposure cameras assume that you have decided on
either the aperture or the shutter speed and want the
camera to select the other based on the meter reading for
a particular exposure index. This is probably not what you want
when you find yourself in a situation when the light levels
force you to underexpose. These films still have a fair amount of
dynamic range when push processed. So when you find yourself
in a part of the room with a stop more light, you have three
choices: faster shutter speed, more depth-of-field, or less
underexposure. The best choice depends on the situation, but
it should be a conscious choice on your part.

Sounds good. Microphen is one good choice. You might also
try Xtol if you want a bit finer grain. When I use Delta 3200,
I'm more concerned with speed than grain so I almost always
opt for Microphen.

Peter.

    Just put a piece polarizing film or a ND filter over the
meters sensor.

Regards,

  John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.puresilver.org
             Please remove the "_" when replying via email

of course i will.
i should receive the chemicals tomorrow --hopefully-- and will do
everything wednesday evening --i won't be at home tomorrow evening:
tuesday is the weekly photographic club meeting :)--.

about exposure: well, it was very hard because it was my first time
with such a situation.
the concert started with decent light conditions: having rated at 6400
the film and -1ev on the camera --which should have been equivalent to
rate the film at 12500--, with the initial light setup i was able to
shoot at f2/8 and 1/80s. i was using my 28-70/2.8, so i had no way to
go to faster.

after 15 minutes, unfortunately, some spots were progressively shut
down and the matrix meter of the camera started telling me that we
were underexposing by 2/3 to 1 stop. so i moved to 1/60s and/or 1/50,
depending to the different moods and songs: i tried to move to places
where i had as much light as possible on the subject i was shooting at
and to use 1/60 or 1/50 depending on what they were playing.
sometimes light reflections on a shining saxophone or battery cymbal
supports can let you take a shot or not.
i didn't make any real bracketing because i think there is no way to
do it in a live concert --there are no "same" moments in a live
performance--, but i tried to use the longest time compatible with the
tempo of the standard they were playing. with ballads, for example,
you hardly get a blur image even with 1/30 or 1/40 because they move
very slowly. with a fast swing it's better to look for blur in such
situations because you'd need very fast shooting times to freeze the
soloing fingers of the saxophonist or pianist.

i'm a big friend of the pianist and he told me there was even few
light to play, too, so he wondered how i could take pictures that
evening! and i was, too ;)

since then i bought a 85/1.4 and a 50/1.4: a zoom is always more
comfortable to use, but 2 stops in such situations lets you rate a
film at 5000 instead of 12500 and it's a *big* difference...

i hope i'll get something good from these films...

Cheers.