 |
 | 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 / Darkroom / April 2007Opinion on handheld Delta 3200 shot
Chaps, I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200. Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd & rpe35mm). Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are _not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually good evening. Some shots are better or worse than others. A link to an example shot: http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. I set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about 9:45. A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming): I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted jpg produced by vuescan is at: http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941-unadjusted.jpg This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted one - the grain is much less intrusive. The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail more exposure might help, I assume. I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point. Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but it is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow (ish) detail. The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light? Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on certain cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on circumstances) might help improve things? Any opinions gladly sought. Pete  Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with >Delta 3200? No, the quality is very poor. The problems are likely multi-facetted, processing (negs look scratched and did not pull to 1600 iso?), exposure (it's incorrect, see processing), softness (poor technique, out of focus, try flash, adjust aperture down) >Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light? No, this film can go to 6400 without a bother. I have even used it at 12500 with arguably better results than you're getting at 1600 iso. This image http://www.esatclear.ie/~sublime/ilford3200.jpg Nikon F80 & 85 f1.8D shot handheld at 1/60 f5.6 using Delta 3200 @ 3200 iso using fill-in flash/AF/Matrix metering the scan is from a print using a low-end Canon flatbed, the negative was developed by an Ilford lab using ID11. My subject is more static than yours and on perhaps a better lit stage with flash, but nonetheless you should not have a speed problem with this film even with your setup. I suggest you modify your technique and or setup, then shoot 2 rolls of Delta 3200 @ 3200 iso on the same night under equal conditions, process one yourself (using your current method) and send the other to a good lab for process only (ask for details), compare the condition of both negs, scan them both and see where you're going wrong. Goodluck. > Chaps, > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Pete >>The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with >>Delta 3200? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (it's incorrect, see processing), softness (poor technique, out of focus, > try flash, adjust aperture down) Certainly pulled to 1600, ID11, 9:45 (should be 9:30, so not quite 1600!). Neg should have been too dense but was too thin! Hmm. Processing wise unfortunately I tried to use a new spiral and the film kept sticking. Ended up rewinding onto a old sprial that had been sprayed with polish (a fix I tried a while back), it seems to work. BTW that was long ago - if it were a problem as a contaminant I would have noticed it with my normal stuff surely. Note, I've not spotted the scan for dust, and I've had to up the contrast a lot which really makes the dust stand out. (did use tinned air before scanning but have mislaid my blower brush - not good). Exposure wise I was using my ME Super here but I have had the same trouble with a completely different camera so I don't think it was a metering problem. >>Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light? > > No, this film can go to 6400 without a bother. I have even used it at > 12500 with arguably better results than you're getting at 1600 iso. Hmm, wonder why I always make a pigs ear of it. Yes, I've seen silly speeds quoted but I clearly can't go anywhere near there. > This image http://www.esatclear.ie/~sublime/ilford3200.jpg > Nikon F80 & 85 f1.8D shot handheld at 1/60 f5.6 using Delta 3200 @ 3200 > iso using fill-in flash/AF/Matrix metering the scan is from a print using > a low-end Canon flatbed, the negative was developed by an Ilford lab using > ID11. I think, given the quality of my image the scanning method is irrelevant. Use of flash and aperture are the biggest differences. Can see a couple of problems if I want to use flash - it would completely overpower ambient with the kit I have. Perhaps as an exercise I should, ignoring your flash, estimate the EV numbers and try some shots at the same EV - see what happens. > My subject is more static than yours and on perhaps a better lit stage > with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other to a good lab for process only (ask for details), compare the > condition of both negs, scan them both and see where you're going wrong. Seems a reasonable suggestion. Obviously I could do some of the test shots in better light as well, just to make sure I was working too far in the dark. > Goodluck. Probably need it. I suspect my B&W development skills are not that great. However, I can't see why I make such a mess of Delta 3200 when my other stuff seems passable. I'd made up the ID11 the night before and use pretty close the recommended time and was within 0.5deg of the correct temperature. I'm sure I've not noticed anything untoward pushing HP5 +1. So confused over why I only have trouble with Delta 3200. I'm wondering, if I can't crack it I might be better off shooting Provia 400 pushed by a lab. Actually awaiting some films taken at the same time on Provia pushed +1. Those should be correctly exposed if nothing else (in different cameras!). Thanks, Pete > Can see a couple of problems if I want to use flash > - it would completely overpower ambient with the kit I have. Cover the flash with a handkerchief, double if needed. Experimentation will be needed, obviously. > pushing HP5 +1 ... Provia 400 pushed +1. Do not push, do not push, do not push ... pull. The problem is too much contrast. Pushing works well if the subject is low contrast and evenly lit. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > Do not push, do not push, do not push ... pull. The > problem is too much contrast. Pushing works well if the > subject is low contrast and evenly lit. Can't pull too much or I'd be back down to ISO 400! Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >>The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with >>Delta 3200? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (it's incorrect, see processing), softness (poor technique, out of focus, > try flash, adjust aperture down) Oh, BTW, if the scratches you can see are on the floor its because they are on the floor, not on the neg! Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk The film performed adequately. Camera shake, focus error and subject movement is what makes the images soft. Believe this - grainy images can be sharp, but everything has to be right. I can post examples if you wish. Just ask. > The film performed adequately. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Believe this - grainy images can be sharp, but everything has to be > right. I can post examples if you wish. http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305221825.JPG was of a static subject - could be sharper - but in this case might be the scanner limiting. > Just ask. If you could stick one up just for comparison I'd be grateful. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941-unadjusted.jpg The scan is sharp enough, at least the dust and grain are sharply imaged. I seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the subject. Looking at the floor in the lower right, and assuming the scratches and dirt are on the floor and not the neg, then the scratches closest to the photog are sharp while the rest of the pic is fuzzy. If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror isn't coming fully down [more likely]. > The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been > more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail > more exposure might help, I assume It's stage lighting, there isn't any detail in the shadows because there isn't any light shining into the shadows. The tone of the shadows on the dancers' faces and arms look OK, but that maybe just because the scan is too light overall and I can't see if there is any detail in the faces shadows because of the focus problem. But I think you went a bit too far: http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG Try: http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/PetesDancers.jpg See if you can get this sort of tonality when scanning. There seems to be zip in the face shadows, but that may be the scan. The best way to have less grain is to make a smaller print but most of the grain seems to be in badly scanned shadows. > The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with > Delta 3200? No. > Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light? No. It's the light there is and there's no changing it. It's too little exposure that's the problem. General advice: More exposure, less development, better focus. Stage lighting is terribly contrasty and you really need to pull the film to N-2 or so. D-23 as a developer can be a good choice here because it doesn't blow the highlights. Most people see black shadows and push the development - this only makes things horribly worse. Develop for the highlights & expose for the shadows is still valid. > Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on > certain cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on > circumstances) might help improve things? It would fill in the shadows and help quite a bit. But it should only fill the shadows if you want the same 'look'. If this is a stage performance there may be a lot of bitching with a flash, but if Aunt Clara is there taking picks with her P&S then flash away. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > I seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the > subject. Looking at the floor in the lower right, and > assuming the scratches and dirt are on the floor and not > the neg, then the scratches closest to the photog are > sharp while the rest of the pic is fuzzy. I noticed that. A bit odd. I was focusing on the marks on the floor by their feet as that was something to focus on. Bit odd if I made the same mistake in all the shots. Nothings particularly crisp. > If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of > alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that > normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror > isn't coming fully down [more likely]. Hmm, maybe technique - I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard) but before I took hundreds of sharp slides with it. Bit concerned that I 'snatch' the shutter release. > It's stage lighting, there isn't any detail in the shadows > because there isn't any light shining into the shadows. The > tone of the shadows on the dancers' faces and arms look OK, > but that maybe just because the scan is too light overall and > I can't see if there is any detail in the faces shadows because > of the focus problem. The shadows were black, so adjusted the scan so they looked black to reduce the obvious grain in that area. > Try: > http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/PetesDancers.jpg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > print but most of the grain seems to be in badly scanned > shadows. Yep - I think that is the safe bet here! > No. It's the light there is and there's no changing it. > It's too little exposure that's the problem. > > General advice: More exposure, less development, better > focus. But then I can't get the shutter speed! > Stage lighting is terribly contrasty and you really need > to pull the film to N-2 or so. D-23 as a developer can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this only makes things horribly worse. Develop for the > highlights & expose for the shadows is still valid. Ok. But I would think here expose for the shadows on the face and don't worry about the really black bits. OTOH, I could probally not blow out the highlights if I had developed for longer! >> Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on >> certain cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stage performance there may be a lot of bitching with a flash, but if > Aunt Clara is there taking picks with her P&S then flash away. Well, usually I'm taking snaps for myself at socials where its not an issue. However, in this particular circumstance I could have got away with flask. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > > It seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the > > subject. > > If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of > > alignment. > I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's > recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard) > but before I took hundreds of sharp slides with it. Sounds like a good candidate for gummed up grease in the mirror mechanism or some such. Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots - mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the camera every time. Easy to check: 1) Take a picture at infinity and make sure infinity on the lens gives a sharp image in the finder and on the film; 2) Lay a newspaper on the floor, draw a line across it with a black marker and take a picture parallel to the line and at a 45 degree angle to floor with lens wide open - there should be as much in focus behind the line as in front of the line. > Bit concerned that I 'snatch' the shutter release. It doesn't look like camera shake. Inhale, let your body go limp and squeeze the shutter release on the exhale. You should be able to get sharp pics at 1/30th with no problem and mostly sharp pics at 1/8th. > [If I pull any more I'll be at ASA 400] If setting the meter at 400 is what it takes then 400 is what it takes. What ASA you set the meter at isn't the film speed - it is what you have to set the meter to to get a good picture. The _film_ has the same speed no matter where the meter is set. The development you use determines the highlight density but doesn't change the film speed. 'Pulling' isn't really shooting the film at a lower ASA, it is correcting the meter setting because an averaging meter will make a balls up if the subject isn't of normal contrast. If you have a spot meter then meter the _darkest_ shadow on the dancer's body and close down 2 stops with the meter set at the film's rated speed. Then measure the lightest spot - usually it's a white shirt or pants: if the reading is 1-2 stops over then all should be OK, if 2-3 stops over then use ~20% less development, if 3-4 use ~40% less development. I don't know about Delta3200, but TMax-3200 is not ASA 3200 film but ASA 800 film. TMax exposed with the meter at 3200 and with normal contrast subjects results in the poorest acceptable shadow density. If the subject is contrastier than normal then there is _no_ shadow density. If spot metering the shadows with TMax it is best to set the meter to 800. You may want to try this with Delta as my guess is the emulsions of the two films are pretty much the same. If you don't have a spot meter then get a volunteer in a white shirt to let you shove a handheld meter into the shadows and highlights to take readings. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's >> recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard) >> but before I took hundreds of sharp slides with it. Well, I don't _think_ that is a problem. However, camera needs new foam and a service could not do any harm. I'm sure that I could find the same camera in at least the same condition for the cost of this - but with the work done at least I would know the camera had been serviced. > Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out > to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots - > mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the > camera every time. I suspect its just that the dancers were moving and I was working at full apertures. Depth of field seems to be of the order of 1m, these guys were moving a lot. It was hard to get them in focus and anticipate the correct timing for the shot. I took two other cameras (range finder and TLR) and had similar problems. Argulably, even though using Provia pushed to 800 rather than B&W at 3200 the ranger finder worked best. (save for an accidental flash shot from someone else's flash illumination). > Inhale, let your body go limp and squeeze the shutter > release on the exhale. You should be able to get sharp > pics at 1/30th with no problem and mostly sharp pics at > 1/8th. If the other guys stay still. Noticed a sharp background - but other things moved! > If you have a spot meter then meter the _darkest_ shadow on > the dancer's body and close down 2 stops with the meter set [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > use ~20% less development, if 3-4 use ~40% less > development. Useful advice. > I don't know about Delta3200, but TMax-3200 is not ASA 3200 > film but ASA 800 film. TMax exposed with the meter at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to 800. You may want to try this with Delta as my guess > is the emulsions of the two films are pretty much the same. I'll bear that in mind. > If you don't have a spot meter then get a volunteer in a > white shirt to let you shove a handheld meter into the > shadows and highlights to take readings. Cunning plan. I think, given the fortuitous flash shot, that, if there are no audience considerations flash mounted well away from the camera to give almost side light would work well. Due to a lot of variables it might be a bit hit and miss though. Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out > to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots - > mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the > camera every time. Hmm, exposure issues are looking like the camera. Just got a film back from some horse racing I saw, most negs dreadfully underexposed - some clear. Even the best ones look a bit on the thin side. Full marks to the lab for getting the prints out they did, perhaps that is why the turn around was slower than usual. Cross checking the meter with a hand held meter it _seems_ fine and from firing the shutter (subjective not measured) it appears to work correctly. Don't think it is a problem with the camera stopping the lens down incorrectly, I was using a mirror lens the other Saturday - no iris. BTW, on inspecting the negs immediate impression - that is familiar. Second impression - idiot, forgot to change the iso setting from 1600 to 400, but on checking the camera I had set it to 400. Looks like either time to get the camera tested, CLA'ed / foam replaced or retire it, depending on cost - though if there is nothing majorly wrong with it I'd know I'd at least have a serviced camera with new foam. I think my focus issues were maninly due to rapidly moving people and a shallow depth of field. I simply could not keep up. - Probally said that in another post. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of > alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that > normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror > isn't coming fully down [more likely]. When tested using a flash gun the mirror appears to behave itself. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of >> alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that >> normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror >> isn't coming fully down [more likely]. > > When tested using a flash gun the mirror appears to behave itself. Ah ha, confused down with up, will check. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus: >>http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941-unadjusted.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror > isn't coming fully down [more likely]. So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders? Just kidding--sort of--but noting that you made the assumption that Peter was using a SLR. A fairly safe assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. SignatureI can't remember where I read it, but in one of the non-official histories of WP it was revealed that in some proto-version, straight from the primordial soup, the encyclopedia was in fact to be written by anyone, but with editorial oversight by People With A Clue. In this story, it was written that none other than Jimbo Wales sat down and got to work on some economic theory article or something ... and then, if I remember this right, he started to get that unusual sensation one gets while writing a test or doing homework or, in general, just plain educating oneself. He though "Damn, someone is going to mark this!", and Jimmy didn't like that. So instead he invented a system where the TA's are less educated than he is. Bullshit baffles brains, and intuitively he realized that the more BS, or the less brains, the easier the job is. Thus Wikipedia, where as soon as you demonstrate you are transcending the system, you are kicked out... - An illuminating insight into the mess that is Wikipedia, from Wikipedia Review (http://wikipediareview.com). > So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders? > > Just kidding--sort of--but noting that you made the assumption that > Peter was using a SLR. A fairly safe assumption, but an assumption > nonetheless. Actually I was using both! The shots in question were from an SLR (ME Super) but I also took some on a Yashica Electro 35. Waiting for the films. I suspect I won't get much as there was probally not enough light to work at 800ASA but we'll see. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk David Nebenzahl wrote: > "Peter Chant" <pete@petezilla.co.uk> wrote > > This shot was taken using an ME Super with > > 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. > So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders? > You assumed it was an SLR .... ???????????????????????? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > David Nebenzahl wrote: >> "Peter Chant" <pete@petezilla.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ???????????????????????? ! Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus: > David Nebenzahl wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ???????????????????????? Regardiung your comment about the mirror being locked up/down--remember? SignatureI can't remember where I read it, but in one of the non-official histories of WP it was revealed that in some proto-version, straight from the primordial soup, the encyclopedia was in fact to be written by anyone, but with editorial oversight by People With A Clue. In this story, it was written that none other than Jimbo Wales sat down and got to work on some economic theory article or something ... and then, if I remember this right, he started to get that unusual sensation one gets while writing a test or doing homework or, in general, just plain educating oneself. He though "Damn, someone is going to mark this!", and Jimmy didn't like that. So instead he invented a system where the TA's are less educated than he is. Bullshit baffles brains, and intuitively he realized that the more BS, or the less brains, the easier the job is. Thus Wikipedia, where as soon as you demonstrate you are transcending the system, you are kicked out... - An illuminating insight into the mess that is Wikipedia, from Wikipedia Review (http://wikipediareview.com). I have an Epson 4990 scanner. I like it, but for some reason it really seems to magnify grain w/ 35mm negatives. Try Delta 3200 with Xtol. > I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200. > Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Pete >I have an Epson 4990 scanner. I like it, but for some reason it really >seems to magnify grain w/ 35mm negatives. AFAIK, all scans of B-&-W films have this difficulty. I have the 4490 which is essentially the same and I dare not scan a 35mm B-&-W negative on it. I did try some 6X7cm T-Max 400 negs and the grain was still unacceptable. >Try Delta 3200 with Xtol. "Just say "No !" !! == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net Grr, need to know why followups were set to rec.photo.darkroom. On topic for both groups! Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Chaps, > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > -- > http://www.petezilla.co.uk The true speed of this film is about EI 1000. I don't care for the film much at all. It's very grainy compared to Kodak TMZ (true speed EI 800) or Fuji Neopan 1600 (true speed 650). I use the Fuji product almost exclusively. It is hardly grainier than Tri-X Pan. I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200 (120). Grain wasn't too bad compared to HP5+, but obviously no match for something like Acros 100. The first two photos on the link below are with D3200, taken on a mat 124 (TLR) with a very scratched up lens and half assed flash. F8 @ 1/60, guesstimated metering at 3200. Developed in a slightly old batch of D76, 25degC, 10:30mins which probably pushed it half a stop from 3200. www.destroyerrock.com/readyellow.html (slow server, in the process of moving site to another host) You can't tell because of the size/compression of the jpgs, but the details on the faces of the band are decent considering the lens quality and distance. I'll try and get a full size scan of the details up. My only gripe is that I want to carry two cameras to shows now, one with HP5+ and another with D3200. Very useful stuff. > Chaps, > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > --http://www.petezilla.co.uk > I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it > was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200 [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > > --http://www.petezilla.co.uk Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the players in the head? They did it here a few years ago. Too bad it isn't more frequent. http://www.nasta.ws/Alrosa.htm > Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band > photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.nasta.ws/Alrosa.htm I'll take band photos over a bunch crap like you gave a link to. Don't you think the world has enough violence? Why in the world did you think it necessary to bring it into a darkoom discussion? Don't you get enough of it in the daily news on the internet, television and newspapers? Besides, it wasn't even photography related. Where's the photos? Where's the comments about color and film grain? Come on, stick to the topic. By the way, I thought the band pictures were pretty good. nathantw spake thus: >>Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band >>photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > By the way, I thought the band pictures were pretty good. No need to get worked up here: the only pictures Mike (Michael Scarpitti, aka Uranium Committee aka UC) likes are his crappy ones of "waffle boys" and such. SignatureI hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html) > > Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band > > photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wasn't even photography related. Where's the photos? Where's the comments > about color and film grain? Come on, stick to the topic. Because I'm sick and tired, in fact nauseated, by popular culture and rock 'bands'. Bands that are so bad and so full of themselves that they make me want to puke. Too bad more of them don't get blown away. They're scum. Always were and always will be. Grateful Dead? Please, they all should be put to death for incompetence and arrogance. Even when I was in college in the late 60s and early 70s, I hated that crap. Today's bands are even less talented than the crappy bands that were around then, if that is possible. A band makes a few good records then the drugs and alcohol take over, and they destroy their brains. Might as well kill the rest of them too. > I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it > was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > batch of D76, 25degC, 10:30mins which probably pushed it half a stop > from 3200. Like them - they came out nice. How light was it in there? I ought to make up a chart of EVs people have sucessfully used Delta 3200 and compare it to my experience. BTW - low light MF with a TLR - are you insane! Just noticing from experience that MF seems to need more light and 35mm. Got a C330 myself - a bit of a scoop, did not cost much more than the Yashicas were going for on ebay. Had to sort out some focus / foam issues though but those only showed up this year! > My only gripe is that I want to carry two cameras to shows now, one > with HP5+ and another with D3200. Very useful stuff. Ah ha, get a C330 - you won't want to carry two cameras then... Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Peter Chant spake thus: > BTW - low light MF with a TLR - are you insane! Just noticing from > experience that MF seems to need more light and 35mm. Why on earth would you think that? Same film = same exposure; doesn't matter what size the frame. Maybe you're thinking of the smaller f-stops needed with larger formats for the same depth of field. Signature"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'" - Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority." > Peter Chant spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why on earth would you think that? Same film = same exposure; doesn't > matter what size the frame. I hope this came across correctly - I was mearly being humorous - may not have come across that way, if so I apologise. Take your point re exposure - however, lenses tend to be slower than 35mm. I hope that clears it all up - no offence intended. > Maybe you're thinking of the smaller f-stops needed with larger formats > for the same depth of field. Well, I was not but good point. A very noticeable difference from 35mm to 6x6 in my (limited) experience. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Like them - they came out nice. How light was it in there? I ought to > make up a chart of EVs people have sucessfully used Delta 3200 and compare > it to my experience. OK, from my calculations: Serial Name 1/Time f.stop ASA EV Comment 1 Sunny 16 100 16 100 14.64 As a check, (15) 2 Peter Chant 30 1.7 1600 2.44 Grainy, underexposed 3 Peter Chant 60 1.7 1600 3.44 Grainy, underexposed 4 Peter Chant 30 2.8 3200 2.88 Grainy, underexposed 5 Dave the Guy 60 8 3200 6.91 OK Best viewed in a fixed width font. Also I don't think ev values are that exact a science - round to the nearest half. Need to add in a few more examples. Looks like I am working rather in the dark, 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 stops below Dave the Guy, assuming all of our exposures were metered correctly. There's the rub, if my negs are too thin and are processed correctly then my exposures are out... Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > > Like them - they came out nice. How light was it in there? I ought to > > make up a chart of EVs people have sucessfully used Delta 3200 and compare [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > --http://www.petezilla.co.uk Makes sense. I underexposed half the roll, bracketing my f8 with f11 and one or two with f16. The f11 frames were darker while the f16 shots definitely looked underexposed although ultimately usable with some scanner/photoshop fiddling. By the way, if you were using 35mm with those dancer shots, we're comparing apples and oranges. The grain on my 6x6 negs are bound to be less noticeable. Don't be so hard on yourself! > By the way, if you were using 35mm with those dancer shots, we're > comparing apples and oranges. The grain on my 6x6 negs are bound to > be less noticeable. Don't be so hard on yourself! Oh yes, appreciate that. Shot some pictures at another venue with C330 on mini tripod on the floor with Provia 400 pushed to 800. Worked reasonably well. Unfortunately fluorescent lighting although brighter means a little bit of digital adjustment is required. Nothing really 'pops' out from the transparencies - except one. A fortuitous accident. My friend's (on the other side of the room) flash fired at the same moment I was taking a photo. A little overexposed (burnt out highlights) but apart from that it was a lovely shot. Background a little cluttered - but can't do too much about that. http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070308224903.jpg The trick is now, to be able to take these short of shots intentionally and repeatably. :-) Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Isn't that all we can hope for though, for the one frame within countless dozens that we can be really proud of? > > By the way, if you were using 35mm with those dancer shots, we're > > comparing apples and oranges. The grain on my 6x6 negs are bound to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > --http://www.petezilla.co.uk > Isn't that all we can hope for though, for the one frame within > countless dozens that we can be really proud of? Well, yes, I suppose. Just like to try and work on the hit rate! Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Hey, thanks! Very dark in there (as usual in most venues) with only a few spotlights for the band and those weak bulbs lighted around the stage. This was the first time I got a decent shot of the crowd at any show, with or without a flash, thanks to the D3200. The flash I was using, by the way is an el cheapo Vivitar 2800 without any diffuser. ISO400 just doesn't cut it for wide shots like this for my cheap gear. I've moved from 35mm to MF about 1.5years ago and haven't noticed any difference really. I was used to using 50/1.4 supertaks and other fast lenses and thought how slow the 80/3.5 yashinon was, but now I don't go under f5.6. I actually wanted the C330, but I'm pretty happy with the mat 124. It was ship shape when I got it save for the ugly lens (arguably grounds for dismissal, I know). C330s have changeable backs? > > I'm a pretty inexperienced hobbyist first of all. With that said it > > was a pleasant surprise after I developed my first roll of Delta 3200 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > --http://www.petezilla.co.uk > Hey, thanks! Very dark in there (as usual in most venues) with only a > few spotlights for the band and those weak bulbs lighted around the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > diffuser. ISO400 just doesn't cut it for wide shots like this for my > cheap gear. Ah ha. I must admit I did not read your post carefully enough. I think I ought to build up some flash skills. I've cut my pc cable in half and extended it with some bell wire and spotted an interesting website. http://strobist.blogspot.com/. Quite bold use of flash there! Suspect on camera really was the only practical option in the circumstances of your photos and also the situation I was in. > I've moved from 35mm to MF about 1.5years ago and haven't noticed any > difference really. I was used to using 50/1.4 supertaks and other > fast lenses and thought how slow the 80/3.5 yashinon was, but now I > don't go under f5.6. I actually wanted the C330, but I'm pretty happy > with the mat 124. It was ship shape when I got it save for the ugly > lens (arguably grounds for dismissal, I know). I've probally been using MF for the same amount of time. Spend too long on usenet and not enough taking photos! Wanted to give it a go as I was well aware of the difference between MF and 35mm prints from colour neg. Just really like getting fantastic looking prints from 400 ASA film. Alternate between 35mm compact (GR1v) and a Yashica Electro. Depends on circumstance as the C330 is relatively slow to work with especially as you do need to meter separately. Probally just want a change from 35mm SLRs for a while. Can't beat it for nice prints. If I had nothing better to do and money was no object I'd probally spend all day making large prints. BTW - a bit of heresy - I'm scanning and digital printing - though the urge to make some quick and dirty 8x10s on the enlarger is growing... Pete > C330s have changeable backs? Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk |
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
|
©2008 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.