Ever since I saw these images, I could not help myself to
wonder how different they look.... Both rolls are contemporary
Fuji slide material:
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/image/34013765
They were shot from virtually the same spot and at the
same time, albeit using a lens with a different range
of focal length, what might contribute maybe to a
different exposure of the scene?
Images on the Velvia contain the entire bay (wide angle
was used,) on the Sensia is only the peninsula on the
opposite side of the bay, and the sun protruding through
the clouds.
I thought that a separately made scan of this sunset
would not be so dramatic like a image of these both
uncut rolls of film lying next to each other and being
shot again together.
Of course we expect Velvia to deliver more saturated
colors, such are the characteristics of this material,
but I have not expected such big difference. The
result look as if Sensia was shot at least one hour
earlier!
Have you also observed such seemingly "impossibly
different" results while using two different films
at the time and on the same spot?
Thomas
RSD99 - 21 Sep 2004 01:04 GMT
It looks like the primary difference was that the Velvia 50
was underexposed by about 1 1/2 stops.
> Ever since I saw these images, I could not help myself to
> wonder how different they look.... Both rolls are contemporary
> Fuji slide material:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/image/34013765
JR - 21 Sep 2004 05:44 GMT
You noted a wider angle lens in the Velvia shots...and depending on the
metering on the F90, it would in all likelyhood take into consideration
the bright spot (the sun) and used less exposure. Since they are using
2 different cameras, meters, lenses...this test is useless and proves
nothing.
JR
ThomasH - 21 Sep 2004 18:27 GMT
> You noted a wider angle lens in the Velvia shots...and depending on the
> metering on the F90, it would in all likelyhood take into consideration
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> JR
I agree with the observation, albeit I would like to note:
this is *not* a test,
we just happen to have had these films in our bodies at
the sunset time. My wife and me were walking through the
vicinity and shooting independently at the same time.
I doubt that the F90 "underexposed Velvia by 1.5 ev." The
light box, on which I put these film rolls has in fact
quite a blue light and this makes the Velvia look so dark.
In fact, the shot is simply deep purple, as opposed to the
Sensia with its lighter magenta-purplish ton.
Thomas
Uranium Committee - 22 Sep 2004 02:57 GMT
Absolutely nothing can be deduced from the results you have shown.
> > You noted a wider angle lens in the Velvia shots...and depending on the
> > metering on the F90, it would in all likelyhood take into consideration
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Thomas
Gregory Blank - 21 Sep 2004 14:31 GMT
For many reasons its not an accurate test.
> Ever since I saw these images, I could not help myself to
> wonder how different they look.... Both rolls are contemporary
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Thomas

Signature
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Dan Dunphy - 21 Sep 2004 22:04 GMT
I'd suggest an experiment, make a similar photo, with both bodies,
only manually meter it with one camera, and expose with the same
exposure with both cameras, with correction to account for the two
different film speeds. Then switch, keeping records.
This is clasic subject failure, where the subject has values beyond
what the camera meter can measure correctly.
Is it possible one camera measured with matrix metering, and the
other was set for center weighted, or spot?
Dan
>Ever since I saw these images, I could not help myself to
>wonder how different they look.... Both rolls are contemporary
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
>Thomas