Newbie question - Correct exposure for Velvia
Dmitry
I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I
loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower
shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the
shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority
mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it
thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and
mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed
via dx.
Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even
exposure? Should I bracket my next film?
I hope this isn't a dumb question, I'm new to photography, not just
velvia.
Any thoughts appreciated,
Marc
Ian Riches
> I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I
> loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower
> shots. However, the images were all underexposed
<snip>
Is this the first roll of slide film that you've put through the
camera?
If so, it's possible that the meter is a little bit off in your
camera. You'll probably never notice with colour negative film, as
it has a much greater exposure latitude, and the processing lab can
"correct" any errors in your exposure at the printing stage.
Slide film is not so lenient.
Check your meter against a friends camera if you can, or else against
the "sunny f/16" rule. This basically states that on a sunny day the
exposure of a well-lit scene (with the sun behind you) should by the
reciprocal of the film speed at f/16.
More info: http://www.photomigrations.com/articles/0403200.htm
Regards,
Ian
--
Ian Riches
Bedford, UK
Chris Brown
Dmitry <nos...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I
>loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower
>shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the
>shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority
>mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it
>thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and
>mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed
>via dx.
>
>Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even
>exposure? Should I bracket my next film?
The blacks of Velvia are very black indeed, so even slight underexposure
will result in a seriously dark slide. Usually detail can be rescued by
scanning though.
Slide film is very sensitive to exposure though. It might be worth switching
to spot metering, dialing in +2 stops exposure compensation and metering for
the highlights (assuming your camera supports all of this - I'm not
familliar with the Nikon SLRs). Maybe exposure bracket the tricky ones
(after all, film is cheap ;-)).
Alan Browne
> Hi All,
>
> I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I
> loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower
> shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the
> shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority
> mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it
> thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and
> mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed
> via dx.
If the 'color' areas of the shot look right (good saturation and
detail), and the shaddows look underepxosed ... then everything
is probably just right... Velvia is fairly narrow in exposure
latitude.
To shoot slide film you must compose scenes where everything you
want in detail fits in the exposure latitude of the film. An
in-camera spot meter is very useful to "survey" the scene to make
sure it fits in the latitude of the film. To help with this,
avoid shooting at the contrastiest part of the day, noon.
Instead shoot in the morning or later afternoon. This will give
more even lighting to and around your subject and fit in the
latitude of the film.
> Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even
> exposure? Should I bracket my next film?
All bracketing does is move the exposure ... if you get more
detail in the shaddows, then you will wash out color and blow
highlights, and vice-versa.
The 'trick' that slide film shooters often use is to spot the
highlight in a scene (say something white in the same light as
the subject). Point the camera at that white area, in spot meter
mode, take the reading and then open up 1.5 to 2 stops (stops of
aperture or equivalent speed). For the film in question I open
up 1+2/3 stops from the highlight; for Sensia I open up 2 stops.
>
> I hope this isn't a dumb question, I'm new to photography, not just
> velvia.
Try a kinder and gentler slide film like Sensia 100. It is more
neutral in color but has a little more exposure latitude than
Velvia (50 or 100F). Avoid shooting in high contrast light (mid
day). Try shooting in open shade light (consider an 81A/B filter
if you do that to reduce the blue).
It will take you a few rolls to get used to it ... so step down
from the expensive films until you do.
Cheers,
Alan
PS: Verify your meter: On a bright sunny day, put a clean dry
styrofoam coffee cup over your lens. Point it towards the
horizon in the direction of the sun. For ISO 50, in A-pri at
f/16 you should get a reading of speed=ISO=50 (60, 40 are okay).
Or, if you have a spot meter in the camera, then with your back
to the sun (08:00 - 11:00, 14:00 - 17:00) meter off of an 18%
grey card that is perpendicular to the lens axis. Same result as
above.
But, I bet your meter is not the problem.
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Alan Browne
> Dmitry (nos...@mailinator.com) wrote...
>
>>I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I
>>loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower
>>shots. However, the images were all underexposed
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Is this the first roll of slide film that you've put through the
> camera?
>
> If so, it's possible that the meter is a little bit off in your
> camera. You'll probably never notice with colour negative film, as
> it has a much greater exposure latitude, and the processing lab can
> "correct" any errors in your exposure at the printing stage.
>
> Slide film is not so lenient.
>
> Check your meter against a friends camera if you can, or else against
> the "sunny f/16" rule. This basically states that on a sunny day the
> exposure of a well-lit scene (with the sun behind you) should by the
> reciprocal of the film speed at f/16.
That is fine if he's metering a mid tone scene... if he's
pointing that at a ski slope, or a black car, he won't get the
right reading. If he has a grey card and the camera has a spot
metere or at least heavilly ctr weighted meter, he can use that.
I'll suggest following though... on a bright, clear sunny day,
put a clean dry styrofoam coffee cup over the lens. Point the
lens at the horizon in the direction of the sun.... that will
give very close to sunny-16 and indicate if there is a meter problem.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
>>Check your meter against a friends camera if you can, or else against
>>the "sunny f/16" rule. This basically states that on a sunny day the
>>exposure of a well-lit scene (with the sun behind you) should by the
>>reciprocal of the film speed at f/16.
>>
>
>
> This is _not_ a good way to check your meter! Depending on what area of
> the world you live in, even on a sunny day, it may very well be the "sunny
> f/11" or "sunny f/8" rule.
1 stop, __maybe__. 2 stops, forget it.
The sky must be clear of clouds and haze, and the reading should
be a couple hours before or after the sun is at zenith. The grey
card or styro cup method is best.
Michael Scarpitti
Generally speaking one does not use automatic exposure with slide
films. One uses manual exposure and brackets a little when the subject
matter allows it.
Ivan
ivan
William Graham
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04091...@posting.google.com...
> nos...@mailinator.com (Dmitry) wrote in message
news:<d1f4bc7b.04091...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Generally speaking one does not use automatic exposure with slide
> films. One uses manual exposure and brackets a little when the subject
> matter allows it.
>
get reasonably good at it, but now, I seldom get a bad exposure, and I shoot
slide film almost exclusively, using aperture priority mode........
Frank Pittel
: "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I find that I do the same. Unless I have a particular need for a particular
aperture of shutter speed I leave the camera set to program mode and shift
the exposure as I feel necessary.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
William Graham
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:t66dna-csen...@giganews.com...
old days, there was only one way, and sometimes that demanded a separate,
off camera, light meter. With my new camera, there is about 4 ways I can
take pictures, and the one marked, "manual" still uses the built-in light
meter, and so it is hard to find a true, "manual" means of taking pictures.
To me, they are all automatic, so I can use any glass I find that fits the
bayonet mount, even if it's 40 or more years old......
Leigh Marrin/KM6JE
> Generally speaking one does not use automatic exposure with slide
> films. One uses manual exposure and brackets a little when the subject
> matter allows it.
"Manual Exposure": Scarpittiese for [1] putting batteries in the
much-automated SLR, [2] turning on the light meter, [3] twisting a dial,
[4] looking down upon those who own cameras capable of skipping one or
more of the previous steps.
Martin Djernæs
Alan Browne wrote:
> To shoot slide film you must compose scenes where everything you want in
> detail fits in the exposure latitude of the film. An in-camera spot
> meter is very useful to "survey" the scene to make sure it fits in the
> latitude of the film.
I know all the theories (I think) about this, but somehow I seem not to
be able to do a good judgement of the scene when I try to meeter
(partial) my nature pictures.
Does anyone know a good writeup, with image examples, which try to give
some hints as to how to judge the colors.
As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late
evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top. In
some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at all
(overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color).
Martin
Uranium Committee
You misunderstood Scarpitti's post.
Peter Irwin
> But what does "manual exposure" mean? Pointing my light meter at a
> subject and entering the shutter speed and f-stop into my camera?
Manual exposure means setting shutter speed and aperture
based on whatever method you choose to determine the
exposure you want.
When you use auto-exposure plus compensation, you set the
compensation based on experience in second-guessing your
camera's automatic settings.
You should use whatever method works best for you.
Peter.
---
pir...@ktb.net
Alan Browne
>
> As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late
> evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top. In
> some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at all
> (overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color).
Can you post that shot?
Martin Djernæs
> Martin Djernæs wrote:
>
>>
>> As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late
>> evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top.
>> In some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at all
>> (overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color).
>
> Can you post that shot?
Sure. I have picked two series of pictures, but unfortunately I don't
have my exact settings.
http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/
http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/
The images are taken with Velvia 50, scanned with 1200dpi/8bit with a
film scanner (Dimage IV) and are "untouched" (I haven't adjusted or
cleaned them).
You can also get the "original" tif files here:
http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/shasta.01.zip
http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/shasta.02.zip
Martin
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Martin Djernæs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As an example I could take a picture I took of a mountain in the late
>>> evening. It was a bit hazy and the mountain had some snow on the top.
>>> In some pictures (I bracket) the montain was not on the picture at
>>> all (overexposed so the mountain and the haze was one in color).
>>
>>
>> Can you post that shot?
>
>
> Sure. I have picked two series of pictures, but unfortunately I don't
> have my exact settings.
>
> http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/
> http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/
Simply put there is a lot more tonal range in the image than the
film is capable of capturing. Notice that as you get more color
in the plants in the FG that the BG white really merges to pure
white...
An ND grad could help, but the reflection in the water gives us
an idea about how that would have looked (bleak). The real
problem was the haze. A UV filter (a good one) would help with
that, as would a polarizing filter ... but that, when set to
reduce the haze might also kill the refelction in the water.
Was the sky cloudless? Looks very hazy white but there is a bit
of blue in some of the water reflections in one of the shots.
At a course recently the instructor mentioned that nothing kills
a color photo more than a lot of featureless white sky...
Sometimes best to let the shot go if the light isn't right and
come back another day after a cold front has gone through and
moved all the haze out.
Cheers,
Alan
Martin Djernæs
Thanks for taking your time commenting on these images.
Alan Browne wrote:
>> Sure. I have picked two series of pictures, but unfortunately I don't
>> have my exact settings.
>>
>> http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/01/
>> http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/
>
>
> Simply put there is a lot more tonal range in the image than the film is
> capable of capturing. Notice that as you get more color in the plants
> in the FG that the BG white really merges to pure white...
Yes. I realized that, but mostly when I got the film back from the
development.
> An ND grad could help, but the reflection in the water gives us an idea
> about how that would have looked (bleak). The real problem was the
> haze. A UV filter (a good one) would help with that, as would a
> polarizing filter ... but that, when set to reduce the haze might also
> kill the refelction in the water.
I have a ND grad, but I didn't think about using it at the time (lack of
expierence) and I always have a hard time understanding how to place it
so it doesn't cut the other elements in the picture.
My UV filter is probably not at all good enough and I never thought
about the polarizer. I will try think about that next time.
> Was the sky cloudless? Looks very hazy white but there is a bit of blue
> in some of the water reflections in one of the shots.
There were almost no clouds the two days I tried to shoot from that
location and after that comming back involves quite a bit of planning ;-)
> At a course recently the instructor mentioned that nothing kills a color
> photo more than a lot of featureless white sky...
I believe so, and more so after some of my latest expierences. I have
often read this comment, but not before I reviewed my good pictures I
actually realized that they never had bleak sky.
> Sometimes best to let the shot go if the light isn't right and come
> back another day after a cold front has gone through and moved all the
> haze out.
;-)
Thanks again Alan for commenting on the pictures. So if I would have
wanted to get a better picture, in this situation, while taking this
picture:
http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/2004f15-0009.800.html
I should have metered the top of the mountain abd metered the trees
(these two things I did and there were about 5 stops between them). I
could also meetered the sky (I'm sure I did, but I don't remember the
results).
Now if I want detail in the mountain as the most important part, where
would you have placed the mountain (I know this is probably not easy to
say just like that)? Placing it in -2 would make it white, which would
make it disappear (as my slides also show). I could probably have placed
it in -1, and lost all details in the trees. Since there are 5 stops
from the mountain to the trees I could have used a 3 stop ND (hard?),
placed so it followed the line of the treetops. This would have placed
the trees in +1 (thus leaving details in the trees). To remove some of
the haze I could have used a polarizer.
What do you think? Is that the kind of thinking I should have deployed?
Martin
Alan Browne
> Hi Alan,
> Thanks again Alan for commenting on the pictures. So if I would have
> wanted to get a better picture, in this situation, while taking this
> picture:
>
> http://home.djernaes.dk/photo/shasta/02/2004f15-0009.800.html
>
> I should have metered the top of the mountain abd metered the trees
> (these two things I did and there were about 5 stops between them). I
> could also meetered the sky (I'm sure I did, but I don't remember the
> results).
If you look at the third shot in that series you are starting to
get interesting detail on the mountaing at the expense of detail
in the trees ... etc.
5 stops between areas where you want to record detail is right at
the limits of 'wide' latitude slide film like Sensia... for
Velvia, forget it...
What do you do after you meter? I would have metered the white
of the mountain and opened up 1 2/3 (or given the 'dirty
mountain' only 1 1/3 stops.
>
> Now if I want detail in the mountain as the most important part, where
> would you have placed the mountain (I know this is probably not easy to
> say just like that)? Placing it in -2 would make it white, which would
> make it disappear (as my slides also show). I could probably have placed
> it in -1, and lost all details in the trees. Since there are 5 stops
> from the mountain to the trees I could have used a 3 stop ND (hard?),
> placed so it followed the line of the treetops. This would have placed
> the trees in +1 (thus leaving details in the trees). To remove some of
> the haze I could have used a polarizer.
For a non ND Grad shot, and Velvia, place a pure white 1 2/3
stops over the exposure (meter the white, open up 1 2/3)... or as
little as 1.5 stops will do... 2 stops is too much, the whites
will blow out. Of course in a 5 stop scene, you _will_ lose
detail at the low end.
Then you meter the trees and you see they are too far from the
whites ... so in goes the ND Grad (which I've never shot, so read
the other Velvia thread that is currently going.) Meter the white
(mountain) via the dark part of the Grad ... you should now have
it a stop or 2 closer to the lower area darks (via the clear
area)... (say 3 stops away instead of 5). Again, set the
exposure for the whites being 1 2/3 open from the whites _via_
the Grad. Compose, place the grad along the horizon (a little
tilting might help in some situations) and shoot the shot.
But read Bandicoot's "Exposing Velvia" reply before you take my
advice. Esp. where he talks about allowing a stop under exp in
the foreground so the shot does not look aretificial (unless you
*want* that artificial shot, of course!)
Cheers,
Alan
>
> What do you think? Is that the kind of thinking I should have deployed?
>
> Martin
Martin Djernæs
Thanks again for you information. You have helped me a lot with this
thread and I'll try to use this information next time I'm at a "good
location".
Alan Browne wrote:
> But read Bandicoot's "Exposing Velvia" reply before you take my advice.
> Esp. where he talks about allowing a stop under exp in the foreground so
> the shot does not look aretificial (unless you *want* that artificial
> shot, of course!)
I read that thread as well, and have also noted his tips.
Martin
Bob Hickey
"Dmitry" <nos...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:d1f4bc7b.04091...@posting.google.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I
> loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower
> shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the
> shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority
> mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it
> thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and
> mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed
> via dx.
>
> Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even
> exposure? Should I bracket my next film?
>
There's no way around it: the more vivid colors you want, the more narrow
the range of light accepted. If you want Velvia colors, you are going to get
a lot of blacks and or whites depending on what you expose FOR. You can use
NPS or Portra, and get a very wide range, but all the colors will seem
washed out by comparison. The whole trick is to find a combination you can
live with. It's all compromise. Something like Superia 100 or Agfa Optima
100 with a polariser might be a fair trade-off.
Bob Hickey
William Graham
"Bob Hickey" <hicks...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iN41d.34862$Ot3....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
adding about 1/2 an EV to my exposure is the norm........(With ISO 100
Sensia or Provia.....)
Bandicoot
news:bj0f12-...@heimdal.home...
Hope we didn't disagree too much!
Peter
Martin Djernæs
> Hope we didn't disagree too much!
Well, I don't think so, but it's really hard for us beginners to "guess"
the where to place an item in the 4-5 stop avalible. I understand your
idea about having the sky one stop (or more) lighter than the rest. This
is a good starting point for me. Alan also give some good starting
points in saying that he would open up 1 2/3 after meetering the white
of the mountain (I think I meetered, parial, the top of the mountain
using a 300mm lense and placed that at +1.5 - my camera only do half
stops). Given my five stops (actually I start thinking that it only was
four) from the mountain to the trees I could have, using your rule I
could have used a 4 stop (or 3) grad. Well I only have a 2 stop grad,
which would have helped me getting a better image than what I got,but I
didn't use it - I didn't "see" the way to use it when "seing" the scene.
This is what expierence is all about, but thanks to the both of you for
helping me see the reasons behind the result.
Martin
Sander Vesik
> Hi All,
>
> I just shot my first roll of Velvia on my new (secondhand) F80. I
> loved the colours, and the detail, especially on some close up flower
> shots. However, the images were all underexposed. Very dark in the
> shadows with little or no detail. I was using Aperture Priority
> mostly, so the camera was choosing a shutter speed to provide what it
> thought was a correct exposure. I was using 3d matrix metering and
> mostly taking shots outside. I let the camera choose the film speed
> via dx.
>
> Is this normal? Is there a rule of thumb for getting a more even
> exposure? Should I bracket my next film?
you can try it, it coudl hardly hurt.
>
> I hope this isn't a dumb question, I'm new to photography, not just
> velvia.
>
> Any thoughts appreciated,
>
> Marc
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++