Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Film speeds and proper exposure

Subject: Re: [OM] Film speeds and proper exposure
From: Ken Norton <image66@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:59:39 -0600
><rant> 
>As for people systematically overexposing Velvia, furrfu, if
>they don't like high contrast and mega saturation, why are they paying
>$15 a roll for the stuff?  Snob value?  
></rant>

Hmm.  Here in the States, Velvia is pretty much the cheapest professional
slide film going.  Kodak has raised the prices on their latest/greatest
emulsions to hideous levels.  Provia 100 is also a terrific deal.  With
Astia (boring, but pleasant skin tones) selling so well, Fuji has had to
drop the prices on Provia and Velvia to keep the volume up where cost of
manufacturing is best.  Again, it comes down to "know your emulsion."  I
absolutely love Velvia and was extremely pleased to pick up a brick of it
last year in 120 form for $1 each (or was it $2).  I've been buying Velvia
and Provia in 36 exposure/35mm form from a local camera store for $7.50 or
so (varies from month to month).  I think B&H is even cheaper, but I prefer
to buy in smaller quantities when it's my household budget that is
purchasing it.

I'm tickled pink that everybody hates Velvia with the high contrast and
mega saturation.  It makes my pictures stand out all the more!  Go ahead
and shoot that dull, lifeless Ektachrome stuff, see if I care!  

>There's a school of thought that "All manufacturers lie their ass off
>about speed for marketing purposes".

I think this was particularily true with non-professional emulsions, but it
was absolutely true with the "legendary" Vericolor II film.  I knew of know
one that used it at the rated speed.  It was the most hidious professional
film ever made.  Vericolor III was just as bad.  The super-highspeed films
(1600, 3200) seemed to be a bit optimistic with their official rating too,
but the real problem was that they completely lost shadow detail so people
underrated the film just to preserve shadows--even though the midtones were
correct.  Even more recently, wedding photographers typically overexposed
Kodak emulsions 1/3 or even 2/3 stops when working with flash.  The
latest/greatest emulsions are pretty much dead on with no exposure
compensation with flash necessary.  The new Kodak stuff is so wonderful to
work with--it's an excellent time to be a wedding photograher.  And it also
has a good stop of exposure latitude either way for fudge factor too.

>Anyway if Kodak had told the truth about film speed, the Zapruder film
>would have been clear enough to show that Badge Man was Elvis with a
>CIA isssue laser pulse rifle.   

Surely you jest...

>"It Works For Me" shall be the whole of the law.

I disagree--somewhat.  Just because something "works" doesn't necessarily
mean that it is right. Furthermore, your procedure may be based on a false
assumption that may prove to be true 950f the time, but fails on the 5%.
In my initial post on this subject I quoted a note that somebody had
written:  "I always rate Tmax 400 at 200 and then exposure compensate -1
stop to make sure that the highlights don't block up" (or burn out).  To
quote a former listmember that we all loved to egg:  "THINK! PEOPLE, THINK!"

...the CIA didn't start issueing the laser pulse rifle until a year later.

Ken Norton


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz