I did have it processed at Ritz Camera 1hr. photo.
Looks like they might have made things worse. The
problem is that of all my pics of the pine trees I
do't have one that clearly shows the needles at all,
the glare from the snow destroyed all of the
sharpness. Therefore everything looks like blobs or
white.
Mark Lloyd
--- "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Mark,
> >I'm sure someone else has already spotted this and
> set you right but I'll
> >weigh in anyway.
> >
> >Portra 160 in full sunlight on snow, I'm thinking
> correct exposure is 1/320
> >@ f/16 for a front-lit subject.
>
> According to my referemces, this is correct . . .
> direct frontal lighting
> on bright snow or sand is a "sunny-22" rule due to
> increased land . . . er,
> ummm snowscape . . . reflectivity. Bracketing would
> make one at 1/250th
> and one at 1/500th, the closer of the two being
> 1/250th if only one is
> possible.
>
> I agree with someone a prior posting to examine the
> negatives under
> magnification. Printers, particularly with
> automagic machines that try to
> make everything average to 18 0ray, running on pure
> automagic mode, tend
> to blow out light sand and snow with print
> underexposure (from negatives;
> light makes negative film/print black).
>
> Additionally, most find it requires some experience
> working with focal
> lengths shorter than 24mm; the break point being
> about that length. The
> AOV becomes so wide that both visualization is more
> difficult (much
> different from normal human experience) and
> composition is more difficult
> (something of interest that can occupy a very large
> field of view). The
> usual problems are too much foreground "dead space"
> and/or objects present
> in middle or background that are distracting from
> the intended subject
> material.
>
> The "super-wide" perspectives of 21mm and shorter
> are not for
> everything. My test for this is a scan of the scene
> from top to bottom and
> left to right, looking for something of visual
> interest from very close to
> distant with emphasis on the very close. For a new
> super-wide user,
> specifically evaluating the close objects may seem a
> little
> upside-down. The perspective makes distant objects
> relatively smaller and
> closer objects relatively bigger than than the human
> eye sees them. The
> resulting image tends to emphasize and draw more
> attention to closer ones
> due to their relative size unless there's something
> to "pull" the eye
> elsewhere. YMMV as this is specific scene
> dependent.
>
> Don't give up on the super-wide; work with it and
> give yourself a chance to
> learn how to visualize for it. When it works well,
> the results are dramatic.
>
> -- John
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|