At 8:52 PM +0000 9/8/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 16:43:17 +0000
>From: bsandyman@xxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Summary: Was How to get subtle color
>
>Wow. I mean Wow. I had not expected the deluge of
>responses I got on this topic.
>
>I decided to collect all the responses and put them
>together to try and see what I should try first.
>
>The most obvious and pervasive trend involved trying a
>new film. This suggestion broke up into two camps. High
>saturation and low saturation.
>
>These makes me wonder if both of these would work under
>different lighting conditions. Maybe High Saturation with
>less light, and low saturation with bright light? I
>really don't know, but it might explain why so many
>experienced people have such diverse views.
>
>Everyone who suggested film changes, suggested slide
>film. One reason given was to eliminate failures in the
>printing process. Another was more accurate color
>reproduction and better contrast. Unfortunatly I do not
>have a slide projector.
Neither do I. For the purpose of figuring out where the problem lies, one can
simply inspect the slides with a hand magnifier, or by eyeball. If the camera
is OK, the slide will look OK. Given that slide film requires more accurate
exposure than print film, it's a pretty strong test. No projector is needed.
Just do it.
>A lot of people have suggested the shot was improperly
>exposed. More people suggested it was over-exposed then
>under. Over exposure seems a good explanation because the
>highlights would have been blown and any gradation of
>color lost. Suggestions to help with this would be to
>shoot at a different time of day, or use an umbrella.
>Three people suggested problems with my scanner. One of
>those volenteered to scan the negatives for me, and I
>have agreed. This will also have the happy benefit of
>checking whether or not the printing process is the problem.
>
>My personal opinion, based on what all has been said
>(although obviously inexpert since I had to ask) is that
>the exposure was wrong. I tend to rely heavily in the
>match needle in the viewfinder. Had I been thinking more
>about it, I should have known to underexpose more, or at
>least bracket. For the curious this was shot in the
>midmorning sun, with the sun at my back. (Mostly)
>The film may also be a problem, but since I know that my
>exposure technique is questionable I think I should start
>there and only change one variable at a time.
I would look directly at the negatives. If they are overexposed, the negatives
will be very dense, and you will not be able to see through them even with a
very bright light. If they are underexposed, the negatives will look very
thin, with some image areas completely transparent (to base fog).
The old rule of thumb for black and white negatives was to lay the negative on
top of a newspaper -- you should just be able to read the newspaper through the
negative. I don't recall the rule for color negatives, but I bet there is
such a rule. In the mean time, use the B&W rule.
The other method is to compare the suspect negatives with some others that
printed OK.
Also look for consistent density. If the camera works OK and the user is
handling it correctly, all the negatives of a roll will have the same density.
The eye is very good at assessing relative density, so just look. If they look
about the same, they are the same, and the camera is OK and user is handling it
correctly. If all frames are all too light or too dark, then either the wrong
ASA was entered, the highlight/backlight compensation knob was left set, or the
like. (A misadjusted meter or incorrect battery could do this too.)
In any event, if the negatives are OK, then it's the printing. If the printing
shop tries to blame it on user error, point out that if the negative is OK,
then it matters not at all what the user and/or camera did or did not do, it
must have all been correct. The whole point is to get that negative. So when
they ask what kind of camera was used, refuse to answer; the question is
misguided; the intent is to put the user on the defensive. (If I use a $10,000
Leica system, will all my photos turn out beautiful?)
Joe Gwinn
< 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 >
|