Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Summary: Was How to get subtle color

Subject: Re: [OM] Summary: Was How to get subtle color
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:54:55 -0700
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


Doesn't color negative film have a contrast mask layer that makes the
kind of inspection you are talking about difficult?  I don't know
since I shoot transparencies.  However the few times with color
negative materials I have been unable to tell much of anything from
the negative.  Not like B&W at all.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California

?

< 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