Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [IMG] - second one with the 300mm ƒ/4,5

Subject: Re: [OM] [IMG] - second one with the 300mm ƒ/4,5
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:48:07 -0400
Thanks,
Chuck Norcutt

Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> True, Chuck. I'm sorry, posts kept coming and my interest drifted out of 
> this.
> Besides, I didn't actually recall what did the meter said.
> 
> Fortunately I switched to View: Threaded, and found this post of yours !.
> 
> Situation was as follows: I was coming back from the park where I had 
> done several shots, including the 'trunk with a hole in the middle'.
> Felt cold and still with a little headache, driving along an avenue I 
> seldom do. Saw the moon and the antennae, turned beck to see if it was 
> possible to photograph. Walked to find an appropriate spot, which should 
> be critical for this picture. While at it, a dirty inconvenience found 
> my right shoe. Found the place, composed, metered: at ƒ/8 found it was 
> possible to shoot handheld (that is, it must have read 1/250) but I 
> remembered my own words on the use of a tripod, and went back to the 
> car. Back at the spot, composed carefully: only 4 frames remained to be 
> shot.  Reading was 1/125 then, was worth going back for the tripod.  
> Better, since I focused on the antennae, I could go down to ƒ/11. I seem 
> to remember reading was 1/60 - averaged multi spot on different parts of 
> the moon.  I didn't want to touch the camera at this reading, so MLU and 
> diaphragm pre-fire.  Some heavy traffic would account for vibration 
> issues ... yes, 1/60 IIRC - but I cleared reading and metered each one 
> separately - one of them should have been done with one or two readings 
> at the very same spot, but altogether there was little if any difference.
> 
> Not 1/30. Why did you conclude that should have been the exposure?
> 
> I was aware that reading off the moon would render a heavily saturated / 
> almost underexposed sky (90º degrees from the setting sun).
> Wow, you bet, it has such a blue ... I think I lifted levels a bit.
> 
> BTW, I was thinking (following this experience) of buying 20 rolls of 
> Provia 400X - but a friend of mine is having problems with it: it turns 
> magenta at normal daylight conditions. Still don't know if the slide 
> itself, or the Canon scanner.
> 
> I'm planning to follow an old advice of C.H.: to use a higher speed 
> film. Found 400X, and a surprisingly unexpected magenta.
> Any thoughts? Surely, my friend will ask the list on this soon.
> 
> Fernando.
> 
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> You never did answer my question about shutter speed.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
>>   
>>> Tripod mounted Zuiko 300mm ƒ/4,5 @ ƒ/11, Olympus OM 4 on Spot reading 
>>> mode (reading the Moon only), Winder 2, Eyecup 1.
>>>
>>> Velvia 50 - aRGB
>>>
>>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/3702987347/>
>>> --link to 1280, link to view on black.
>>>
>>> As always, I'll listen carefully to anything you may wish to say.
>>>
>>> Fernando.
>>>     
> 
> 
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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