Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi,
This last year I've used my Olympus XA a lot more than any other AE camera before. I think it's a wonderful camera design though I don't focus with it but just use it as a point and shoot, prefocused and stopped down. Its metering system is so reliable I've been happily surprised... I started using it for sun at f/11 with Tri-X at 200, and then I finished using it for overcast at f/8 with Tri-X at 800...
Well, in general with any camera it's easy to get printable negatives when there's sun and a short development gives film soft contrast: in case of one stop more or less exposure, images won't be out of the negative contrast range paper can reflect properly... But when the case is pushing, things change... When I take film to its limit, say TMY to 1600 or TMZ to 3200, precise exposure is not a luxury, but a requirement... One stop off means grossly washed out lights and high grays on negative, or muddy images going from middle grays directly to blacks... For years I've set ISOs and development times for the films I use, all based upon incident metering, and the system works very well when it's the real light reaching a scene what's metered... But when the metered light is the one that's reflected, easily there's room for under / overexposure...
As my XA can't go to 1600-3200, I started to use other cameras for AE pushing / stopped down street shooting in medium and low light, and it looks like cameras meter and expose differently: if I have a film I use pushed at 1600 with x camera in AE, and I've already found the optimal development time for that ISO/camera in AE, I see it's not easy / reliable to use the same ISO, film and development time with a different camera in AE... I've tested four cameras and definitely each one is a different world... If I want to develop a film roll for x minutes, different cameras require different ISO settings for the same film and development time, with up to 1 stop of difference and a bit more, and that's a huge difference when real pushing is the goal...
Maybe this is not new for some people, and maybe I have been incident metering as my main / only system for too long... Has anyone found the same, or are all of your cameras identical for metering or AE use?
Cheers,
Juan
This last year I've used my Olympus XA a lot more than any other AE camera before. I think it's a wonderful camera design though I don't focus with it but just use it as a point and shoot, prefocused and stopped down. Its metering system is so reliable I've been happily surprised... I started using it for sun at f/11 with Tri-X at 200, and then I finished using it for overcast at f/8 with Tri-X at 800...
Well, in general with any camera it's easy to get printable negatives when there's sun and a short development gives film soft contrast: in case of one stop more or less exposure, images won't be out of the negative contrast range paper can reflect properly... But when the case is pushing, things change... When I take film to its limit, say TMY to 1600 or TMZ to 3200, precise exposure is not a luxury, but a requirement... One stop off means grossly washed out lights and high grays on negative, or muddy images going from middle grays directly to blacks... For years I've set ISOs and development times for the films I use, all based upon incident metering, and the system works very well when it's the real light reaching a scene what's metered... But when the metered light is the one that's reflected, easily there's room for under / overexposure...
As my XA can't go to 1600-3200, I started to use other cameras for AE pushing / stopped down street shooting in medium and low light, and it looks like cameras meter and expose differently: if I have a film I use pushed at 1600 with x camera in AE, and I've already found the optimal development time for that ISO/camera in AE, I see it's not easy / reliable to use the same ISO, film and development time with a different camera in AE... I've tested four cameras and definitely each one is a different world... If I want to develop a film roll for x minutes, different cameras require different ISO settings for the same film and development time, with up to 1 stop of difference and a bit more, and that's a huge difference when real pushing is the goal...
Maybe this is not new for some people, and maybe I have been incident metering as my main / only system for too long... Has anyone found the same, or are all of your cameras identical for metering or AE use?
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
Funny enough I can understand exactly what you mean thanks to your off line help!
I really dont use AE much at all but i have found all 5 of my different bodies are almost exactly the same within a 1/2 stop or so and i would figure the AE would match that; ont he bodies that actually have AE
when we gonna see the PICs?
I really dont use AE much at all but i have found all 5 of my different bodies are almost exactly the same within a 1/2 stop or so and i would figure the AE would match that; ont he bodies that actually have AE
when we gonna see the PICs?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I was thinking perhaps it was the light coming up from the sky what was possibly affecting different cameras in different ways... So I went out and by noon shot another test roll (along with a push test for TMY in the same roll: two good excuses to waste another film roll...) and looked for a completely "ideal conditions" scene: mixed medium, high and low registers, wideangle without sky, soft unchanging overcast light, etc., and I was surprised: my sekonic incident metering and four cameras were ALL reflecting the same reading... Just a third of a stop difference in one camera... That's great... So I guess the real reason for the differences I've found before, is the nature of AE: it can too easily be one stop away from the best possible exposure, and this can be too critical if it happens when we're pushing... No easy solution if the situation is fast street shooting with low light... I guess I'll just have to be careful... And stop believing AE can be really precise for pushing...
Cheers,
Juan
PS: Hi David, I'm too busy shooting and developing (near 20 rolls), but you're right: I must find some time for printing and sharing... Thanks!
Cheers,
Juan
PS: Hi David, I'm too busy shooting and developing (near 20 rolls), but you're right: I must find some time for printing and sharing... Thanks!
calebk
Established
I never quite trusted AE for pushing, especially since it can easily be thrown off due to the simplest things like someone wearing a white/black shirt, or a light source or window in the background. Reflected light metering can be accurate, and for most of the part it is, and it makes for a quicker way to shoot, but so many little things can throw it off just as quickly.