degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Underexposed Tri-X / Arista Premium 400 looks like fog and mud. Most films are like this, no? (or is there something out there with a clearer base?)
You meant fast.
Also, you should "worry" about falloff and reciprocity failure if it is actually a long exposure. For certain exposure times, and the film package used to have this information: it is now on kodak's website, the time has to be extended.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf
For 1/10 to 1/1000 there is no change in exposure, 1 second sees falloff of 1 stop (which means: if your exposure meter says to expose for 1/2 second, you expose for 1. 1 second -> 2) and decrease development by 10% (I suppose that is to reduce fog).
I doubt you are anywhere in that range, if you are handheld, but it is good to know. All of this and so much more is in the the linked technical publication. (it should be fine for Arista Premium and Tri-X, both).
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Patti,
there is a very nice Konica Hexanon 50/2.0 in the Classifieds that I can vouch for, I got this myself and its a brilliant lens. Pretty sure you'll never need another 50 lens to shoot!
Also, you might wanna cut the costs of scanning a bit by asking for a low-res scan first, and have the good ones scanned hi-res afterwards.
there is a very nice Konica Hexanon 50/2.0 in the Classifieds that I can vouch for, I got this myself and its a brilliant lens. Pretty sure you'll never need another 50 lens to shoot!
Also, you might wanna cut the costs of scanning a bit by asking for a low-res scan first, and have the good ones scanned hi-res afterwards.
35photo
Well-known
Yes, I did one for another photo in the pub that turned out better although I think I need to up the contrast. This is straight out of the camera
I would actually try lowering the contrast and making it darker. Your shadow detail is almost next to nothing. By lowering the contrast you could get some detail back in the highlights. You will get more tone this way....just one thing you could do.
Marko
Last edited:
gliderbee
Well-known
I think the picture is fine with a VERY little work in PS3 (there are some artifacts in the face of the women, I think because of the resizing):
- auto levels
- Neat Image
- then sized and sharpened 10% for upload.
I'll let you be the judge:
- auto levels
- Neat Image
- then sized and sharpened 10% for upload.
I'll let you be the judge:
CopperB
M3 Noob
Thanks 35 photo. I've tried that and received feedback on another site that my blacks aren't black enough. LOL
Gliderbee, what is "Neat Image"? I like your treatment.
Gliderbee, what is "Neat Image"? I like your treatment.
CopperB
M3 Noob
A friend gave me a roll of Rollei R3 (developement included) with some TriX for Christmas. I just got it back from the lab. I took some shots of a red tailed hawk that was perched about 10 feet off the ground at work on a very grey day. I didn't have my meter with me so guessed at about f8 and tried 125 & 250 exposures. The hawk is underexposed and trying to lighten it has helped a bit but the sharpness is non-existent in his features. Also the grain is really silvery and obtrusive (scanning does this I know but it seems worse with this film).
Even with my used Sekonic incident meter, I don't know how I'd expose for the shadows in this high contrast scenario.
Even with my used Sekonic incident meter, I don't know how I'd expose for the shadows in this high contrast scenario.
aad
Not so new now.
Easy and proper answer is use fill flash.
If you don't have a flash, hold your hand up toward the hawk, meter on your hand from 6 inches, and set your camera accordingly. The sky will be overexposed, though. You could then take a second shot exposing for the sky and combine later, but a fill flash really would be best.
If you don't have a flash, hold your hand up toward the hawk, meter on your hand from 6 inches, and set your camera accordingly. The sky will be overexposed, though. You could then take a second shot exposing for the sky and combine later, but a fill flash really would be best.
fullframe35
Member
I just took the first one and put it into Photoshop. I hit the "autoadjust" button and it was fine and contrasty. If you printed this, you'd probably want to use a #5 paper.
All the advice about developing your own negs is correct. It's cheaper, and you'll have no one to blame but yourself for mistakes.
My advice: get a multi-reel tank (Patterson with 8 reels is best for what I do). Usually, I'll load up two tanks -- an 8 and a 5 -- and that takes exactly a gallon of developer. You can develop (lemme do the math here ... um, 13 at a time) and spend the rest of the week scanning and luxuriating in your excellent work!
All the advice about developing your own negs is correct. It's cheaper, and you'll have no one to blame but yourself for mistakes.
My advice: get a multi-reel tank (Patterson with 8 reels is best for what I do). Usually, I'll load up two tanks -- an 8 and a 5 -- and that takes exactly a gallon of developer. You can develop (lemme do the math here ... um, 13 at a time) and spend the rest of the week scanning and luxuriating in your excellent work!
Lilserenity
Well-known
For a back lit subject expose another stop and a half. For strongly back lit subjects a couple of stops.
So for this I would shoot around f/5.6 1/125th on a grey day. Maybe f/4.
So for this I would shoot around f/5.6 1/125th on a grey day. Maybe f/4.
CopperB
M3 Noob
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
I got 3 films back from development shot while in Newcastle. The hit rate was low (not surprising as a noob). What's discouraging me is having to adjust contrast and up the black in PP to get decent blacks. They look flat and washed out to me. Outside shots and some indoor shots aren't too bad but other shots still stink. Part is underexposure I think (although I metered). All shot with Arista 400 Premium.
Jeez, I LOVED them....
inparticular 1 & 4
just crank up the contrast on One & its Supreme
ferider
Veteran
Similar to Helen, I like those 4 photos.
For the hawk, and metering in general: scan the scene and meter off a region with similar exposure. In case of doubt, over-expose. For example, for the hawk, you might have metered of the tree trunk.
Roland.
For the hawk, and metering in general: scan the scene and meter off a region with similar exposure. In case of doubt, over-expose. For example, for the hawk, you might have metered of the tree trunk.
Roland.
CopperB
M3 Noob
I finished a 36 of Tri-X and just got it back today. I think I'm getting better at exposure but my composition needs work. I need to get closer. Here are a few from the roll that didn't turn out too badly
1.
I ended up having to crop in closer. I had the J8 on the camera and didn't want to get any closer to the little girl (mum gave me permission to shoot her - I buy my photography mags from them each month - good customer)
2.
rainy day but not well conveyed in this shot
3.
I like shooting fellow commuters if I can. Our public transit is not the treasure trove of photo ops like the subways in Toronto or NYC. This was a tough one to expose - took a guess
BTW, I've got a Voightlander Nocton SC 40mm 1.4 on its way to me! Hopefully that will also add some sharpness to future shots after the J8 I've been using.
1.
I ended up having to crop in closer. I had the J8 on the camera and didn't want to get any closer to the little girl (mum gave me permission to shoot her - I buy my photography mags from them each month - good customer)
2.
rainy day but not well conveyed in this shot
3.
I like shooting fellow commuters if I can. Our public transit is not the treasure trove of photo ops like the subways in Toronto or NYC. This was a tough one to expose - took a guess
BTW, I've got a Voightlander Nocton SC 40mm 1.4 on its way to me! Hopefully that will also add some sharpness to future shots after the J8 I've been using.
Last edited:
wilonstott
Wil O.
Do what MCTuomey said and try C-41 Black and White. Try Kodak BW400CN. Get it developed and scaned at Costco or Walgreens--I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprized. Also, about the metering--emraphoto asks a pertinant question. It's easy to screw up a center-weighted (reflected) meter reading. I still have trouble with them in mixed lighting situations. I use an ambient most of the time--a Gossen Digisix--and it works like a charm. Anyway--one culprit for underexposure (if you're using a center-weight) is pointing the meter at the brightest part of the scene. Your meter thinks whatever you point it at is middle grey (18% or thereabouts)--when actually it may be lighter than that--ergo--undexposure. This is the reason that shots on bright snowy days get underexposed with AE cameras. Likewise, if you point the meter at something darker than middle grey, you are in danger or overexposure. I mention this because its the opposite of what you might initally think. This could explain why IMO the church shot has the best exposure (shore is a close second)--an average reading of the scene would likely be somewhere in the middle--the other shots lean towards lighter or darker zones.
Anyway--try the BW400CN.
Hope this helps.
Anyway--try the BW400CN.
Hope this helps.
ElectroWNED
Well-known
I say do away with all the meters and learn how to determine exposure yourself. When I only had my Hi-Matic 7s with a broken meter, I went out with an EV chart and looked at values for the first few shots... They came out fine, but who wants to look at an EV chart or a meter reading every time you want to make a shot? After that, I based everything on Sunny 16 and went from there. I can't remember the last time I had a poorly exposed shot.
Of course I'm using Ilford XP2. From what I've seen with the Arista films, most come out muddy with barely any contrast. Try a different film and you'll probably see much better results.
Of course I'm using Ilford XP2. From what I've seen with the Arista films, most come out muddy with barely any contrast. Try a different film and you'll probably see much better results.
Chris101
summicronia
That's odd, because most people say Arista Premium 400 is just like tri-x. Tri-x doesn't have a bad reputation, does it?