flanil
Member
Legendary sifu's out there,
i just got myself a 5cm elmar. same exposure used in indoor situation with other lens but somehow those from the elmar are always seen underexposed.
does it need to be exposed a stop more? this will then leads to a shaky image. can i develop the film longer then?
note: i already push 2 stops to 1600 using tri-x most of the time, so should i still push it a lil bit longer?
thanks
i just got myself a 5cm elmar. same exposure used in indoor situation with other lens but somehow those from the elmar are always seen underexposed.
does it need to be exposed a stop more? this will then leads to a shaky image. can i develop the film longer then?
note: i already push 2 stops to 1600 using tri-x most of the time, so should i still push it a lil bit longer?
thanks
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Elmar 50/f2.8 will need the same exposure as any other lens at f/2.8.
Elmar 50/f2.8 will need a stop more exposure time than another lens at f/2.
These are basically trivialities. To know more it would be good to see pictures & know more details (which other lens, what f/stop, what exposure time, same camera or other, same roll of film or different roll).
Elmar 50/f2.8 will need a stop more exposure time than another lens at f/2.
These are basically trivialities. To know more it would be good to see pictures & know more details (which other lens, what f/stop, what exposure time, same camera or other, same roll of film or different roll).
flanil
Member
mine is the 5cm f3.5. here are the pictures. metered using a gossen luna six. shot at 1 stop slower. but still dark yea?
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9sw5isxzG1qdogrxo1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma8red4uYm1qdogrxo1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma9vhfsdkU1qdogrxo1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9sw5isxzG1qdogrxo1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma8red4uYm1qdogrxo1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma9vhfsdkU1qdogrxo1_1280.jpg
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Pushing Tri-X to 3200 might be pushing it too much!
Gotta say I really like the second (hands) shot and if it were less dark would probably have liked it less!
In all other cases: I think you should add more light to the location and if that cannot be done, decide to shoot a) a lens that has 2.8 or 2.0 or 1.4, or b) decide to shoot a modern digital camera that can do 3200 ISO.
Gotta say I really like the second (hands) shot and if it were less dark would probably have liked it less!
In all other cases: I think you should add more light to the location and if that cannot be done, decide to shoot a) a lens that has 2.8 or 2.0 or 1.4, or b) decide to shoot a modern digital camera that can do 3200 ISO.
V-12
Well-known
Different lenses will have different signatures regarding contrast, and this may be what you are experiencing, but after looking at your images (the one of the hands resting on the lap is terrific) the whole thing could be a post processing or printing problem rather than specifically the lens.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
These are quite good!
I also don't think the lens is at fault, probably your process yields more like 1000 ISO rather than 1600. Pushing more is probably not an option really, if you think your shots are too dark (which I don't think) you'll need a faster lens or a faster film.