pevelg
Well-known
I was out of 120mm film, so I took my dads FED5 with Kodak BW400 c41 film with me. Where did I go? The Renaissance festival!!! Yes, not the best place for B&W, but it is all I had. Anyways, lots of my pictures looked great, but some looked really weird. I am wondering what is going on. Here are examples.
Roll #1: This entire roll looked like this. Picture is of me and my little sister, parting before I get on a train. FED is sitting on a railing.
Roll # 2: The first photo looks horrid, the very next photo looks fine
Roll # 3: Same thing, first photo is horrible and the second photo after this one is horrid. The first photo is a fairy.
Am I just very bad at setting exposure? I thought that if I overexposed, everything would just be blown out, and if I under exposed things would be very dark. Whats up with this murky grey cast? BTW, I've only been shooting slides for a long time, but I never remember seeing anything like this, even when I occasionally shot color or B&W negatives on my M6ttl. Film was processed and scanned at Costco.
Roll #1: This entire roll looked like this. Picture is of me and my little sister, parting before I get on a train. FED is sitting on a railing.
Roll # 2: The first photo looks horrid, the very next photo looks fine
Roll # 3: Same thing, first photo is horrible and the second photo after this one is horrid. The first photo is a fairy.
Am I just very bad at setting exposure? I thought that if I overexposed, everything would just be blown out, and if I under exposed things would be very dark. Whats up with this murky grey cast? BTW, I've only been shooting slides for a long time, but I never remember seeing anything like this, even when I occasionally shot color or B&W negatives on my M6ttl. Film was processed and scanned at Costco.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I'd say they're underexposed.
What does the film look like? When mass-processing labs do scans of underexposed negatives, they tend to be grey, not dark, because the machine doesn't know that there is just nothing in the negative, tries to orient itself somewhere in the middle, and everything goes grey and washed out.
What does the film look like? When mass-processing labs do scans of underexposed negatives, they tend to be grey, not dark, because the machine doesn't know that there is just nothing in the negative, tries to orient itself somewhere in the middle, and everything goes grey and washed out.
gho
Well-known
I'd also say underexposed. The machine tried to rescue as much as possible, but of course, the result is not necessarily photographically appealing.
pevelg
Well-known
Ah, to bad. I didn't have a meter, so I tried guessing all the exposures. I thought I had done a good job. Bummer. I bet if I still had my coolscan though I would be able to pull out much better prints.
bmattock
Veteran
Somebody please tell me again how guessing exposure is a good idea.
kmerenkov
Established
1) Sometimes you just want it. When desperate and want to try out something not-normal... happens to me once in a while
2) Sometimes you have no choice. My 6x6 has no meter, and no I won't buy a meter (not in my buylist for a long time, and I don't need it just for one camera).
But, honestly, I didn't answer the question. Now I am interested too!
)
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
"Wild Guessing", no good. Guesstimate, OK. The latter involves some intelligent deduction based on what is known and observed...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Another vote for underexposure.
As ZorkiKat says, there is a difference between wild guesses and informed guesses.
Cheers,
R.
As ZorkiKat says, there is a difference between wild guesses and informed guesses.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
f8 at 1/250sec, would be my wild guess
bmattock
Veteran
He did, apparently.
bmattock
Veteran
How do you know if you are a 'wild guesser' or a 'guestimator'?
And of course, the ultimate - how do you calibrate your eyeballs to 'observe' the EV of the light? Funny, when I walk out of a theater in the daytime, the sun always seems so bright, but if I stand there for 10 minutes, it's not so bright anymore. Would a meter be fooled the way my eyes are? I wonder how it is that you 'guestimators' can tell the difference?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
You don't.
You learn to recognize certain lighting situations, such as "in broad daylight" or "overhead sky" or "in subway stations". Then you learn to make certain adjustments, e.g. whether something is in the shade or whether a given subway station is brightly or dimly lit. Effectively you don't train your eyeballs, you learn to estimate whether lighting situations are comparable to others that you know and are familiar with. It's how exposure tables have been working since day 1, except that you internalise part of the tables because you get used to them.
It works. I wouldn't use slide film that way, but for negative film you get reasonable precision. It takes a little practice, which the OP didn't have, and for the beginning it's a good idea to cross-check with a meter or an exposure table, which the OP didn't do.
bmattock
Veteran
Reasonable precision, eh? Why bother with sharp lenses or good film or great camera manufactures, then? You get 'reasonable' precision from lesser makes and models. And why bother focusing or framing or anything else? You get reasonable precision from just scale focus. And you know, while we're at it, AF and AE are pretty 'reasonable precision' too. Why bother with any manual controls at all?
antiquark
Derek Ross
With negative film, you can overexpose by a great amount and still get usable results. So basically, if you're uncertain of the proper exposure, try overexposing by two stops.
This pic (see attached, ignore the boringness) was mistakenly shot at f8, 1/60, 400 ISO on Fuji Superia.
According to the sunny-16 rule, the exposure was exceeded by five stops!
The photo seems a little pale, but it's definitely usable.
Attachments
Sparrow
Veteran
If the subject is lit from the side I just close one eye, backlit I close both ... easy
:angel:
:angel:
bmattock
Veteran
Overexposing from WHAT two stops?
That's like saying not to measure your flour when making a cake, but if you have no idea how much to add, pour in twice as much. As what?
Silly people. Use a meter. How hard is that?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
antiquark
Derek Ross
From your best guesstimate.
Nothing's wrong with learning the skill of manual exposure estimation.
bmattock
Veteran
With 'reasonable accuracy'. Which is not necessarily to say 'acceptable', eh?
Of course they 'work'. And they were abandoned in favor of meters as soon as meters became accurate, small, and affordable. Exposure tables were fine for the happy snapper, which is why they were printed on boxes of film. Meters were used by those who wanted precise control.
And with meters still available everywhere, cheap, and accurate, it seems odd that anyone would intentionally eschew their use in favor of 'reasonable accuracy'. Especially aficionados who constantly seek the very best of everything in their quest for photographic perfection.
bmattock
Veteran
You mean the one that's wrong? Of course, we don't know how wrong, since we have no meter. So somewhere on the scale of 'wrong', simply add two stops and then it will be 'right'.
Yeah, that's gotta work.
There is if it isn't a skill and cannot be done. A guess is a guess. Memory is memory. They can be 'reasonably accurate' but they are hardly a skill.
Tell me how many carpenters measure boards without a measuring device.
What skill might a carpenter develop to eyeball a board and know how long it is? I mean, they've been measuring and cutting boards forever, so why can't they just do it instinctively by eye?
It's simple. The human eye is not designed for measuring things accurately. Gross estimates are helpful for survival - knowing how long a board is to the inch isn't. Yet we need to measure boards to the inch to build a house. So we use tools.
The human eye is also not designed to measure light. So we use tools.
And tools are available. So why not use them?
I never understand this. Silly people.