Still photography Questions..
 

Heya All,

I threw this topic in here because it is not directly related to DV, but i hope i don't sound stupid asking these questions but i would love some help/advice.

My gfriend was nice enough this year to give me an older canon EOS-5 as a present, and i really love it, but i am not that great with still photography, i have always fumbled myself around and managed to get some pretty ok results, but now i want some real results.

Here goes the questions: i do almost exclusively b&w work so i am interested in that a little more.

What type of light meter would be good to use for still shots (35mm), i see spot and incident mentioned a lot, i can't work out what exactly they are?

How does a light meter work, or better put, how does one use a light meter?

I plan to process/develop the film myself, i have done so before a few years ago and i can't imagine it changed at all, but i don't want to enlarge at all, i was hoping i could simply use a neg scanner, is this possible?

With photoshop is it possible to apply the traditional filters eg, 1-5 like when i enlarged or is it more a case of simply adjusting levels/brightness/contrast and so on?

I think that is all.

oh Btw i was given a simple 28-80mm lens with it, would using a much more expensive better lens really give me better results or just more freedom?

thanks for the help

Zac

That would work, remember you'd still need to develop the film first :)

It's just brightness/contrast, you can also do much more advanced things like curves and levels.


That should be fine to start with, generally a lens like that isn't going to have as good optics as other lenses, but it should be fine to start with. I have a normal 28mm plus a 75-100mm telephoto lens on my Nikon, I find that a good combination.

Photo.net is a great still photography resource, go check it out! Their forums aren't as nice as vB is here, but the knowledge is the equivalent of these forums, there are a lot of professionals there.

Alex is correct on all his information. The 1 to 5 you referred to was for the filters used for printing. You were printing on mulitcontrast paper. If you didn't use a filter your grade was about a 2 or 3. The filters allowed you to control the contrast of your image in a limited way. Imagine now that you can have many more variables and that it can vary within the image. Photoshop allows you to adjust the contrast, brightness in many different parts of the image, independent of each other. No more one size fits all.

The EOS 5 (A2/A2E in the states and Canada) is a great camera. Canon set many world's first for photography with that camera. The metering is very accurate and I wouldn't waste my money on a hand held light meter. To purchase a light meter better than the built in one would be $300 to $400 USD. If I had that kind of money burning a hole in my pocket I'd buy more lenses. Additional lenses will make your photography more fun and increase your versatility.

If you were thinking the light meter would come in handy for video, search the topic and you'll see most find limited value in one. If you have additional photography questions you can post them here. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Jeff Donald

heya Jeff,

The reason i asked about the light meter, i took some photos and i found that i either over exposed or under exposed peoples faces or the entire images, and i was really dissapointed. I was using reversal stock and maybe that was my problem.

What i did is set it to apetrure priority, so i opened it full wide to shallow the image out and let the camera set the frame rate, and most of the pictures were out.

Have you got any tips on how i should fix this, should i walk to the person and point the camera in close the the face and take a reading there and pull back for the rest or something similar, i really really want to pull out some pressional looking b&w's, i love the look and memory.

thankx
zac

Reversal stock (slides, transparencies) has a very limited exposure latitude. Generally speaking, your image can be 1/3 stop over exposed and 2/3 stops under exposed and still have an acceptable image. Negatives have a much greater latitude of exposure. I would suggest that, starting out, you shot negative film. The latitude is about 2 stops over exposed and 3 stops under exposed and still have an acceptable image. You'll be more satisfied with the images and picture taking will be more fun (besides your girlfriend probably wants prints any way).

First, make sure you don't have exposure compensation turned on. I suggest you use a modest film speed, try ISO/ASA 100 or 200 speed film. Try Fuji and Kodak and see what you prefer. Stick with one brand and one or two speeds for the first month or so to reduce variables if you have problems. Find a good processor, usually not the lowest price. See if you can find a discounter using a Fuji Frontier to print and process the photos. Frontiers are very sophisticated and accurate color printers. It helps eliminate the human factor when when printing. Some of the discounters may be using them, call around.

Aperture priority is a good mode to use. But it is not set it and go. Depth of Field is much shallower in 35mm than DV. I shoot most images around F5.6 to 11 for average scenes. This is the optical sweet spot of most lenses, before diffraction limits set in. People (portraits) I do around F2.8 or 4 depending on the subject to background distance.

Exposure in film is different than DV with zebra pattern. You meter is basically set to properly expose scenes based on 18% reflectance. The assumption is that the average scene reflects about 18% of the light that strikes it. This works for the majority of scenes. However, there are times when a meter can be fooled. A polar bear on an ice field. The camera will under expose the scene, trying to make it 18% reflectance. Ever see snow pictures with blue/grey snow. Guess what it got under exposed. Same with a black cat in a dark hole. The camera will over expose trying to make it 18% grey. No more black kitty, hello grey kitty.

There are many things in the natural world that reflect 18% of the light. Green grass and the real dark blue part of the sky are two. You can use them to set your exposure (as long as your subject is in the same light i.e.. not shade). Caucasian skin reflects about 1 stop more than 18%. If you were metering of the faces, that would account for some of your exposure problems. Meter off your hand (must be in same light as subject) and add one stop.

The easiest way for you to do the metering is to use the exposure compensation function to change your exposure. Use aperture priority, point the camera at green grass, camera reads F16 @ 1/125 sec w/100 ISO film (it's a sunny day) point camera at subject and it says F16@1/30 sec., (2 stops overexposure) change exposure compensation to minus 2, meter now reads F16@1/125 sec. Take picture. Set exposure compensation back to zero.

Have fun and take lots and lots of pictures. that's the best and easiest to get more experience. Find some other photographers that are better than you and go out shooting with them. The fastest way to improve is to shoot with people better than you. Ask questions, I'll help.

Jeff

Jeff,

Cool advice dude,
I actually had the reversal cross processed, it was kinda cool, i just totally sucked at it...

I was planning on doing b&w pretty much exclusively, so i was going to buy Ilford, is that a decent brand to buy?

In my past i always used 400 iso film, but that was because i was obsessed with grain.

Also i appreciate the idea about which lab to find, but i was going to process/develop myself, i have all the equipment from years ago to do the film, just no enlarger or anything for blowing up.

Any advice directly related at b&w you could give me?

zac

I should have suspected cross processing. That's what all my younger students (16-30 year olds) ask about. Cross processing blows out the high lights. Try shooting on flatter, lower contrast days and avoid a lot of sky in the picture.

Ilford is great film and is one of my favorite B&W films. I would start with the 400 ISO again. HP 5 is the older stuff, fairly grainy depending on developer etc. If you want to experiment try the newer Delta 400 and SFX 200 (real nice film). Read about them here http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/bw.html

Once you get a little familiar with your camera I'll talk about the Zone System. For now if your doing straight B&W (no cross processing) make sure you shoot all your images with a filter. Never shoot bare or your images will be flat (low contrast, no black, blacks, no white, whites). Use either a yellow, or orange filter on all your shots. If you want something more dramatic try a red filter combined with a polarizer (it will turn your sky's dark grey). Filters lighten their own color and darken the rest (in B&W). Yellow or orange improve skin tones and overall contrast.

Jeff

You talking about the focussing zones inbuilt into the camera?

This one seems to have 7 of them...

Yellow or Orange filter? would there be one over the other you would suggest?

Anyways, thanx heaps, you have been a great help.

zac

Nope, the Zone System was made famous by Ansel Adams. A famous US photographer of the American West. He, Weston and several other members of F64 developed an exposure system or method involving the camera, negative and print. You can read about it in his books under the same names.

I prefer orange, slightly more contrast, yellow might be better for people,

Jeff

Thanx for you help,

I have been reading up on the ilford site, seems all pretty much straight forward... it seems to say that most of the time to push the camera 1 stop up, i have a bit of experience with b&w and really love the look.

Ohh well looks like i am off to have some fun with the camera.

Thanx heaps,

zac

ps. if you wanna chime in with more advice, feel free.

Ilford
 

I used to shoot Kodak until I shot some large format (8"x10") Ilford 200. It was a defining moment in B&W photography for me. I have never used Kodak B&W since. I have been using Ilford PAN F (ASA 50) exclusively for my black and white photography for a year or so, and believe it to be one of the best B&W films ever made. I can do 16x20 prints from a 6x4.5cm negative with virtually no grain at all. I also used the ASA 125 & 400 film once when I ran out of PAN F, and was surprised that it was so hard to tell them apart.

I have been working on a book project of angel headstone monuments & statues for about a year now, and decided at the onset that PAN F was the only way to go. I shoot gray stone monuments on gray overcast days, and the Ilford has a depth and sensitivity that I have never been able to capture with any other B&W film. I have not used that much of it in 35mm, mostly 6x4.5, but what I have shot at 35mm is consistant with the medium format film.

On the zone system; if you want to really learn about exposure get a copy of The Zone System Craftbook: A Comprehensive Guide to the Zone system of Exposure and Development by John Charles Woods. It starts out easy and non technical, then gets to the nitty gritty as you progress through it.


my 2 cents
Mark

Heya Jeff,

I had a look around at some filters today, and have a couple related questions.

I saw round filters that screw onto the end of my lens, and others had a small matte box where you could slide the filters in, does one take preference to the other, which is preferable?


Ohh to open up another can of worms, been looking at film scanners, will the epson 2450 produce decent results, is b&w less demanding than colour on a film scanner?

The reason i ask about all this is because i am not sure my budget could allow for a dedicated film scanner, infact i am almost sure it can't, so any suggestions, maybe there is a particularly nice used model i should be looking for?

Thanks
Zac

If you saw the Cokin http://www.cokin.fr/ filter system, that may be a good way for you to go. You could use the same filter system for both 35mm and your PD150. You might want to look at their P system, as it accommodates larger filter sizes should you get adapter or larger lenses.

This might help you on scanners http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=5691 The new 3200 is out, about the same price and maybe a little faster. Flatbed scanners work fine for negatives, they're just slooooow. However, in comparison the dedicated film scanners aren't that much quicker. It just takes patience.

If your looking for a deal maybe the 2450 will be reduced now that the 3200 is out. Just a thought. considering the quality of these scanners, they are a bargain at $399 USD.

Jeff

Heya Jeff,

Those were the exact filters i were looking at, that little holder, was nice and cheap too.

About the scanner i just read a couple reviews and it looks like a very reasonable scanner for the price, the only other one they said to look at was the benq (acer) scanner, but i always had a thought that acer was cheap crap.

I might wait and see if the 3200 pops it head into our market it is not quite listed yet, but most likely will follow very soon, the epson here works out to be around $370 USD on the street which is a fine price if it does as well as it does, my main use will be for scanning 35mm and printing at A4 size, which i don't think will be a problem. I did read it had some software problems causing noisy images with 35mm negs but i think that has been resolved now.

So this little cokin will work with my pd150, that is really interesting, one thing i will have to do i guess is be careful with white balancing. I have always wanted to use some filters on my camera to get some wild effects, i do have a polariser for the pd150, but i have seen a lot of nice footage on tv lately, and it almost looks like it is overexposed, but really the colours are just very very vivid, and the skin tones are quite softened, it is not diffused just has this kind of smooth sheen over it, and quite a lot of yellow.

Anyways, I'll keep looking around, i really like the idea of using that sfx200 film and a deep red filter to really play with peoples mind. It seems to say all over it that the camera's meter will be 2 stops down, so as you said should i let it get a reading, use it's suggested reading then use that compensator to push it up 2 stops?

anyways, i am enjoying this i feel like a dino talking about still film and in black and white! but good things last for a reason.

zac

My experience with exposing SFX200 is that it is quite variable. Some experimentation will be necessary to find the optimum exposure for what you want. What you've suggested is a good starting point from my recollection. Keep some written notes on the exposure of the first roll or two so you can figure out what your doing if the exposure is off.

Jeff