Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Luis - I had not considered this possibility. Thanks. I ran some tests recently with Fuji Press 400 and found I got the least grainy, best tonal range negatives when I derated the film between 1 and 2 stops. The variation depended on whether or not the lamp was in, or close to, the frame. (And, this was after making sure I wasn't metering the lamp.) Next time I think I'll try Fuji 800 at 400 or maybe Fuji 1600 derated to 650 or so and see if either gives me better results. I may give P3200 another try eventually but I'd like to stick with C41-process films for now. >On 10/01/2006, at 15:32, Richard S. Taylor wrote: > >>Following up on comments (on and off-list) by David Cochran, it >>looks like the gray appearance and graininess in some of my recent >>postings is due to simple underexposure. Compared to negatives >>taken in daylight on the same film rated identically, they are very >>thin. > >Most B/W films have a different sensibility under daylight or >tungsten light. Original Tri-X (which was ISO 200 instead 400) had >200 under daylight and 160 with tungsten according kodak's data >sheets. Whatever is happening technically, the relative luminances >that you can find under tungsten light are typically quite steep in >close areas, so you should have to meter carefully to avoid flat >tones or underexposure because a relatively small area of the skin >is reflecting much more than the rest and weighting a lot in the >metering area. > > > > >Saludos >----------------------------------------- >http://imaginarymagnitude.net/blog/ > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Regards, Dick Boston MA