Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Underexposure in Tungsten Light
From: r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard S. Taylor)
Date: Wed Jan 18 07:02:59 2006
References: <p06230921bfe96e361e17@10.0.1.2> <A4134A93-3AD8-45A5-9F69-0352476A4300@interlink.es> <p06230916bff170fa5482@131.142.12.152> <687552C8-C2DE-49D7-8DC4-BA8D9C00DFE8@interlink.es> <9b678e0601180523m6ae3ece1pbc9d7d241e0b0f0a@mail.gmail.com>

Don - I just decided to try the Fuji 1600 myself 
but you beat me to it.  Glad you had good results 
with it.

Did you try it in tungsten light?  And, what ISO 
did you shoot at in that light?

Thanks.

Thanks Luis, too.  The trials sound like a good idea.

Regards,

Dick
Boston, MA


>Luis,
>Sonny's posting of Fuji's 1600 speed color neg film intriged me so I ran a
>roll through.  It is amazingly good at 1600 and could be substituted for
>T400CN expecially if post processing is digital.
>
>Don
>don.dory@gmail.com
>
>
>On 1/18/06, Luis Miguel Casta?eda <lmc@interlink.es> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On 16/01/2006, at 17:13, Richard S. Taylor wrote:
>>
>>  > 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.
>>
>>  This always happen, the best tonality from any given film comes
>>  underexposing it about an stop and developing it having that in mind.
>>  This does not apply to slides, indeed. :)
>>
>>  > 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.
>>
>>  most high ISO emulsions are in fact 400/800 specifically formulated
>>  to be pushed. If you are aiming to have some rules to shoot
>>  consistently under tungsten light I think that you will save time and
>>  money going methodical and running some test to find the effective
>>  sensibility of your film of choice. It's boring to death, I know, but
>>  helps a lot.
>>
>>  > I may give P3200 another try eventually  but I'd like to stick with
>>  > C41-process films for now.
>>
>>  C41 is quite comfy, but I don't know if someone is offering high ISO
>>  in this process.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Saludos
>>  -----------------------------------------
>>  http://imaginarymagnitude.net/blog/
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Leica Users Group.
>>  See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>  >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information




Replies: Reply from kennybod at mac.com (Kenneth Frazier) ([Leica] Underexposure in Tungsten Light)
In reply to: Message from lmc at interlink.es (Luis Miguel Castañeda) ([Leica] Underexposure in Tungsten Light)
Message from lmc at interlink.es (Luis Miguel Castañeda) ([Leica] Underexposure in Tungsten Light)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] Underexposure in Tungsten Light)