Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Daniel: >Not to hard to predict. I spent the afternoon loafing around Louice's >again. > >http://www.dlridings.com/paw2005/6.html > >I couldn't really decide between the main and the alternative: > >http://www.dlridings.com/paw2005/6alt1.html > >but obviously I did, eventually. I'm with Alastair...I was trying to figure out what kind of 'do the singer had. The guitar head detracts. >Any experiences with Delta 3200, Tmax 3200 and Fuji rated at 3200 (at >least)? I'm going to do at least one more week (probably more), but 1600 >is the bottom limit. I've checked out some similar shots others have done >with Tmax 3200 and they really look nice. I'm thinking of going to 6400 to >give me a faster shutter speed (and more shots outside the "spot light"). A while back, I experimented with different underexposures of Neopan 1600. In the end, that's what it ended up being...underexposing. Granted, I still got an image that I could have used in a newspaper using an effective film speed of 12,800. Three stop underexposure. The shadow detail...well, who am I fooling? Using shadow and detail in the same sentence with a 3 stop underexposure just isn't going to happen. What I learned is that in a pinch, I can underexpose Neopan 1600. Just don't expect miracles. If you try to make the shadowy areas anything other than pitch black, expect lots of grain. The pictures you posted for this week appear underexposed in a similar way in that the gray areas are grainy and don't contain any details. This is where I'm really excited about what the digital revolution is bringing. Shoot this on one of the latest digitals, run it through some noise removal software, and you'll have details without hardly any noise or grain shooting at 3200. That just blows my mind. -- Eric http://canid.com/