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: don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)
Date: Wed Jan 18 18:45:28 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> <p06230931bff407e8aaa8@131.142.12.152>

Richard,
No, I shot it in mixed daylight and flourescent.  Rated it at 1600 and
followed the meter unless I was shooting something white in which case
opened up 1.5 stops.  As to Sonny's comments, it was the newest version of
Superia 1600 with a 18 month expiration date.

Don
don.dory@gmail.com


On 1/18/06, Richard S. Taylor <r.s.taylor@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

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)