[pure-silver] Metering 135 vs 120
- From: eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:14:29 +0000
> There is for me. I'm assuming it's a difference in metering. My 35s
> have built in meters while I use a Minolta IVF for the mf. The
> exposures seem to be very different so I always have to add
> developing time for my 120 film. I shoot TMax (finishing off some
> old film) and TriX.
That's an interesting problem. Why not chase down the metering issue, and leave
a variable out of processing?
Your minolta is an ambient light meter (I think), and your camera's TTL meter
is an incident meter?
I've noticed some situations that have given me readings two stops off from
each other when using my handheld meter against the TTL in my Canon bodies. But
I assume it's how I'm using the meter(s), so I work to find the same reading,
or try to reason out why that's happening. Sometimes the lens (I use a 24, a
35, a 50, or 100) brings in less or more light to the TTL meter at the back -
or so it seems - or they average differently, whereas the handheld meter has no
lens in front of it.
But an exposure value for Zone V, or 18% gray, for a a given ISO should be the
same from meter to meter, no?
Can anyone more experienced chime in on this?
Elias
--- Begin Message ---
- From: Janet Cull <jcull@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:04:03 +0000
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:51 AM, ERoustom wrote:
There's no need to develop 120 film any longer than 135 film is there?
There is for me. I'm assuming it's a difference in metering. My 35s have built in meters while I use a Minolta IVF for the mf. The exposures seem to be very different so I always have to add developing time for my 120 film. I shoot TMax (finishing off some old film) and TriX.
My 120 negatives often look flatter than my 35mm film. I'm saying "flatter". I'm not sure that's the right description. Just not as good, and I know that shouldn't be so since I'm shooting a Hasselblad. Obviously, the larger negative holds up better for enlarging but otherwise I'm not always more pleased with those shots. I'm still working away at it, though.
The club is small; 5 of us. I'm the only one that does my own developing and printing so I didn't get what I was hoping for, but it's nice to have somebody to talk photography with.
Janet
--- End Message ---
- Follow-Ups:
- [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- From: Richard Knoppow
Other related posts:
- » [pure-silver] Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- » [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- From: Janet Cull <jcull@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:04:03 +0000
|
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:51 AM, ERoustom wrote: There's no need to develop 120 film any longer than 135 film is there? There is for me. I'm assuming it's a difference in metering. My 35s have built in meters while I use a Minolta IVF for the mf. The exposures seem to be very different so I always have to add developing time for my 120 film. I shoot TMax (finishing off some old film) and TriX. My 120 negatives often look flatter than my 35mm film. I'm saying "flatter". I'm not sure that's the right description. Just not as good, and I know that shouldn't be so since I'm shooting a Hasselblad. Obviously, the larger negative holds up better for enlarging but otherwise I'm not always more pleased with those shots. I'm still working away at it, though. The club is small; 5 of us. I'm the only one that does my own developing and printing so I didn't get what I was hoping for, but it's nice to have somebody to talk photography with. Janet |
--- End Message ---
- [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
- From: Richard Knoppow