[rollei_list] Re: Meters and Film
- From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Richard:
That Sekonic sounds intersting, my Gossen Lunasix F (Luna Pro- F)
has the following accesories: The Enlarging attachment for darkroom printing;
the Microscope attachment for Microphotography; the Fiber Optics Probe
attachment, a flexible fiber optics with a "scanner" terminal for difficult
readings; the Repro(Copying) attachment to obtain exposure from flat subjects
like paintings, documents,etc. and the Variable Angle Attachment that allows to
do 7.5º and 15º spot metering, these are a very good number of accesories for a
handheld lightmeter.
I have the Variable Angle attachment for 7.5º and 15º measurements, it requires
a bit of compensation with the lightmeter dial but it's an useful and
interesting accesory for previously planned photographs.
If I take portraits with back lit illumination, I don't expose for highlights,
I expose for shadows using the dome, it produces an about right exposure for
the subject and the back lit is overexposed creating a nice effect around the
subject IMO, these are two samples (It's not Friday but I don't have a better
explanation for my point):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/798248832/
For this one I compensated the exposure only a bit for highlights:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/2350071738/
Carlos
--- El mar 1-sep-09, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> The Sekonic meter is interesting.
> It has three attachments for measurement, a grid, for
> reflected light, and two diffusers for incident light, a
> flat one for measuring single sources and a dome or
> hemisphere for giving a sort of averaged reading
> depending on the location of the light with regard to the
> camera angle. I am at the moment drawing complete blanks on
> the name of the fellow who came up with this idea and the
> original name of the meter. It was intended for motion
> picture use originally. The reflected light grid was meant
> for measuring the subject contrast using close readings. The
> flat diffuser was intended for measuring lighting ratios,
> i.e., the relative brightness of key vs: fill light, and the
> dome for overall exposure. The latter makes an assumption I
> am not sure is valid. That is, that the correct exposure for
> a subject or scene should be based on the average of the
> light striking it from various angles rather than the actual
> brightness of some fixed reflectance value. As an example,
> suppose one has a mostly back lit low key scene where most
> of the dome is shadowed when pointed from subject to camera
> (this is how the thing is to be used). The result will be an
> exposure essentially for the shadow areas whereas, for low
> key, one wants the exposure to be essentially for the
> highlights even though they may occupy only a small area of
> the scene. Since the brightness of areas of subjects may be
> independant of the angle of the light a meter of this sort
> may be quite misleading as to correct exposure.
> Another thing which bothers me is the
> adjustment of negative contrast according to scene contrast.
> This may be useful in insuring that the film records the
> full range of brightness in the scene but may be misleading
> when printing. There are scientific uses of photography
> where a low contrast negative may be desirable because some
> detail is wanted in both fairly dark shadows and in fairly
> bright highlights. However, the full contrast range of
> such a negative can not be reproduced by any normal printing
> method, especially not by reflection prints to be
> illuminated by ambient light (as opposed to being in a
> light box). The Zone System worries a lot about
> "placement" of various densities on negatives and on prints
> but doesn't seem to take into account that contrast can be
> adjusted in the printing step and sometimes must not be
> linear as when burning and dodging are done or masking using
> variable contrast paper. For instance, some of Ansel Adams
> beautiful prints of extended brightness range subjects are
> more the result of manipulation in printing than from the
> use of Zone System exposure although an understanding of the
> principals can insure that the negative has the necessary
> data on it for doing this.
> BTW, I disagree with the statement (which I
> snipped) by a previous poster that film has a two stop
> underexposure latitude. When the speed is determined by the
> ISO method there is almost no underexposure latitude since
> the method is intended to find the minimum exposure that
> will result in good shadow detail. One can underexpose
> somewhat but there will be a loss of shadow detail. OTOH,
> there is an enormous overexpsure latitude, maybe as much as
> ten stops for some films.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
Yahoo! Cocina
Encontra las mejores recetas con Yahoo! Cocina.
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
