|
Author
|
|
StanW
Friend
Registered: June 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 581
|
|
Thu, 14, January, 2010 11:03pm
|
|
|
As far as I can judge, I think you need more exposure still. This is where an incident light meter scores. The snow is lacking in texture, and the deeper shadows are very dark.
------------------------------
Alive and clicking Down Under.
A sad case of GAS - 8x10 pinhole down to 35mm slr and rf
|
|
|
|
TheoP
Friend
Registered: December 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 129
|
|
Thu, 14, January, 2010 11:29pm
|
|
|
Thanks Stan. I'm wondering, if I over expose would that not blow out the snow even more, getting rid of even more texture?
|
|
|
|
|
RH Designs
Friend
Registered: September 2008
Location: Yorkshire Dales
Posts: 1,088
|
|
Fri, 15, January, 2010 1:27pm
|
|
|
There appears to be detail in the shadows on my screen so I think your exposure was OK - if you metered off the trunk and opened up a stop it should certainly have been adequate. The flat lighting means flat snow I'm afraid, not much you can do about that. As it's a negative scan, have you tried altering the scanner settings to reduce the high contrast and bring out more detail? Scanners tend to use too high a contrast setting by default. If there's plenty of detail in the darkest parts of the tree you'll be able to print it on a suitable paper grade.
------------------------------
Regards,
Richard
RH Designs darkroom equipment : dalesphoto.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
TheoP
Friend
Registered: December 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 129
|
|
Fri, 15, January, 2010 8:31pm
|
|
|
Richard, it definitely varies on each monitor. I had a look today to show my teacher and it was a lot darker than it is on my laptop.
No I didn't try scanning with less contrast. I didn't adjust any settings. I'll give it a go if I have the time.
I can't wait to try and print this in the darkroom and actually spend time on it, its so much more satisfying than a scan..
|
|
|
|
|
CarlRadford
Friend
Registered: October 2008
Location: Just outside of Glasgow
Posts: 227
|
|
Sat, 23, January, 2010 12:31pm
|
|
|
Theo are you saying that you spot metered from the trunk and snow and that there was only one stop difference? If so there is an error somewhere - one might expect that the snow and tree trunk be somewhere roughly between 3-7 stops apart?
|
|
|
|
|
TheoP
Friend
Registered: December 2009
Location: London UK
Posts: 129
|
|
Sun, 24, January, 2010 10:18am
|
|
|
Ah I miss-typed that, I metered from the trunk and over exposed that by one stop.
|
|
|
|
|
MickS
Friend
Registered: February 2010
Location: March
Posts: 29
|
|
Wed, 24, February, 2010 1:45pm
|
|
|
Watcha Theo,
on my screen there is little detail in the trunk; however, that doesn't matter, if the picture is what you were aiming for and got, thay is all that matters. I remeber reading something our good friend on here (Roger Hicks) said in one of his books, or it may have been AP, 'there is no such thing as perfect exposure, only the exposure that is perfect for the picture that YOU want.'
|
|
|
|
|
Mike O'Pray
Friend
Registered: October 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,984
|
|
Fri, 30, April, 2010 8:50pm
|
|
|
Only you know how dark the trunk was on the day but if it had some textured detail and you got close enough to it to exclude any other surface then the meter says that at its metered exposure it is zone V so you need to under expose by at least one or more likely two stops to make the trunk zone III.It looks like zone II on the scan
Unless your meter can cut out the large area of snow then what the meter will show is something closer than it should be to middle grey zone V but unduly influenced by the reflection of the snow so it attempts to show snow as closer to zone V than it should and you'd need to over expose by at least one or maybe two stops. However the snow is fairly white looking and not at all grey which suggests that you have got the snow about right. If there was texture in the snow then maybe you have over exposed by one too many stops but if this was the case then the trunk shouldn't be so dark and almost textureless.
I think that maybe the scanner isn't replicating the negative as it should and an accurate scan of a print might give a different and more accurate picture. The proper print might be much closer to the real scene than the scan of the neg makes it seem.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Film and Darkroom User
Photo Details
