well, it was so great that you replied, it gave me much food for thought,and i will answer all of your remarks...this is quite a long one, but i ask you to at least have a look at the end of this posting 'cos there are new issues i bring up. >From: "rand flory" <ferret@wyoming.com> > >If you don't mind the observations of a student, I offer my thoughts. >The >list intellectuals will follow with the Truth, but I figure if I commit >myself with an opinion before the experts tell you what is really going on, >then I may learn more. > no worries mate... >3. Large amounts of dark areas really mess up an exposure meter. If you can >get a spot meter, you will probably get better results. can't do, 'cos presently i cannot afford a camera that does feature one.and a hand held one is way tio slow to use >4. If your shots show the black background to be gray, I will agree with >those who tell you the meter is trying to make those vast black expanses in >your photos into a gray mass. If you want those areas to be black, >overexposing will only worsen the problem. That would tend to lighten the >background, which it sounds like you do not want to do. Try an >underexposure >and see what happens. yes i'll have to do just that. >6. If it were me, I would use a fast film, use a spot meter if I had one, >and shoot each subject by bracketing the exposure one and two stops on >either side of the meter setting. You may still not get the perfect photo, >but after you analyze your prints, you may have better ideas about how to >approach each area of the stage the next time you go back (assuming the >stage is lit in a similar manner each time). cannot do both...especially bracketing...my MZ50 does not feature an auto bracketing, and at shutter speeds of 1/15 it takes too long for the auto ones too. try that and you'l have lost the "moment" most of the times >7. Shoot digital rather than film. It will pay for itself fairly quickly in >film/print costs. If you count the time you have to spend scanning the >print >and correcting the inevitable dust spots, it will pay for itself even >quicker. Find a used Olympus digital with at least 2.5meg pixels (such as >the Oly C2500L). Why Olympus? Because they have the best evaluative >metering >system I have used for difficult lighting situations. As I understand it, >the meter has several areas that collect light samples and they match up >your light pattern against several hundred possibilities stored in memory >to >try to figure out how your image would best be exposed. It works. I have >tried a Canon D60 that pales in comparison. i would if i could. but i cannot get a ascanner 'cos i do not have even a pc. what i use is a friend's every now and then, and it is impossible to add harware, much more software... >8. Of course, there is always flash, but I am assuming you are trying to >avoid that in order to capture the true look and feel of the band on the >stage. true...and it pays off. what my small hometown "pros" achieved with ISO100 and flash is way behind my efforts. that is what actually the local bands think!!! thanks rand... ---------------------------------------- >From: Victor <vrem@swbell.net> >Let me add my $0.02 here... >1. You need a little bit better photo editing software, more flexible >and easier to use. Since you don't have photoshop, give a try to >PhotoBrush http://www.mediachance.com/ They have a trial version and >the full version is only $38. Granted it's not photoshop, but it will >give you much more power over the image adjustments. >2. It would be better if you can find an older dedicated film scanner > like Minolta Dimage Scan Dual - it costs about 200 or so on the used > market (ebay, etc). A film scanner is better because when the > photolab prints the images they clip shadows and sometimes highlights > and adjust color to _their_, but not your liking so on paper you > don't get full color gradation and detail that is present on the > original negative. well, my answer to rand covers your wise suggestion...be sure that when i get my own pc, i will be asking for film scanner suggestions! >3. I don't know what kind of film you're using (looks like Kodak gold >400?), but try switching to a >black and white high speed film (Ilford Delta 3200, Kodak Tmax 3200, Fuji >1600) >If you can develop the film yourself (b&w chemicals are very cheap) >then you'll have complete control over your results. >5. Take a look at your negatives - if they are 'thin' - almost >transparent and very light, then you are severely underexposing the >film, if they are dark and very solid then you are severely >overexposing it. that one is a superia 1600 pushed 3200...a B&W lab in a nearby bigger city is preparing the prints from a FP5+ pushed 1600 (my first try with this one) and a TMZ pushed 6400 (and accidentally developed at 3200) so i have an underexposed thin neg to work on...according to my experience so far i am getting real black backgrounds with B&W. just look in my web page. >4. Metering - if you have a spot meter, or a narrow-area meter, try >metering around the brighter (but not the brightest) areas of the >image before the concert and then switch the camera to manual exposure >with what you've metered the scene. but can one do this in a rock concert show? lights get crazy sometimes...i had a case that the light crew was directed by the band to "play the piano" on the light buttons...sometimes there was not even enough time between auto focusing and shutter release! >The color neg film behaves better >when it is overexposed then when it's underexposed (especially when >using a film scanner). guees that answers part of the question why i cannot get descent prints from mililabs thanx Victor... -------------------------------------- S. Shapiro >Using color negative films for commercial resale, quality mandates that you >pro-rate the film speed by one stop (expose at half the iso rated by the >film manufacturer) and push process by at least two stops. > >From that you get a nice 'meaty' negative and using standard color print methods can get a print of substantial print quality. cnnot grasp that...are you saying that i should shoot an ISO1600 to 800 nad then develop for 3200? interesting! thanx steve --------------------------------------- >From: CameraTraveler@aol.com >First, it could be underexposure. Then it might be where you are having >the >prints made--how do the prints you are scanning look? Chances are the >photoprocessor is printing the dark backgrounds to be 18 percent gray. Ask >to have them reprinted to look right. ha! the scans came from prints by a lab that does 6x8 cm preview prints of the negs all joined in a few yeards roll...their job is outstanding for the speed and the price ($2.5) and even works for B&W negs!but... when i asked a local labs for 10x15 cm prints and specified that i wanted them printed to a black background, i got the usuall print treatment they give to their "point me stupid, plastic, throw away camera" clients. prints lighter one stop than the neg. and i had already given them the preview prints to work from! > >I'm guessing the problem starts with underexposure. Can you get to the >venue >other than at the time of a concert? If so, you could meter off a gray >card >in the different areas the performers will be (best if you can replicate >lighting conditions as they will be during the concert). If that's not >possible spot metering would be good, if you have a seperate hand-held >meter >or one built in to your camera. If no spot meter is available try using a >longer focal length lens to fill the frame with the subject as much as >possible to get a reading--you don't have to shoot with the longer lens, >just >get a meter reading to set the best exposure. well that is clever! time allowing it will work with my 80-200 zoom, considering that my most concert shots are at the 70-85 mm focal length. >Next, you may want to work on your scanning skills. well that BRINGS US TO THE REAL ISSUE OF MY POST! i need tips from you all... especially concerning Levels! The images on the page >you referred us to had few pixels in the shadow range. I adjusted one of >them in Photoshop, but only made minor Levels changes. I put my tinkered >version up here: http://members.aol.com/cameratraveler/ll_9Copy.JPG >Unfortunately there is almost no information there for making improvements >in >shadow detail, but I think you'll agree it is much improved over the >original. well, there was no info from the beggining. the background was actually a black curtain. i think what you did was to increase the red and then darken the whole frame, or maybe you increased the contrast (generally or selectively on the red) thanx Rich Mason ---------------------------------- MORE on the subject as an afterthought i tried the smudge feature, and applied it to an already "corrected" photo. you can see a partial application in: http://groups.msn.com/clenchedteethphotography/files1.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=359 it is much better albeit too tedious to perform. and also allows me to keep the subject lighter than the rest of the frame.And doing that before decreasing the photo brightness, seems to be the best bet.... ALSO... i do not know if you noticed, but all the frames are corrected for film scratches too. (obvious at 400% magnification at the smaller areas). that was the most nerve breaking thing i ever done with a pc. i had to repeatedly cut and paste thin strips from the immediate area of each scratch , and sometimes i used smudging too...anyone got an easier way to? the prints being unpresentable, i will have to do the whole affair again, since i promised the band...at least they will be getting presentable color shots for their web page! well...thank you all, the outcome of my next try will worth all your trouble, i promise! cheers, kostas =============================================== so... no matter what, CHEER UP MY FRIENDS! Life is too precious to jump the other side of the fence... kostas papakotas / clenched teeth photography http://content.communities.msn.com/clenchedteethphotography/PhotoAlbum 'COS SOMETIMES IT IS NETTER WITH CLENCHED TEETH! _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
