AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

ps. just noticed that you were looking at getting the film from 7dayshop; if the rally is this month, then you've missed that opportunity. Post from the Channel Islands takes ages to arrive - anything from 1 to 2 weeks - so I'd look elsewhere if I were you.

ChrisB

My last set of WRC shots were at Catalunya, so no issues with light given it was 30+ degrees most days.

The Colab prices are only a couple quid more than Boots, so I'll use them when I get back. I'll try to get some Fuji Press 800 from Jessops.

Oh, are Airport X-rays still a problem for films? Not taken my SLR on a plan before.

Edit to say - yup, 7DayShop is out (not sure they sell the Press film anyway?), so Jessops in town one lunchtime it is.

[Edited by ChrisB - 1/17/2003 11:40:10 AM]

STi-Frenchie

A rather timely article on Fuji Press 1600 and the effects of x-rays on film can be found here

Hoppy

Chris, delighted that your photographic enthusiasm has not dimmed It's kept me going for the last 30 years

Comments I would make are, that Andy knows what he's on about. And...

Surely you know more than this than I do, but is flash photography allowed at Rallies? I bet the drivers love it Be careful/sensible.

'Ordinary' flash guns are useless outdoors. They assume a very substantial amount of light is reflected from inside walls and ceiling to boost the light level. Outside, obviously this does not apply and a regular flash gun will be utterly hopeles with anything more than ten feet away. You need a BIG BIG gun. Probably with a zoom head.

To get realistic effects, you'll also need second-curtain flash synch. I don't think your camera has this, which means headlights will streak forwards of the car, when they need to appear backwards.

If you want film speed, use a fast film rather than push-processing. Pushing/pulling processing is only good when you've buggered up the exposure or are desperate. Shoot a test roll, get that processed, and see if you need to push/pull-process for the real thing.

There's nothing wrong with Boots/whatever for normal stuff, but I would recommend Colab for this. The problem is in printing, not developing and a decent operator will get you the results you want. With subjects like this, you need human interpretation. What's the difference between the moon and a swan on a lake? The difference is the machine will be programmed for the swan, not the moon (and even then it'll be way off). Colab prices account for this. There are other processors of course, but they'll cost even more.

Don't use slide film. Unless you are 100% confident, you're fooked.

If you're really serious, hire a lens or two. I'm a big fan of 50mm f/2 lenses, or even better f/1.4. Get close! An f/2 lens at full apperture is two stops faster than f/4; ie the difference between ISO 400 and 1600. Combine the two with a big gun and you're sorted. I think you'll find that's what the pros will be using.

Good luck!

Richard.

PS Edited to add that, in today's climate, you cannot avoid X-ray security. Unless you have to put your films through a dozen diferent machines, don't worry. X-ray fogging is unusual and often an excuse for ****e results. A couple of passes through X-ray, even for fast film is okay. X-ray problems are easily detected as you invariably see shadows of sprocket holes. But avoid it if you can

Richard.

[Edited by Hoppy - 1/19/2003 5:30:26 AM]

ChrisB

STi - thanks for the link, a very interesting read. Knowing that Superia is the same film as Press but just handled differentially is suprising to me.

Let me digest that Richard

From watching Monte Carlo on the TV in previous years, I'm pretty sure the square on top of the Col du Turini is full of flash strobes when a car goes through.

Thanks for taking to reply to a noddy like me guys

BOB.T

Right, both mi boss and mi dad are saying to use a 200!

One thing to bear in mind is that neither have used 400 never mind 800 plus mi boss hasn't taken a picture for about ten years

Should I headbutt them?

ChrisB

LOL

I've used lots of Fuji Superia 400 and have been very pleased with the results.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Yes, Bob - headbutting is a good idea. However, you'll probably get better results if you get a pro to do it...

BOB.T

Well, I should get mi pics back 2moro, some are on 400 and some are on 800, both are Fuji Superia so I'll wait till I see them, then get busy with the headbutting

I'm tempted to get a cheapo 200 just so I can go

BOB.T

Right, is this any good?




IF you've time, would you mind looking here too?

Luke

Delta series B/W film by Ilford????
100 asa Any good??

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Bob: nice shot - you've got the exposure spot-on too, which is always tricky with shiny surfaces. The car shots are good too - aren't long lenses wonderful? - but as Paul suggested, you might like to try a few shots with a longer exposure and pan to follow the cars. That would blur the wheels and background, and give more of an impression of movement.

Of course, the downside of panning is that it makes getting a sharp pic of the car itself that much more difficult, but it's something to practise. It's certainly something you can try if you find yourself with a slow film in the camera. The trick is to pre-focus on the point where you're going to take the shot, then follow the car from further along the track as smoothly as you can. Trip the shutter at the right moment (the tricky part!), and follow through afterwards to ensure a smooth pan - don't try to stop moving the camera the moment you push the button.

Best of luck, and do keep posting your results - I'd love to see them.

Andy.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Luke: not a clue, but BTTT for you

Personally I don't see the attraction of B/W film nowadays, unless you're going to enlarge your prints to the point where the extra resolution over colour is worthwhile. You can always scan a colour negative and convert it to B/W in Photoshop - there are actions available on the 'net that mimic the response and look of many popular B/W films, and the scope to play around until your images look how you want is much greater.

I have a number of photos from my D30 converted to B/W and hanging on my walls - I never thought that would happen in a million years. Here's a quick example, actually scanned from a colour print I took with my old APS compact camera and fiddled with in Photoshop to get the high contrast b/w look:



Andy.

RussP

Jesus that made me jump

I bought a D60 November and have really got back into Mono. Its so easy in PS to get really puchy prints.

Forget printing on inkjet tho unless you're a real pro, mono's a devil to print - i now submit all my file, colour and mono to the likes of Loxleys (or jessops print@net for holiday snaps!) and the print quality is awesome.

My advice on film is certainly the Superia 800, i've used it a fair bit for motorsport and always got good results.

Russ

MartinM

.

[Edited by MartinM - 1/27/2003 9:35:36 AM]

ChrisB

Bob, that's a really fab photo mate

Well back from Monte now. One roll of Fuji 800 film used as I was only one stage in the dust / dark. Point taken on metering before the cars arrive!

If you get the car's headlights in the shot (with add-on full bonnet lamp pod), the extra light screws up the exposure time and flares on the lens.

Try a side shot and with either of my lenses, the camera suggests at least 1 sec + exposure time which is just going to result in a shake and a pic of blur as the car exits the picture.

What's the answer? A different (expensive?) lens?

I should hopefully have some good daylight pics on 200 and 400 though. Superb weather at times.

BOB.T

Thanks guys

That one was with 400 film and the camera on auto everything... had it on Makro I think, lil pic of a flower

The rally pics were auto everything aswell, I can't take the credit for any of them really

I'm much, much happier now that I've actually been out and used the camera, to be honest I felt a bit of a tit with it at first I feel I'm ready to start monkeying around with it a bit now, I took it to a RR day and tried slowing the shutter speed down a bit, was aiming to have the brake caliper in focus through a spinning wheel

Our kid has seen a mono pod for £16, I figure that's gotta be worth a shot cos I struggle to hold still

Cheers

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Chris,

Looking forward to seeing how the photos turn out Shame the Subarus managed to crash out so early - did you get any pics of them?

You're right, of course, that an exposure time of 1 sec is silly for motorsports, so here are a few things to think about for next time:

- When the camera measures the light level and calculates the 'correct' exposure, it assumes that the overall brightness of the scene it's pointing at is 50% grey. Much of the time this is OK, but there are cases when this isn't what you want. Snow scenes are a classic example; you want it to look white, but the camera will underexpose it to make it grey. Night photos have the opposite problem (you want them mostly black), but in this case the camera will want to overexpose.

- The upshot of this is that, if the camera suggests a shutter speed of 1 sec for a night shot, you may only really want 1/4 sec or faster. Even this only really applies if there's some light; if it's really dark, your camera's meter won't be any help at all, and of course you need a flash.

- If all the light has to come from the flash, then the shutter speed doesn't matter too much. The right choice is probably whatever your camera's 'X-sync' or 'sync speed' is, which is the fastest shutter speed with which the flash still works correctly. Usually this is around 1/100 to 1/200 sec. Slower speeds will give trails from headlights etc, although as Richard says you'll want to use 2nd curtain sync if possible,

- The wider the aperture, the more light it lets in. A 'normal' zoom lens probably opens out to around f/4 at its widest, and maybe f/5.6 at the long end. A lens that'll open out to f/1.4 will let in four times as much light. Zooms never open this wide, but fixed lenses can, and they're usually cheaper too.

- whatever you do, the processing lab may also try to correct the exposure for you when they come to print your shots. See my 'moon' example earlier for why this may not be what you want! The only fix for this is to use a pro lab - I sent a couple of rolls to Peak Imaging last week, so I'll let you know how they get on.

- there's no substitute for practise. A mate with a digital SLR could represent a few beers well spent

A.

Hoppy

Wise words from Andy

Just to clarify, your light meter will assume 18% grey (not 50%). The only way around this is to use an 'incident' light reading - a reading that measures the light falling on the subject, not the light reflected from it. So you point your incident light meter at the sun or sky (if that's the main light source) or you can get the same result by pointing your camera's meter at an 18% grey card. The back of your hand is a close approximation if you're desperate! You can get incident light reading attachments for SLRs.

Also, Andy seems to be implying that f/5.6 to f/1.4 is a 4x increase. That's the way it reads to me but I'm sure he meant to say 16x. Which is how wide-aperture lenses really show their worth.

Best,

Richard.

ChrisB

Blimey - thanks again guys Something to digest later on tonight I think.

Spec sheet for my Dynax says the flash sync is 1/125s.

I'm sending my films off to Colab this time. Just need a couple of pics of the dog to finish off the last film

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

D'uh... I was really thinking of the ratio between f/4 and f/1.4 - and cocked up the mental arithmetic. The ratio here is actually 8x (=(4/1.4)^2), which is the same as the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 800.

I'm sure you're right about the 18% grey point too - the number does ring a bell. I guess it's something to do with the perceptual response of the human eye - 18% sounds dark, but would actually look mid-grey to a human observer.

Note to self, don't post while having a tired, low-awareness sort of day

A.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

UPD: Just got a set of prints back from Peak Imaging, processed using their professional service. They're tack sharp and the exposure is spot-on - including a few shots of the moon that I included on the roll as a test. Goodbye and good riddance to Boots!

I'll try the standard service next time, and maybe give Colab a go too, but my faith in film is restored

A.

ChrisB

I've picked up one of the John Hedgecoe books I brought before I got my SLR again.

Diagram in there has made helped no end

F/2 at 1/1000 is the same as F/16 at 1/15. Bigger hole, less time vs small hole and long time

So something like a 50mm F/1.7 would be a good choice for close night work?

ChrisB

Hedgecoe's book illustrates how different f/stops effect the DoF.

I owe you a beer or two at some point in time Andy