I am mainly a b&w photographer but I am starting to do more colour. I use the zone system for my b&w but this, of course, involves changing the develop time for different exposure. Since I don't develop my own colour, can someone direct me to a good book/page that will give me some tips on proper exposure for colour, both neg and reversal, that does not involve changing development? I already get decent results with my colour but I want to get great results.
|[{ bracketing }]|
Charles Campbell has worked out a zone system for color. Here's a link to the description on his website:
http://www.photonaturalist.com/chromazone/intro.html
Frank: you misspelled "<|[{ bracketing }]|>" ;-)
Hi Don,
Jack Dykinga's book, "Large Format Nature Photography", has some very useful tips on exposing color transparency film. It's worth reading. Also, if you don't already have one, get hold of an 18% gray card. Since you don't have very much control over the development process when using color film, exposure technique is based on the ability to recognize Zone V and the awareness of the range of zones the film is capable of covering. It's actually much simpler than B&W film exposure technique. IMHO, great results with color film depend on the subject matter and the lighting more than they do on the exposure.
Um, Eugene, in my experience color reversal film can't stand overexposure.
If color reversal film is overexposed, colors lose saturation and densities get low. The lighting and subject become irrelevant. That's why some people advocate setting the meter to ISO 32 when shooting RVP; if RVP is rated at 50, the transparencies come out too dense and with colors much too intense. I can't stand RVP; having tried it, I won't use it again.
Reversal film also doesn't like underexposure. Colors, to the extent they can be seen, gain saturation and densities get high. Lighting and subject are lost.
Yes, I know what narrow latitude means. Color reversal film.
For 2x3, I'm standardized on EPP, going on EPN, and contemplating EG. With 35 mm I use EB (cheap, cheerful) and KM, going on,probably, EPN or EG. KM's discontinuation has no effect on people who shoot larger formats, but for me its a small disaster.
Depending on the situation, with ambient light I meter either reflected or incident. LunaPro, Master V, both overhauled and calibrated last year. In "easy" situations, both meters and methods give much the same recommendation. In "difficult" situations, I meter incident, with judgemental adjustments based on the main subject. Shiny, close down a little; soaks up light, open up a little.
For close-up flash work, I use pre-calibrated flash rigs or GN arithmetic with adjustment for magnification. Both are equivalent to metering incident.
No comments on color negative film, which I don't use.
Cheers,
Dan
Dan,
I don't understand why you would take issue with what I said. At no point did I tell Don that overexposing color transparency film is the proper technique. What did I say that give you that impression?
Don stated that he already gets good results but now wants to get better results with color film. He asked for the recommendation of a good book on the subject. I recommended Jack Dykinga's book. I was giving him encouragement. In your opinion, where did I go wrong ?
Eugene, that's a fair question. Your statement "IMHO, great results with color film depend on the subject matter and the lighting more than they do on the exposure" hit me somewhat against the grain. Is that really what you meant?
Regards,
Dan
Dan,
Take a look at the dramatic color images by David Muench in the Sept/Oct. issue of View Camera. IMHO David's subject matter and lighting were more important to the sucess of those photos than his choice of shutter speed and aperature.
Some examples of how color transparencies are affected by a slight increase or decrease of exposure (bracketing) are shown in Jack Dykinga's book. Some transparencies looked better when exposure was increased over the exact meter reading and some looked better when exposure was decreased. The subject matter and the lighting were the keys to creating an outstanding color shot. The exact exposure was secondary, IMHO.
That's what I was attempting to explain in my post, and I still stand by my opinion.
Eugene, thanks for your explanation. I have a modest number (= entirely too many) of color transparencies shot with flash for which I erred in looking up the calibration table or forgot to set aperture at all or had a flash (or two) fail. Those shots are lost. So now I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
To put it another way, good exposure isn't sufficient for a good color transparency, but it is necessary. I thought I pointed out that I deviate from what the meter or calibration table thinks is best when I know that the subject requires more or less exposure. The "best" exposure isn't always what the meter recommends.
You probably don't know that I occasionally give a lecture demonstration on photography for aquarists. As part of it, I shoot a sequence of shots with the same flash set up, subject, ... , at every aperture from f/2.8 to f/32. I go in 1 stop steps. I use Polachrome HC, have an assistant process and mount it on the spot, then project the results. This drives home the idea of using bracketing to find the right exposure and, by the way, calibrate the flash rig once and for all. So, yes, I'm a little acquainted with the concept and practice. I may need Dykinga to teach me other ideas, but not that one.
I don't think we're far apart. Perhaps there's a slight difference in emphasis, or perhaps I'm not being as clear as necessary.
Regards,
Dan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks