Slide film with grad filters (metering)

[rayonline_nz]

Hi all

I like to get some idea from you guys. Landscapes. Slide film. Spot meter. Grad filters.

Slide film is said to hold 4 stops of information. Here in NZ, it's summer. The other day I had the classic type with rocks and water on the foreground with the sky in the background (sunset). When I spot metered the water in the f/ground and then spot metered the sky just away from the actual sun; the difference was 4 stops. Do I need to use a grad filter, Velvia can hold 4 stops of information right? Articles online says if the difference is 4 stops, then use a 4 stop filter, if the difference is 1 stop use a 1 stop filter.

How would it look like I didn't use a filter? Does the 4 stop difference in the scene means from the darkest blacks to the whitest whites that still have detail? So I would need to expose the foreground to be 2 stop under midtone and then allow the sky to be 2 stops brighter than midtone? So the sky would be brighter a bit washed out than what it appears to the eye?

Like to hear your views ...



Thanks.


Edit - please move this to the Style and Technique section, just found this. Apologies.

[Pere Casals]

This is the Velvia curve, each Horizontal unit are 1H Log so 3.3 stops, you may find that you have some 6 or 7 stops range and of those some 4 are about linear.


To master velvia you have to spend a 35mm roll, using the spot meter and making bracketings.

Just decide a "central" exposure, then spot meter sky, clouds, etc to know its +/- exposure in stops, writte down this. Then make a -3, -1.5, 0, +1.5, +3 bracketing. So if clouds were at +2 you will know from bracketing how clouds are at -1 to +4.

From that when you meter a landscape (for example) you shall remember how clouds, sky, etc are at each under/over exposure.

You should repeat those bracketings with filters.

You will find that with slides quite overexposed areas are lost and very deep shadows are difficult to scan, so you should balance that.

Easy: just make bracktings, writte down well what you did, and built a criterion from that.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

You can use a grad nd. I use them all the time for color and bw. Meter the sky (not next to the sun), meter the area you want properly exposed in the foreground. Look at the difference and then pick a grad nd to give you the stop range you want. Ie, If sky measures say 1/2000 sec at f/22 and the object you want properly exposed reads 1/30 sec at f/22, and you want there to be a 3-stop difference, use a 3 stop grad nd. 4 or 5 if you want the difference to be smaller or use 2 or 1 stop if you want a larger difference.

[rayonline_nz]

You can use a grad nd. I use them all the time for color and bw. Meter the sky (not next to the sun), meter the area you want properly exposed in the foreground. Look at the difference and then pick a grad nd to give you the stop range you want. Ie, If sky measures say 1/2000 sec at f/22 and the object you want properly exposed reads 1/30 sec at f/22, and you want there to be a 3-stop difference, use a 3 stop grad nd. 4 or 5 if you want the difference to be smaller or use 2 or 1 stop if you want a larger difference.

You mean 1/250? 3 stops is 1/2000 to 1/250.

Easy: just make bracktings, writte down well what you did, and built a criterion from that.

Yep, have to try this out and make notes. I can spot meter reasonably well it's just with the grad filter criteria.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

No, I mean, if you measure sky at 1/2000 and the ground measures 1/30, that is 6 stops. Using a 3 stop grad nd and exposing at 1/30th a second will give me a 3 stop difference between sky and ground because I attenuated 3 stops of light from the sky closing the gap to 3 stops. Ie, if I measured the sky thru a 3 stop grad nd, then instead of 1/2000, I would measure 1/250 and 1/250 to 1/30 is 3 stops.

[Drew Wiley]

Pray for Kodak E100G sheet film to come back. It's a lot more cooperative than Velvia. But the trick in using grad filters is with coming up with something that doesn't look downright fake. A good illusionist never shows their hand, and that would include grad tricks. I have yet to see it done seamlessly.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have posted many shots here using grad nds. There is nothing magical about them. The biggest mistake people make is using one that is to dark for the scene or not placing it properly. I have even used a double Grad ND because I needed 8 stops of it and no one could tell. The one I used two Grad NDs on was digital, but I will stick it here for educational purposes. If I didnt' say these were with Grad ND filters, no one would know the difference, and in fact, no one has.





This one is film and had two Grad NDs stacked for a total of 8 stops



Bridge is the digital image with 2 Grad NDs stacked for a total of 8 stops

[Drew Wiley]

Yes. That's the way it should be done. Nobody can easily detect the density transition. But that no doubt takes some practice. I do, however, spot one hexagonal aperture flare artifact in the sky in the train picture. Must have been a wide angle shot difficult to fully shade.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

You are correct. I actually had a really big one in the middle due to shooting almost directly into the sun. I have another version where I removed this last artifact. Kinda torn between whether or not to leave it. It does take practice. The first few times, I made the sky so dark it was pathetic as I didn't understand what a grad nd was really for. Now that I do, I do better, but you really got to pay attention or you will muck it up quick and there is no saving that image!

[interneg]

Pray for Kodak E100G sheet film to come back. It's a lot more cooperative than Velvia. But the trick in using grad filters is with coming up with something that doesn't look downright fake. A good illusionist never shows their hand, and that would include grad tricks. I have yet to see it done seamlessly.

The Velvia & overdone grad ND cliche can be pretty unpleasant - and was very dominant in the more populist side of landscape photography over here up until most of the practitioners of that awfulness went digital.