To be honest I think you are asking too much to of yourself to be able to get a perfect exposure with one exposure right off the bat. I think it would make more sense to bracket initially, take copious notes and work methodically towards honing your craft. Bracketing to begin with might even save film in the long run if it speeds up the learning process. A roll film holder would cut the costs if you have the right focal lengths to use with it.
Are you saying I am wrong about cine lenses being calibrated in T-stops because exposure accuracy is critical when shooting moving pictures on a big set?Originally Posted by bdkphoto
https://fstoppers.com/education/why-...-f-stop-158541
Yes cine film is high latitude color negative stock, but on set you still try to get everything right to <1/3 EV accuracy, because it saves time and money. The high latitude of the film stock is there (in addition to the reasons you listed) as a "safety net" to catch you if you screw up, to save you from a (horribly expensive) reshoot. (all that notwithstanding, some commercials were/are shot on reversal/E6 film to get punchier colors -- I believe Velvia was a popular choice back in the day)
I understand you have a lot of experience and I certainly appreciate your contributions. But while your "estimate and bracket" approach may be very useful shooting buildings in NYC (where you know what the light will be, because you have been shooting in the city for years, and where you can get any film you like whenever you want) that is not necessarily a viable approach for me in a very different situation.
Sure, and I'm not saying it's an invalid technique or wrong... I'm just saying I don't want to have to rely on it.
Of course! And I'd love to learn more about Shulman's process for planning, lighting, and composing.I hear you, but I’d caution against getting too caught up in the romance of “decisive moments” and “one shot mastery.” Those phrases sound good in books and documentaries, but in practice, they often become shortcuts for skipping the fundamentals.
As an example, you're asking for “one shot Shulman” accuracy, but that’s a bit like trying to play a Beethoven sonata after your first piano lesson. Julius Shulman was a master, no doubt—but what people often forget is that his “one shot” magic came from careful planning, expert use of light, and impeccable composition. He didn’t walk in, point the camera, and hope for the best. He crafted those images before ever pressing the shutter.
But I put as much planning and preparation into my pictures as anyone. Sun position, weather, access, perspective, advance scouting -- you didn't think I just showed up to a nice-sounding spot and hoped for the best, did you? And it's not uncommon for me to go back to the same location multiple times to shoot and re-shoot until it is "just right." (I think my current record is 4 re-shoots for one location. In my defense, one of those re-shoots was caused by the lab screwing up.) But all that is very inefficient.
You ask for advice, but your replies come off like lectures. If you already know everything, why ask?
Until you're willing to share your work and show where you're coming from, this feels more like posturing than genuine learning. I'm not here to waste time.
You are right about the T-stop calibration.
But I still wonder why at the time, in the late 1970's, the lenses I had for my Éclair ACL 16mm, SOM Berthiot and Angenieux regardless being fix focal or zoom, were calibrated in the usual F-stops.
And the lightmeter, the Spectra Combi-500, I had (and still do) had no T-stop indication.
But I do realise that the T-stop system is the most exact licht transmission indication for an optical system, and wonder why we still calculate in F-stops...
I used a lot of Eastman VNF stock for shooting demonstration and instruction films for the industry, the lighting conditions in the production halls were uncontrollable as these ware lit by those horrible mercury vapor lamps then.
Well, I asked a relatively straightforward question (" What technique do you use for getting your exposure spot on in these difficult conditions? ") and instead of giving me a usable answer, people are saying it's not possible, that I should give up trying to achieve "one shot" accuracy, and that instead I have to bracket, or guesstimate, or any number of other things.
I understand that not everyone shoots E6 or that they can et great results with bracketing or that many people are happy if the result is "good enough", but just because someone does not know how to do something does not mean that thing cannot be done.
And if you think I am posturing, note that a number of people have been suggesting that I am playing Don Quixote with a light meter because I am so new to all this that I do not know any better, but their presumptions are not accurate.
This thread is not about "please critique my photography and help me take better pictures." This thread is about photography technique and answering a specific technical question.
So please, if you have experience using a meter to get exposure "right on the dot", I would love to hear more about your technique and approach.
If you are just here to tell me that it is hopeless and futile to try, I understand your concerns and have heard your warnings, but it is not necessary to belabor the point.
T-stop and F-stop are interchangeable for purposes of metering and calculation, so no light meter reads in T-stops. If the lens is marked T-2.8 then that means a light meter reading of F/2.8 is correct. The lens being marked as T-2.8 just means you will get precisely correct exposure if the meter says F/2.8, and you do not need to add exposure to compensate for light losses in the lens.
I don't know why the other lenses were marked as F-stops and I don't know whether their values were derived from optical calculation (the ratio of effective aperture size to focal length) or based on measurements of light travelling through the lens (T-stop).
I never touched VNF... sounds like interesting stuff if it could cope with mercury vapor lighting though!
You're not hearing what people are actually saying. No one’s telling you it’s “hopeless” or that you should give up. We're saying the path to precision—especially with E6—isn’t theoretical. It’s built through experience: shooting, evaluating, adjusting.
Anyone who takes photography seriously enough to master it learns this the same way—whether by going to school and following a proven method, assisting a working pro after showing a solid portfolio, or by jumping online and sharing work to get feedback. There’s no substitute for doing the work and showing the work.
You’ve asked for help, but you’re brushing off answers that don’t fit your expectations. That makes it feel less like a conversation and more like a performance. If you're truly looking for guidance, then share what you're working on—your images, your metering notes, what’s working and what’s not. Otherwise, it's impossible to offer real help.
No one can diagnose your exposure problems with just words. That’s not how photography works.
Out of curiosity—how many rolls or sheets of E6 have you actually shot so far? I ask because that experience really shapes how you learn to meter for it. The more film you shoot, the more you start to see patterns and results that no amount of theoretical planning can fully predict.
+2
couldn't agree more ...
it's quite a conundrum
as Neo said "I like Judo"
unfortunately we dont' have a plug ..
Alright,then that jives with earlier suggestions to simply do enough exposure tests (or other experimentation) until sufficient accuracy can be obtained by instinct -- knowing that "that building edge over there should be at +1.3 EV" or similar.
That's a reasonable answer and certainly something I am going to try.
It's not quite what I was hoping for: I was hoping there was some non-obvious principle or basic relationship of exposure that I could use to achieve greater precision. Similar to how I learned to spot meter by choosing a bright spot, a dark spot, and averaging the two readings. (this usually results in a more accurate exposure compared to choosing one value and placing it on a zone, for several reasons. A more involved version would be to make several Zone System placements, derive the final exposure in EV for each placement, and then average the resulting EV exposure values. Actually, I should try that...)
I'm not asking for anyone to diagnose my exposure problems. I'm trying to better understand the craft, techniques, physics, and methodology of metering so that I can diagnose my own problems, as it were.No one can diagnose your exposure problems with just words. That’s not how photography works.
Out of curiosity—how many rolls or sheets of E6 have you actually shot so far? I ask because that experience really shapes how you learn to meter for it. The more film you shoot, the more you start to see patterns and results that no amount of theoretical planning can fully predict.
Since you asked, I've shot about 630 frames since January 1 of this year, mostly Provia and Velvia but also some B&W. This number does not include photos shot digitally or on 35mm film. It also does not include film currently waiting for development.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks