Overexposuring analog film?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, May 28, 2012.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.

    Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    actually makes them look quite interesting).

    Do you guys have any comments on this?

    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 28, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
    > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >
    > Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    > actually makes them look quite interesting).


    Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
    clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
    cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
    >
    > Do you guys have any comments on this?


    I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
    their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 28, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <B8Hwr.1517$>,
    Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    > On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
    > > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    > > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    > > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    > > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    > >
    > > Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    > > actually makes them look quite interesting).

    >
    > Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
    > clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
    > cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
    > >
    > > Do you guys have any comments on this?

    >
    > I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
    > their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.


    Ok, half-stop vs one stop. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try both :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 28, 2012
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Rob Guest

    On 28/05/2012 7:23 PM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<B8Hwr.1517$>,
    > Martin Brown<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >> On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
    >>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    >>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    >>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    >>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >>>
    >>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    >>> actually makes them look quite interesting).

    >>
    >> Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
    >> clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
    >> cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
    >>>
    >>> Do you guys have any comments on this?

    >>
    >> I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
    >> their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.

    >
    > Ok, half-stop vs one stop. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try both :)
    >
    >

    you will not see 1/2 stop - better to go 1 stop.
     
    Rob, May 28, 2012
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Rob Guest

    On 28/05/2012 5:59 PM, Sandman wrote:
    > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >
    > Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    > actually makes them look quite interesting).
    >
    > Do you guys have any comments on this?
    >


    Its to compensate for them under processing your film.

    Most labs use a replenishment system to "top up" there chemicals to the
    correct concentration which keeps them "fresh". Usually labs just go
    merrily along and seldom check the developer with a test strip during
    the normal days production. Its only the startup period when its checked
    and the film density measured. So if your film is developed in the
    afternoon the strength could be under which will under develop the film.

    Just as a check compare the edge strip of the film which has been
    correctly exposed for a reference as to the correct development.
     
    Rob, May 28, 2012
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <jpvjgh$84k$>, Rob <>
    wrote:

    > On 28/05/2012 5:59 PM, Sandman wrote:
    > > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    > > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    > > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    > > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    > >
    > > Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    > > actually makes them look quite interesting).
    > >
    > > Do you guys have any comments on this?
    > >

    >
    > Its to compensate for them under processing your film.
    >
    > Most labs use a replenishment system to "top up" there chemicals to the
    > correct concentration which keeps them "fresh". Usually labs just go
    > merrily along and seldom check the developer with a test strip during
    > the normal days production. Its only the startup period when its checked
    > and the film density measured. So if your film is developed in the
    > afternoon the strength could be under which will under develop the film.
    >
    > Just as a check compare the edge strip of the film which has been
    > correctly exposed for a reference as to the correct development.


    Ah, good info. Thanks


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 28, 2012
    #6
  7. Sandman

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Sandman
    <> wrote:

    > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >
    > Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    > actually makes them look quite interesting).
    >
    > Do you guys have any comments on this?


    when i shot film, i'd usually set the iso to half of what it said on
    the box for print film. don't do that for slide film.
     
    nospam, May 28, 2012
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Rob Guest

    On 29/05/2012 2:01 AM, Jeff wrote:
    > Sandman<> wrote in news:mr-B2EDBA.12300028052012
    > @News.Individual.NET:
    >
    >> In article<jpvjgh$84k$>, Rob<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 28/05/2012 5:59 PM, Sandman wrote:
    >>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    >>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    >>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    >>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >>>>
    >>>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    >>>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you guys have any comments on this?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Its to compensate for them under processing your film.
    >>>
    >>> Most labs use a replenishment system to "top up" there chemicals to the
    >>> correct concentration which keeps them "fresh". Usually labs just go
    >>> merrily along and seldom check the developer with a test strip during
    >>> the normal days production. Its only the startup period when its checked
    >>> and the film density measured. So if your film is developed in the
    >>> afternoon the strength could be under which will under develop the film.
    >>>
    >>> Just as a check compare the edge strip of the film which has been
    >>> correctly exposed for a reference as to the correct development.

    >>
    >> Ah, good info. Thanks
    >>
    >>

    > Misinformation.
    > A processor is _not_ run all day and then "topped up" at the end.


    I didn't say that. have a re read


    There is
    > a metered flow of replenishment chemicals during the time film is moving
    > through the machine. A test strip run during production will not be
    > significantly different from one run at the beginning of the day (which
    > would represent chemical conditions at the end of the previous day).
    >
    > Comparing the unexposed edge strip will not reveal anything unless it was
    > discolored by severe overdevelopment. The base color is built in at
    > manufacture and can naturally vary between film types and batches of the
    > same type.
    >


    You missed the point.
     
    Rob, May 29, 2012
    #8
  9. Sandman

    Rob Guest

    On 29/05/2012 2:22 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article<>, Sandman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    >> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    >> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    >> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >>
    >> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    >> actually makes them look quite interesting).
    >>
    >> Do you guys have any comments on this?

    >
    > when i shot film, i'd usually set the iso to half of what it said on
    > the box for print film. don't do that for slide film.


    Thats like a stop.

    Slide film you should bracket it its critical.
     
    Rob, May 29, 2012
    #9
  10. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/28/2012 10:25 PM, Rob wrote:
    > On 29/05/2012 2:22 AM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article<>, Sandman
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    >>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    >>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    >>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >>>
    >>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    >>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
    >>>
    >>> Do you guys have any comments on this?

    >>
    >> when i shot film, i'd usually set the iso to half of what it said on
    >> the box for print film. don't do that for slide film.

    >
    > Thats like a stop.
    >
    > Slide film you should bracket it its critical.


    Yes! Underexposure can give you more color saturation.
    But, I agree with you on bracketing.

    For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
    without blowing the highlights.
    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 29, 2012
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <4fc4cf31$0$30379$-secrets.com>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > On 5/28/2012 10:25 PM, Rob wrote:
    > > On 29/05/2012 2:22 AM, nospam wrote:
    > >> In article<>, Sandman
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    > >>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    > >>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    > >>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    > >>>
    > >>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    > >>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
    > >>>
    > >>> Do you guys have any comments on this?
    > >>
    > >> when i shot film, i'd usually set the iso to half of what it said on
    > >> the box for print film. don't do that for slide film.

    > >
    > > Thats like a stop.
    > >
    > > Slide film you should bracket it its critical.

    >
    > Yes! Underexposure can give you more color saturation.
    > But, I agree with you on bracketing.
    >
    > For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
    > without blowing the highlights.


    Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
    while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
    over/under-exposure (+/-)?

    I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
    actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
    corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
    would be pretty great.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 29, 2012
    #11
  12. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2012 9:58 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<4fc4cf31$0$30379$-secrets.com>,
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/28/2012 10:25 PM, Rob wrote:
    >>> On 29/05/2012 2:22 AM, nospam wrote:
    >>>> In article<>, Sandman
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    >>>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    >>>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    >>>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
    >>>>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you guys have any comments on this?
    >>>>
    >>>> when i shot film, i'd usually set the iso to half of what it said on
    >>>> the box for print film. don't do that for slide film.
    >>>
    >>> Thats like a stop.
    >>>
    >>> Slide film you should bracket it its critical.

    >>
    >> Yes! Underexposure can give you more color saturation.
    >> But, I agree with you on bracketing.
    >>
    >> For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
    >> without blowing the highlights.

    >
    > Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
    > while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
    > over/under-exposure (+/-)?
    >
    > I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
    > actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
    > corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
    > would be pretty great.
    >
    >


    I take reference photos. Most of the time I adjust using the +/-
    adjustment.
    For high speed sync I shoot in manual and adjust the shutter speed. For
    active wildlife bracketing is not feasible.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2012
    #12
  13. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
    > > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
    > > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
    > > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
    > > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.

    >
    > Negative films have more latitude to the top. So it's not overexposing
    > the film but correctly exposing it. The sole downside of this is less
    > shadow detail or higher grain/noise in the shadows.


    Right, but this film is labeled as ISO 400. The lab hints at saying
    that ISO 400 film should be shot as ISO 200 film - resulting in
    over-exposing the film. If the manufacturer labels the film as ISO 400
    and I shoot at ISO 200, am I not overexposing it by definition?

    > And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
    > there is "analog" of it - it is.


    analog
    adjective
    relating to or using signals or information represented by a
    continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
    or voltage. Often contrasted with digital

    I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
    positioning of something physical to create an image.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 30, 2012
    #13
  14. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <4fc5643e$0$18523$-secrets.com>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > >> For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
    > >> without blowing the highlights.

    > >
    > > Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
    > > while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
    > > over/under-exposure (+/-)?
    > >
    > > I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
    > > actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
    > > corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
    > > would be pretty great.

    >
    > I take reference photos. Most of the time I adjust using the +/-
    > adjustment.


    Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
    another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
    desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.

    > For high speed sync I shoot in manual and adjust the shutter speed. For
    > active wildlife bracketing is not feasible.


    Indeed


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 30, 2012
    #14
  15. Sandman

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 30/05/2012 08:01, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Sandman<> wrote:
    >>
    >> Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
    >> another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
    >> desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.


    You can usually tell when the metering system might be confused by the
    lighting configuration and adjust accordingly first time around.
    >
    > How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way? It is
    > in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
    > user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results
    > in an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
    >
    > In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
    > and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
    > correct result.


    Provided that your first shot is a modest underexposure the second one
    guided by the histogram can be pretty much spot on if you can do simple
    mental arithmetic. The closest call is always weddings where the bride
    is in not-quite-white and the groom in black velvet - the dynamic range
    under those circumstances means that one or other has to give. Burning
    out the highlights on the brides dress is usually more objectionable.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 30, 2012
    #15
  16. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

    > >Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
    > >another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
    > >desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.

    >
    > How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way?


    None that I know of! I really don't use the histogram myself at all,
    so I was just curious. But my preceeding comment was about the value
    of having a live histogram inside the viewfinder, which I suppose
    would be a less cumbersome way to do this, yet unavailable as far as I
    know.

    I just checked, my D3s doesn't even offer a live histogram in live
    view, which otherwise might have been a bit less cumbersome.

    > It is in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
    > user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results in
    > an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
    >
    > In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
    > and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
    > correct result.


    You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
    I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
    tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
    Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 30, 2012
    #16
  17. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/30/2012 2:26 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<4fc5643e$0$18523$-secrets.com>,
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >
    >>>> For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
    >>>> without blowing the highlights.
    >>>
    >>> Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
    >>> while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
    >>> over/under-exposure (+/-)?
    >>>
    >>> I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
    >>> actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
    >>> corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
    >>> would be pretty great.

    >>
    >> I take reference photos. Most of the time I adjust using the +/-
    >> adjustment.

    >
    > Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
    > another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
    > desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.


    It sounds more cumbersome than it is. It works for me, especially for
    landscapes and some flower portraits, it slows me down.

    For an example of high speed sync flash see:
    <http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651945> and
    <http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651937> Notice that the
    background is black.



    >
    >> For high speed sync I shoot in manual and adjust the shutter speed. For
    >> active wildlife bracketing is not feasible.

    >
    > Indeed
    >
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2012
    #17
  18. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/30/2012 7:50 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<>,
    > (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    >
    >>> Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
    >>> another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
    >>> desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.

    >>
    >> How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way?

    >
    > None that I know of! I really don't use the histogram myself at all,
    > so I was just curious. But my preceeding comment was about the value
    > of having a live histogram inside the viewfinder, which I suppose
    > would be a less cumbersome way to do this, yet unavailable as far as I
    > know.
    >
    > I just checked, my D3s doesn't even offer a live histogram in live
    > view, which otherwise might have been a bit less cumbersome.
    >
    >> It is in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
    >> user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results in
    >> an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
    >>
    >> In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
    >> and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
    >> correct result.

    >
    > You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
    > I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
    > tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
    > Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...
    >


    Short and sweet, in photographers language:

    If anything is outside the borders, it represents clipping. Try to
    expose so that the image is as close to the right as possible, without
    actually touching the right, or top border. A D3s has the capacity to
    display a separate histogram for each color channel, as well as for the
    entire image.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2012
    #18
  19. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

    > Sandman <> wrote:
    > >You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
    > >I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
    > >tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
    > >Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...

    >
    > Histograms are almost certainly the *most* useful tool
    > brought to the camera by digital technology! It is
    > *vastly* better than any judgment you can make about
    > exposure by looking at the image displayed on the
    > camera's LCD display (rest assured you cannot get even
    > close!).


    I'll take your word for it! :)

    > The horizontal axis of an histogram represents
    > brightness values in the JPEG image. The left side is
    > pure black and the right side is pure white. The center
    > line is at "middle grey". But note that the scale is not
    > linear, so the half that is on the left side represents
    > perhaps 6 fstops while the half on the right is 2-1/2 or
    > 3 fstops.


    Oh

    > The vertical axis represents how many pixels are at a
    > given level. (Relatively, as the graph is probably
    > "normalized" so that the highest point on the graph will
    > be full scale regardless of the absolute value.)
    >
    > Hence if you shoot an image that is all white, there
    > will be just one vertical line, located at the extreme
    > right end of the horizontal scale. If half of the
    > pixels in an image are middle grey and half of them are
    > one stop brighter than that, there will be two vertical
    > lines, of about the same height, one at the center and
    > one a short way to the right of it.


    Yes, I've figured that part out

    > For a "typical" image there will be some pixels at
    > almost every level, so at any location along the
    > horizontal axis the graph will have some vertical
    > height. Of course not all images are "typical", so some
    > are different. It is important to realize that the
    > shape depends very much on the subject, and there is no
    > "correct" shape as such.


    That I understand

    > But the right edge of the graph should extend all the
    > way to the right edge *if and only if* there are pure
    > white areas in the image. And it should extend all the
    > way to the left if there are black pixels.
    >
    > And that means you can tell if an image is over or under
    > exposed, and with some care it can be determined within
    > about 1/10 of an fstop.


    And you're saying that an image that is over/under-exposed by the
    histogram could possibly not be obvious by just looking at the
    picture? I'm guessing that it's for finding hot and cold spots in the
    image rather than a more general "this image is slightly overexposed"
    kind of declaration? Say that the hump in the histogram is 40% to the
    right, and you retake it to move it to only 30% to the right -
    wouldn't such a difference be discernable by just looking at the
    picture and conclude that it's slightly under/over-exposed?

    To determine whether you have cold/hot-spots, I could totally
    understand the use of a histogram, but I just can't remember seeing an
    image in post product and it having a problematic amount of cold/hot.
    Sure, it has happened, but not to the degree where I have thought that
    I should have had a way to determine and adjust it when I shoot it.

    Plus, doesn't a lot of DSLR's offer cold/hotspot flashing for images?
    I'm sure I've seen that.

    > If you make an exposure and the right edge of the graph
    > is about at the middle line along the horizontal axis
    > you know that the exposure could be increased by
    > approximately 2-1/2 stop before highlights would be
    > clipped. And if the graph shows a vertical line on the
    > far left edge, it is very clear that highlights are
    > clipping and exposure must be reduced if clipping is to
    > be avoided.


    SO, basically, you'd use it to see, at a glance, what your limits are
    for the current subject? How much of this could easily be dine in post
    production?

    I.e. if the image looks ok in the LCD after I shot it, and I have
    hot/cold flashing to determine whether something is several
    under/overexposed - sure I could tweak the image within the limits in
    post production? I.e. what do I gain by reshooting it with a new
    timing in-camera at that point?

    Be sure to realize that I'm not actually *questioning* your usage of
    the histogram, I'm not using it myself, so I can't make any other
    comments than my guesses above :)

    > Do a web search on it, and you can spend hours reading
    > and learning!


    I just might do that :)




    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 30, 2012
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > >> And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
    > >> there is "analog" of it - it is.

    > >
    > > analog
    > > adjective
    > > relating to or using signals or information represented by a
    > > continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
    > > or voltage. Often contrasted with digital

    >
    > In the same place where you found that, it probably also said:
    >
    > ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from French, from Greek analogon,
    > neuter of analogos ‘proportionate.’


    The origin of a word doesn't make it less apt. Indeed, you used some
    hundreds of years old words in your very sentence above, yet they are
    as valid today as when they were first introduced.

    > > I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
    > > positioning of something physical to create an image.

    >
    > The term analog derives as above (analogos (analogous)). Thus the gas
    > needle gauge in your car is driven by a voltage that is proportional to
    > the float position in the tank. You don't say, "My gosh! We're down to
    > 1.2V of gas!"


    You're not making any sense whatsoever here.

    > An image on film is an image, period.


    And film is a analog medium. Period.

    > Thus it's preferred (by me and too few others) to say "digital"
    > camera or "film" camera.


    You can call it whatever you wish. A rose by any other name...

    > It's also more exclusive, because in contrast to digital, "analog" can
    > also mean another electronic imaging device such as a tube.


    A word can be used to encompass more than one thing, imagine that :)

    > And of course a digital camera is really analog at the sensor level.


    Which would be relevant if we were in reference to the sensor, I
    suppose.

    > (This can all go into a long debate which I won't be drawn into.


    Funny, since I'm not trying to "draw" anyone into anything. I'm not
    the one that started to talk about definitions of words, remember? :)

    > The crux is that people believe if it isn't digital it must be
    > analog.


    Yeah, those pesky dictionaries, putting ideas into peoples heads about
    the meaning of words :-D

    > But that's false. It's more true to fact to say that film is film
    > and analog means a tube based (or similar) image capture device.


    Haha :)

    > At its base, "digital" cameras are in fact required to be analog (they
    > convert a photon count into a charge count which is bucket brigade
    > transferred off the sensor as a voltage.)


    Which, of course, has nothing to do with the image being stored
    digitally, which is why it's called a digital camera.

    > Enter the physics weenies who will now say that recording photons in a
    > quantum sense and charges is the pure essence of digital ... but that's
    > just stretching the point - esp. as the actual conversion to "digital"
    > takes place as a voltage (ADC) conversion when bucketing the information
    > off of the device).


    You're entitled to your own interpretation of the English language,
    and I wouldn't want to "draw" you into anything, so we'll just leave
    it at that :-D

    It's not like I have a need to discuss this. I already know what
    analog means and that I used it appropriately, I have no need to
    convince you of that.

    Have a nice day!


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 31, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Phil Edry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,211
    Derek Gee
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,100
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,198
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,955
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  5. Sandman

    Film for my analog medium format camera

    Sandman, May 7, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,184
    Sandman
    May 10, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page