I´d say it should be the other way round - properly working LX on automatic should overexpose - produce normal looking negatives, not too thin. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Steve Morphet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 13. tammikuuta 2003 21:55 Aihe: LX at night. >Hello, > >I wanted to experiment with the low light capabilities of my recently >acquired LX, so last week I went out on a clear night and tried to >take photographs. The results were a little disappointing, and I'm >hoping that somebody will be able to explain why. > >I used the LX in 'automatic' mode with MLU, an SMC-M 28/2.8, tripod and >cable release, and XP2 Super rated at 200 ISO. > >When the scenes contained some artificial light, such as car headlamps, >streetlights, etc., the LX got the exposures just about right. e.g. >10 sec at f/8. I bracketed +/- 1 and 2 stops, and normally found that >the +1 or +2 images gave negatives that scanned fairly well. > >When I tried some much darker scenes, the results were less good. I >tried pointing the camera into a starlit field, fairly dark, but >trees, fences, etc., were quite easily visible to the eye. The LX chose >exposures of roughly 30 sec at f/5.6. Rather short, I think, compared >to some of the suggested exposure tables that I've seen, and sure enough, >the negatives are so badly underexposed as to be useless. > >I realise that it might be better to shoot at dusk rather than in near >complete darkness. One of my problems was that it was almost impossible >to compose shots in the dark, so even the photos that were properly >exposed weren't very good. :-) > >At the moment though, I'm curious about why the exposure seemed to be so >wrong with the starlit landscapes. The exposures that the LX was choosing >seemed to suggest that it was within the metering range described in the >user manual, yet the negatives are almost completely transparent. Is it >unrealistic to expect these sorts of shots to work in 'automatic'? I was >hoping that the LX's super-meter would take some of guesswork out of shots >like this. > >Thanks for any suggestions and advice, >Steve. >
