Ken Durling wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:57:17 +0300 (EET DST), you wrote:
>
> >It's a common problem... well there was a real problem like that, and then
> >maybe some feel that the evaluative metering just underexposes a bit.
>
> Very interesting., I just received some shots back from "gold"
> printing, taken with the Elan 7, and there was a note from the lab
> saying "underexposed, lacks detail in shadow area." It was admittedly
> a high contrast situation - some Elk standing against the sky, and the
> shadow areas were under their bellies and in the crevices of their
> "armpits."
It sounds like you were shooting a dark subject against a bright background. In
such a case the meter is probably going to want to bring down the brightness of
the background somewhat (more toward 18% reflectance), which is, of course,
going to underexpose your elk. It's not unlike shooting in snow--if you want any
detail in your trees (or whatever), you're going to have to open up about one
stop (even with the evaluative metering of the 7 or the 3). Your instinct to
increase exposure in this particular situation was probably correct. An
alternative to adding exposure compensation is to find a part of the scene in
which the bright area--in this case the sky--doesn't appear and meter that,
using exposure lock. Then recompose and shoot.
If you're having difficulty developing a feel for exposure adjustments, you
might try auto-bracketing for a while, so that you can examine the results of
the different exposures (with an unusually bright scene like snow, it's probably
useful to dial in a stop of extra exposure first, so that +1 is the base
exposure). As Karen suggests, it is easier to evaluate exposure using slide film
(it isn't necessary to use the most expensive film on the shelf), but you can
also see underexposure in machine prints: underexposed negs print flat, with
little contrast and exaggerated grain. The prints look faded, or as if the paper
didn't get enough light. This is because the printing machine essentially
underexposes the paper in attempting to get a useable image out of the
underexposed negative. If you took that neg back for a reprint, more exposure
for the paper would just cause the darker areas to go black, while less exposure
would probably increase the washed-out look, rather than decreasing it.
In the opposite case--say you were photographing a dark-colored horse close
up--you would need to decrease exposure, since the meter would attempt to render
the horse as an 18%-reflectance (reflectance--not gray!) subject, and the horse
would come out too light in the photo.
> I *am* noticing that on a somewhat intuitive level, with lots of film
> going through the camera and watching the results, that in other than
> really bright situations, my left thumb is more often than not wanting
> to creep the exposure compensation up a 1/2 or a whole stop.
It is nearly impossible to say much of use without seeing your prints and negs,
and knowing what results you're trying to achieve; but as a general rule color
negative film is much more tolerant of overexposure than of underexposure. It
may be that with your particular lab and the paper they use, a bit of
overexposure helps get you the results you want. If you are overexposing your
film some, you're probably still getting satisfactory prints. But if you
underexpose, you probably won't be so happy with the results.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
