> Ken Durling wrote:
>
> > I don't know how many of you shoot black & white,
> but it's an interest
> > of mine, and I just got back my first couple of
> rolls from the lab.
> > Not a drugstore lab, but my local camera shop's. .
> . .
> >
> > I'd say in general over-exposed. As much as 2 or
> > 3 stops in some cases, particularly where's
> there's sky in the shot
> > and I probably was careless what surface I metered
> from. For the most
> > part I was using aperture-priority and evaluative
> metering. That last
> > may have been my mistake - perhaps it's better for
> color, and I should
> > use partial metering.
My first question is WHAT was overexposed. The prints
or the negatives? If the negatives are very, very
dark, then it may well be a camera/metering issue.
But if you're basing your judgement on the prints,
then there's no way to tell what might be wrong.
You say "when there's sky in the shot." Do you mean
the SKY is overexposed, or the entire print is? If
it's just the sky, then you've encountered a classic
B&W situation. A blue sky, on most B&W film, will
look much lighter than it seems to your eye. To get
dark skies shoot with a yellow (slightly darker),
orange (moderately dark) or red (very dramatic,
especially when there are cloulds to give strong
contrast).
If none of this information is useful, then please
give us a little more detail about the problem.
=====
Bob Meyer
Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
