it depends on the film, how many times do I have to say it??? i.e. TMAX 100 is faster than tri-x 400 at long time exposures. The camera cant be right for both.... If it was "right" with one film, it will be "wrong" with another... JCO
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:59 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX > > > I have to agree with Rob, I used to bracket by two stops on either side, > (exposure compensation ring on the LX), and before that timed exposures > with an MX. The un-compensated LX exposure is almost always the most > correct. > > At 11:21 PM 2/25/2003 +1000, you wrote: > >On 25 Feb 2003 at 3:21, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > > > Sory, but it's not my "theory", it's a FACT. The film reciprocal > > > error is not linear vs time, nor is it the same > > > for different film types. There is no way the > > > LX is "spot-on" using different films and different > > > exposure times once you go longer than 1 second. > > > >I wasn't disputing the phenomenon of film reciprocity but > indicating that > >given > >the circumstances in which you might allow an LX to auto expose > for several > >minutes, there is no such thing as a technically perfect > exposure and that > >9/10 > >exposures in very low light the LX produces usable shots. I know > as I've been > >using an LX this way since 1987 and I'm sure others here have too. > > > >Rob Studdert > >HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > >Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > >UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx >
