Hi Bob,
Sorry for the incomplete post, as a newbie (my ZX-5n hasn't had its first
birthday yet), I'm still working on the nomenclature (much less fun than
working on my photos).
With the ME Super's mode dial set to "AUTO", film speed dial on "400", and
lens aperture on 2, I aimed at the house. The viewfinder read "OVER" and I
rotated the aperture ring on the lens (an A 50/2) until "2000" was lit up
(which was at ~f/4) and took the first shot of the series. I continued
rotating the aperture ring on the lens and shooting at an indicated "1000",
"500", etc..
The scans are flatbed scans of machine prints (and the negatives match the
prints pretty much, by my inspection). The minilab I take my print film to
just runs the negatives through the printer-they don't override the
machines judgement (codes on the back of the prints are "NNNNN" which, I
think, means they just run it straight through). Slides would give me a
better indicator of exposure accuracy, but I'd have to wait 2 weeks to find
out if the body had any problems, hence my choice of print film (plus,
print film is what I normally shoot, anyway).
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I'm confused. I understand the exposure information for the first shot
>(1/2000th @ f/4). Moving down in one stop increments is confusing. By down,
>do you mean that the diaphragm was set for one stop less light as in f/5.6?,
>or what. I'm assuming the camera was not set on automatic.
>
>You say you used a print film (a very poor choice for exposure comparisons).
>That aside, on a sunny day, an approximate exposure of about 1/500th at f/16
>(or 1/2000th at f/8) might be expected, more exposure for the shadow sides.
>Your first shot is 2 stops more exposure, and I would expect it to be
>adequate with print film.
>
>Normally, the machinery of print making adjusts for variances in exposure. I
>am at a loss to understand how you had any real variance in average
>brightness, regardless of exposure. I would expect the various attempts at
>printing to simply show less contrast, more grain, more muddiness, less
>detail. Note: in lieu of testimony, I am assuming that the scans are from
>prints, not negatives.
>
>Insufficient information to properly evaluate...
>
>Regards,
>Bob...
>--------------------------------------
>"Those who say that life is worth living at any cost
>have already written an epitaph of infamy,
>for there is no cause and no person
>that they will not betray to stay alive."
>Sidney Hook
>
>From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> ............................................ This one is exhibiting more
>baffling behavior.
>> Any help diagnosing the cause is appreciated. Scans of the test roll are
>> here:
>>
>> http://dscott.home.texas.net/ME%20Super/ME_Super_2/me_super_2.html
>
>
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
