I liked my local "Ritz Camera 1 Hour" until recently. When they handed me
scratched negatives, I said, "Wow, I guess you're having processor trouble
today, eh?"
In an casual, off-hand, conversational tone, the woman said, "Yeah, it's
been doing that all day."
<!!!>
Then when I returned to redeem my free processing (sic) for a test roll with
the new-to-me OM-4, I asked her if the needed correction would be to correct
for blue or cyan, in her opinion.
"Oh, they're the same," she said.
"Whaaaat?"
"Yeah," she repeated confidently, "blue and cyan are the same."
I guess it's time to bite the bullet and go to pro labs, eh?
Lama
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Lloyd" <royer007@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] TOPE: Landscapes (or how not to use the 21/3.5)
I did have it processed at Ritz Camera 1hr. photo.
Looks like they might have made things worse. The
problem is that of all my pics of the pine trees I
do't have one that clearly shows the needles at all,
the glare from the snow destroyed all of the
sharpness. Therefore everything looks like blobs or
white.
Mark Lloyd
--- "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Mark,
> >I'm sure someone else has already spotted this and
> set you right but I'll
> >weigh in anyway.
> >
> >Portra 160 in full sunlight on snow, I'm thinking
> correct exposure is 1/320
> >@ f/16 for a front-lit subject.
>
> According to my referemces, this is correct . . .
> direct frontal lighting
> on bright snow or sand is a "sunny-22" rule due to
> increased land . . . er,
> ummm snowscape . . . reflectivity. Bracketing would
> make one at 1/250th
> and one at 1/500th, the closer of the two being
> 1/250th if only one is
> possible.
>
> I agree with someone a prior posting to examine the
> negatives under
> magnification. Printers, particularly with
> automagic machines that try to
> make everything average to 18 0ray, running on pure
> automagic mode, tend
> to blow out light sand and snow with print
> underexposure (from negatives;
> light makes negative film/print black).
>
> Additionally, most find it requires some experience
> working with focal
> lengths shorter than 24mm; the break point being
> about that length. The
> AOV becomes so wide that both visualization is more
> difficult (much
> different from normal human experience) and
> composition is more difficult
> (something of interest that can occupy a very large
> field of view). The
> usual problems are too much foreground "dead space"
> and/or objects present
> in middle or background that are distracting from
> the intended subject
> material.
>
> The "super-wide" perspectives of 21mm and shorter
> are not for
> everything. My test for this is a scan of the scene
> from top to bottom and
> left to right, looking for something of visual
> interest from very close to
> distant with emphasis on the very close. For a new
> super-wide user,
> specifically evaluating the close objects may seem a
> little
> upside-down. The perspective makes distant objects
> relatively smaller and
> closer objects relatively bigger than than the human
> eye sees them. The
> resulting image tends to emphasize and draw more
> attention to closer ones
> due to their relative size unless there's something
> to "pull" the eye
> elsewhere. YMMV as this is specific scene
> dependent.
>
> Don't give up on the super-wide; work with it and
> give yourself a chance to
> learn how to visualize for it. When it works well,
> the results are dramatic.
>
> -- John
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|