At 02:39 PM 6/26/04, Wayne Culberson wrote:
>Thanks John for the answer and url's. I, for one, have been missing your
>posts, as they are always so thorough, and easy to understand. (as also in
>your recent one on color filters for B&W for example)
Ummm, uh, gee, thanks.
>I rarely ever shoot the OM2s in program mode.
[sordid tale of using OM2S in program mode snipped out]
Wayne,
Sorry that event didn't work out for you but am very glad the other one for
which they were relying on you did work.
I don't use Program Mode either. I don't like not being able to exert some
control . . . to set aperture directly where I want it or indirectly push
shutter speed where I want it by adjusting aperture. I use the OM-2S for
weddings in aperture priority AE and have never had a problem. That said,
I also use a flash for everything at weddings . . . even the outdoor
portraiture I try to do at daytime weddings (if there's a suitable spot
outside) . . . of bride and groom, individually and together. Outside,
flash is used as fill by stopping down until the shutter speed shows about
halfway between 1/30th and 1/60th. Flash in Program mode on the OM-2S is
not recommended at all . . . supposedly doesn't work well. Even without
flash, I've never used the Program mode and likely never will.
A thought comes to mind about the wedding pix that didn't work. Did you
look at the negatives? What was their density compared to others from
which you've gotten good prints? Underexposed would look comparatively
"thin." It wouldn't be the first time an inexperienced printer (or worse,
one that doesn't care) has punched in too much print density to make a
print average 18% gray when it's got significant regions of white wedding
dress.
Portra NC has very wide latitude, and VC has nearly as much if not the same
(the new UC is another story). In having some larger prints made from it
I've noticed that it's wider than consumer print materials, which seem to
have more saturation compared to a couple years ago (also makes them
contrastier), and it's wider than many professional print materials. If
you still have the negs and haven't looked closely at them, you might pull
the out when you have some spare time and examine them with a loupe. If
you've got sufficient detail in both highlight and shadow regions that
*should* have detail in them there's no problem with the negatives, it's
the printer.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|