Moose wrote:
> Darin wrote:
>> Wayne Harridge wrote:
>>
>>>> Darin <d.rhein@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just thought I'd share the results of my first attempt at photographing
>>>> scorpion fluorescence.
>>> They look very good. What is the difference in technique between 81, 91
>>> & 111 ?
>>>
>>
>> Well, like I said, I didn't think to time the exposures and take notes.
>> So, my best guess is that 91 is the one frame where I desided to try
>> using the spot meter. All others I used Center-weighted metering.
>>
> They came out well. If the image numbers are any indication of the
> number of shots you took, I reiterate my suggestion of using a digital
> "meter"
>
Thanks Moose! No the image #'s don't reflect the number of shots taken, I
only took about 18 total between the two bodies. Photobucket removes decimal
points from file names, they should be 8.1, 9.1, and 11.1. Just my way of
easily telling the difference between the original scans and copies that
have been cropped, resized, or otherwise manipulated.
> I'm not suggesting going digital.
I'm not really opposed to going digital, I just can't afford it. ;^)
> Back in the olden days, many pros in
> commercial and portrait photography used polaroid backs to test the
> lighting and exposure before exposing the MF or LF film. The polaroids
> were just throw aways to ensure they got the goods. Somewhere, I've got
> one or two of me in a conference room with my then baby.
>
> Management decided to put my rear projection system on the cover of the
> annual report. So they had the honchos sitting at the conference room
> looking at a 6x7 foot rear projection screen while an analyst pointed at
> something of interest. Lighting was tricky, with dimmable overhead
> fluorescents directed down and the considerable light from the screen
> from the front. It took several polariods to get it right, and then the
> real shots were right on.
>
> Needless to say, the cover didn't use me, but the girl analyst.
>
> A technically obsolete, low MP camera with manual settings could do the
> same thing today for very little money and a lot of saved time and film.
>
> Moose
>
Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't thought of using an inexpensive digital
in that manor.
Darin
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|