Canon ae-1/at-1 metering

Ben johns said:
I have been thinking about this, it might be a good idea to stay with digital in the light that I got in the photos I put up
Click to expand...

Ben, don't give up on film just yet. It is a learning curve and it is sometimes a steep one, but in the long run it is worth it. I went back to shooting film a few years ago when I found myself becoming bored with firing off hundreds of digital shots to get one keeper and I think my photography has improved because of it. I still shoot digital, as do a lot of filmies, but the whole process of shooting film is a much more satisfying thing especially if you follow the whole thing through by developing your own.
Film has great latitude and you can definitely use it in difficult lighting situations. I took these in a very dark room using 100 speed film and a 60 year Voigtlander Vitomatic camera last year.

Spinning-Jenny2 by Andy, on Flickr
The-Managers-Office by Andy, on Flickr

The second shot was particularly tricky but there is still more detail to be had from the shadow areas but I liked it this way more.

Andy
 
Eloise said:
One thought if you are new to film photography ... maybe worth to try looking in charity book shops for old photography books from the time before digital. Pretty sure there is usually a few when I look around here.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that Post #37 might just have been invisible? :LOL: Never mind, at least we're singing the same song, even if it is in different rooms! :D
 
Mr Badger said:
I'm not sure, but I get the impression that Post #37 might just have been invisible? :LOL: Never mind, at least we're singing the same song, even if it is in different rooms! :D
Click to expand...
Well it just shows great minds think alike ... even if they don't always read all of other people's posts. :)
 
Ben johns said:
I got back just the negatives and hi res scans from ilford
Click to expand...
Ben - have you posted the scans without adjustment (except for resizing)? But how are the negatives? How do they compare with the scans? I mean for tonal range and information? If the negs are good and the scans are crap then it's the scanning that's to blame.
 
Eloise said:
Well it just shows great minds think alike ... even if they don't always read all of other people's posts. :)
Click to expand...

:LOL: Teasing aside, I don't know if you've found a copy of 'The 35mm Photographer's Handbook' in a charity shop yet, but I don't think it's a bad one for a newcomer to film to start with (I don't know what you think of it if you've got a copy?) and it certainly seemed to sell a lot of copies back in the day? I bought my copy new from the local newsagents more years ago than I wish to remember! :whistle: You see, if you wait long enough things come back into fashion... now where did I put those A-line flares and Afghan?
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
:LOL: Teasing aside, I don't know if you've found a copy of 'The 35mm Photographer's Handbook' in a charity shop yet, but I don't think it's a bad one for a newcomer to film to start with (I don't know what you think of it if you've got a copy?) and it certainly seemed to sell a lot of copies back in the day? I bought my copy new from the local newsagents more years ago than I wish to remember! :whistle: You see, if you wait long enough things come back into fashion... now where did I put those A-line flares and Afghan?
Click to expand...
It was more a general comment than any specific book recommendations ... I have a number of books still from late 80s - early 90s period. I'm bad (or is that good) at throwing things like books out!
 
droj said:
Ben - have you posted the scans without adjustment (except for resizing)? But how are the negatives? How do they compare with the scans? I mean for tonal range and information? If the negs are good and the scans are crap then it's the scanning that's to blame.
Click to expand...
I haven't had the negatives back yet, just got an email with the scans. I've got my own scanner so I will be doing some adjustments when I get them, hopefully today or tomorrow.
 
Ben johns said:
I haven't had the negatives back yet, just got an email with the scans. I've got my own scanner so I will be doing some adjustments when I get them, hopefully today or tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Remember if you have Photoshop you can bring up the shadows more but will depend what's on the neg as it can't work miracles if the shadow areas are not there.
 
Andysnap said:
Ben, don't give up on film just yet. It is a learning curve and it is sometimes a steep one, but in the long run it is worth it. I went back to shooting film a few years ago when I found myself becoming bored with firing off hundreds of digital shots to get one keeper and I think my photography has improved because of it. I still shoot digital, as do a lot of filmies, but the whole process of shooting film is a much more satisfying thing especially if you follow the whole thing through by developing your own.
Film has great latitude and you can definitely use it in difficult lighting situations. I took these in a very dark room using 100 speed film and a 60 year Voigtlander Vitomatic camera last year.

Spinning-Jenny2 by Andy, on Flickr
The-Managers-Office by Andy, on Flickr

The second shot was particularly tricky but there is still more detail to be had from the shadow areas but I liked it this way more.

Andy
Click to expand...
No I'm not giving up on it, I prefer it to digital in a lot of ways, getting a good photo feels a lot more satisfying, I just need to sort out the metering and exposure
 
How would the sunny 16 rule apply to low light inside? Is it just that once you understand and can apply sunny 16 you can tell what most light should be exposed as using sunny 16 a base?
 
H'mm why bother with sunny 16 when there are few cameras they don't have a light meter......if you are say in a low light room with people pick something grey for an exposure reading, if you are lucky a person might be wearing a grey suit or woman light green dress or darker blue dress. If everybody is wearing black then you take a light reading and reduce a couple of stops....I've just drawn the curtains and taken a reading of a grey card which was 1/4 sec @ f2.8 for 200 ISO took the card away and took a reading of something black and it was 1 sec @ f2.8. Some principle for taking a shot of a black person's face, but a white person with a suntan is just about right..a person with a white face would give the wrong reading, well if you take a reading from your sunburned hand (assuming you are a white person) that would do as it's roughly the same as a grey card.
Out shooting:- grey pavement, green grass or shrubs, deep blue sky, are all roughly equivalent of a grey card....and general shooting outside most things are roughly in the tolerance of the grey card zone and that's why all your shots come out nice.....it's just the tricky shots like snow, things in shadows, night shots and so on that are harder to get spot on. Another tricky shot that you might encounter is a fairly distanced bridge and the sky is white behind the bridge and also the river is reflecting the white sky, so what do you do? Well what worked for me is taking a reading from grey pavement nearby (in the same light) and the shot came out ok.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
H'mm why bother with sunny 16 when there are few cameras they don't have a light meter......if you are say in a low light room with people pick something grey for an exposure reading, if you are lucky a person might be wearing a grey suit or woman light green dress or darker blue dress. If everybody is wearing black then you take a light reading and open a couple of stops....I've just drawn the curtains and taken a reading of a grey card which was 1/4 sec @ f2.8 for 200 ISO took the card away and took a reading of something black and it was 1 sec @ f2.8. Some principle for taking a shot of a black person's face, but a white person with a suntan is just about right..a person with a white face would give the wrong reading, well if you take a reading from your sunburned hand (assuming you are a white person) that would do as it's roughly the same as a grey card.
Out shooting:- grey pavement, green grass or shrubs, deep blue sky, are all roughly equivalent of a grey card....and general shooting outside most things are roughly in the tolerance of the grey card zone and that's why all your shots come out nice.....it's just the tricky shots like snow, things in shadows, night shots and so on that are harder to get spot on.
Click to expand...
So having a grey card in my bag might not be a bad idea too.
 
I rely on the palm of my hand - meter that in the same lighting as the subject and open up one stop. No grey card to carry as I usually take my hands with me everywhere:D
 
Ben johns said:
So having a grey card in my bag might not be a bad idea too.
Click to expand...

Well it's a bit inconvenient as it's a stiff card 10 X 8", and I've never got around to using a bit of paper rolled up of say grey, green, blue etc colour ;) away from home it might be easier to use incident light readings but like using the grey card you have to use it at the same angle of the subject i.e. upright for the person standing up or lying down put the card horizontal, but as mentioned reflected light reading are just a good if you know how to adjust the exposure for the subject. Anyway the tolerance of neg film is so good you can get away without being spot on with exposure...praise the lord for that as I rarely use the grey card or incident exposure meters :D
 
I seem to recall somewhere offering grey cloths, a bit like a hanky which was 18% grey and of course could be folded and placed in a small pocket.
It's a while since so perhaps no longer available.

However as Stephen says, the palm of your hand, assuming it's not grimed in coal dust will work perfectl well

Just remember to remove those bright pink mits in winter time:D
 
I suppose I could add that my handkerchiefs are normally white ones, and I always try to have at least one unused one in my pocket - preferably two, as my nose is so good at running that I could enter it in the Olympics. Why mention this extraneous personal detail? Because white reflects more light than grey, and metering from a white handkerchief can give you a reading when other methods fail.

The interior of Holy Trinity Church in York is so dark that my Sekonic meter wouldn't register on the fabric, but a reading could be obtained from my white handkerchief.

It's a useful trick to fall back on at times. I'll leave how much to open up as an exercise, not least as it will depend on your handkerchiefs. I suppose if you use washing powders with optical brighteners (which convert UV to visible light) you may get an even bigger hand(kerchief) up.
 
StephenM said:
The interior of Holy Trinity Church in York is so dark that my Sekonic meter wouldn't register on the fabric, but a reading could be obtained from my white handkerchief.
Click to expand...

Ah you need a Canon T90 as I've just taken a reading off a grey card in a dark place and it was 10 secs @ f3.5- 200 ISO :D
 
Asha said:
So you didn't manage to lose that T90 whilst n the dark depths then??


Shame! :exit::D
Click to expand...

Actually it's quite good as the shutter speed and f stop are lit up in the viewfinder...so many cameras have meters they are useless for seeing in low light esp ones with needles..I tried to take a reading in low light with my OM2 and couldn't see a thing so put it on auto and it cocked up the shot (as posted)
 
Asha said:
What are?......T90s or Brians:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Definitely T90s, I can speak from experience there as I used to have 2 of them at one time (I sold most of my Canon FD kit just before digital SLRs really took off and ruined the resale value!). I've not seen the Brian in question, so can't comment there.. besides if he's any bigger than I am I don't want to go upsetting him! ;)
 
Mr Badger said:
Definitely T90s, I can speak from experience there as I used to have 2 of them at one time (I sold most of my Canon FD kit just before digital SLRs really took off and ruined the resale value!). I've not seen the Brian in question, so can't comment there.. besides if he's any bigger than I am I don't want to go upsetting him! ;)
Click to expand...

Nah I just annoy everyone by talking loud cos I think everyone is deaf like me...true ask my wife :eek:
 
excalibur2 said:
Nah I just annoy everyone by talking loud cos I think everyone is deaf like me...true ask my wife :eek:
Click to expand...

Don't be daft Brian... that's not the only reason you annoy everyone. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top