| Author |
Message |
    
Adrian
Tinkerer
Username: Adrian
Post Number: 104
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 05:05 am: | 
|
Hopefully I'm not the only one who uses their toys round here. I'm posting here rather than a specialist photographic forum, as I'm more likely to spot a reply somewhere I regularly lurk. If it's off-limits, if management would let it wait until I have seen an answer, then kill the thread it would be very much appreciated. Thanks!
It's the first shot taken with a wide-angle lens for my OM10, with the early morning sun to the left. I thought I was far enough from the sun to get away with it. Maybe I'm not, but I don't really understand why I've got the gradation from under- to over-exposed without there seeming to be an area roughly right in the middle. I'd also have expected more "starburst" or "rainbow" effects, based on previous experience shooting too close to the sun. The aperture stops down OK, and I later took some pics without any problems in more diffuse light.
Am I just trying to push the lens further than it should be pushed?
Adrian |
Puderse
Tinkerer
Username: Puderse
Post Number: 12
Registered: 09-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 07:09 am: |
|
How about an inconsistant FP shutter or "shutter Drag"? |
Adrian
Tinkerer
Username: Adrian
Post Number: 105
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 07:24 am: |
|
Possible, but if so it's odd that it's the first two pics with the wide-angle lens, rather than either of my other lenses, and only those two pics.
Adrian |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 89
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 07:32 pm: |
|
I think the difference is too gradual for shutter drag. Perhaps the contrast range is just too great for the film, but at a casual glance it looks as if the bulk of it is underexposed, with the bright side lightened by flare in addition to the direct brightness. |
Rj_
Tinkerer
Username: Rj_
Post Number: 67
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 03:56 am: |
|
Hi Adrian,
welcome to the forum. In many respects, this is a specialist forum (rather than a generic photographic forum). You're also in company with many here who do shoot images with their vintage cameras too.
With respect to your image, the dramatic light fall off is more characteristic of positive film shot with wide-angle lenses, particularly with polarised light. I'd support M_Currie's view that the film's latitude has been exceeded i.e. the scene is too contrasty for the imaging material, and requires either pull-processing, or compensation. The absence of any star-burst type effect is perhaps less a function of the lens, than the absence of a specular lightsource within your image. The flare can contribute to a reduction of shadow detail in dark areas, however perhaps had the composition been shifted towards the left of the image, then the star-burst effect would result.
Older vintage lenses, unlike the modern type of multi-coated lens of your example, show characteristic flare patterns,sometimes halo in effect with internal reflections. The star-burst response to shooting contre-jour lighting is more characteristic of multi-coated lenses.
Kind regards,
RJ |
Adrian
Tinkerer
Username: Adrian
Post Number: 106
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 07:29 am: |
|
Thanks for the help, everyone. It looks, then, as though I am pushing the capabilities of the lens too far. I'm mildly disappointed as one of the reasons I got it was to take pics of the moods of that meadow, but then it cost me less than two pints of beer so it's not the end of the world!
I shall just have to do something hitherto unheard of, and engage my brain before I engage my camera!
No shooting that close to the sun, and perhaps taking an exposure reading further from the sun and then going manual to force it to use a slower shutter speed than on "auto"? Anyway, I'm happy it's not some weird lens quirk so I'll play when time and weather allow.
RJ, thanks for the welcome. I had to smile - I'd love to know when any of us will become old members as, according to the dates, I've been here a year longer than you. It wasn't like this in my day, and all that...
Adrian |
Rj_
Tinkerer
Username: Rj_
Post Number: 68
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 06:57 pm: |
|
Hi Adrian,
Many of us were posting to the forum before 2005 (me too), however the rangefinderforum.com forum migrated servers and introduced a compulsory username registration, relegating some of us to the archives ;)
Back to the meadows scene:
If the imaging material used has a 7 stop contrast range (from left to right), one possibility could be to use a 0.6 Neutral Density graduated filter mounted horizontally in order to compensate for the lighting difference which presents a greater issue for the imaging material than the lens.
Modern contrasty multi-coated lenses like the Olympus lenses (corrected for rectilinear distortion, flare, coma, spherical abberation etc) are fantastic ;)
Pulling an ISO50 film to ISO 32 by 1/2 or ISO25 by 1 stop may be sufficient to preserve the contrast detail in the shadow area and highlights, preventing it from burning out.
Specular type flare (or flare of any kind can be hard to utilise). If you're interested, here's some flare from older vintage lenses:
http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Plaubel/Catalonia/Ancienne%20abbaye.htm
http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Plaubel/Et%20fin%20du%20journee.htm
(1930's Plaubel Anticomar 4-element uncoated lens) - notice the circular ghost flare.
http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/images/Ross/LB%20II.jpg
Notice the mist-type diffused blur on the upper right.
In contrast,
http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/images/Compostella/Magdaleine.jpg
The more specular type hexagonal aperture flare from a 40mm Zenzanon PS lens.
Or the absence of flare in a Rodenstock 180mm Sironar S:
http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/images/Polaroids/Crummock%20Water.jpg
Which seems to bear more resemblance to the imaging film limitations to your scene: it is imaged on the contrasty Polaroid Type 55 film.
One last note on slower shutter speeds than 'auto': unless your OM camera has a built-in spot meter, the meadow scene will just be 'averaged', with the balance of light and dark areas confusing the meter and setting an auto-setting which captures none of the mid-tonal detail. One way around this is to try bracketing (+/- 1/3, 2,3stops) although the bracketing technique would still only work if a less contrasty film (such as Provia 100, Sensia 100) was used.
Hope that helps!
Kind regards,
RJ |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 211
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 08:16 pm: |
|
Personally I think this has nothing to to with the latitude of the film used, rather the use of poor exposure measuring technique - compounded by lens flare.
The scene is basically a flat meadow, lit from the left. The only real contrast area in the foreground, is indicated by the water filled ditch. Even if your camera has a spot meter facility, spot readings of this scene using a wide-angle, will lead to poor results. Work out the exposure using a 100/135mm lens and the spot facility, or a decent spot meter. A few test exposures will allow you to ascertain the best lens/sun positioning to reduce the flare problem.
Make sure you have got the basics correct, before your start compounding the problem by bring in more variables ie film latitude. |
|
