Opinion on handheld Delta 3200 shot

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:


I seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the
subject. Looking at the floor in the lower right, and
assuming the scratches and dirt are on the floor and not
the neg, then the scratches closest to the photog are
sharp while the rest of the pic is fuzzy.


I noticed that. A bit odd. I was focusing on the marks on the floor by
their feet as that was something to focus on. Bit odd if I made the same
mistake in all the shots. Nothings particularly crisp.


If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of
alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that
normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror
isn't coming fully down [more likely].


Hmm, maybe technique - I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's
recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard) but before I took
hundreds of sharp slides with it.

Bit concerned that I 'snatch' the shutter release.



It's stage lighting, there isn't any detail in the shadows
because there isn't any light shining into the shadows. The
tone of the shadows on the dancers' faces and arms look OK,
but that maybe just because the scan is too light overall and
I can't see if there is any detail in the faces shadows because
of the focus problem.

The shadows were black, so adjusted the scan so they looked black to reduce
the obvious grain in that area.

Try:
http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/PetesDancers.jpg
See if you can get this sort of tonality when scanning.

There seems to be zip in the face shadows, but that
may be the scan.

The best way to have less grain is to make a smaller
print but most of the grain seems to be in badly scanned
shadows.

Yep - I think that is the safe bet here!



No. It's the light there is and there's no changing it.
It's too little exposure that's the problem.

General advice: More exposure, less development, better
focus.


But then I can't get the shutter speed!

Stage lighting is terribly contrasty and you really need
to pull the film to N-2 or so. D-23 as a developer can
be a good choice here because it doesn't blow the highlights.

Most people see black shadows and push the development -
this only makes things horribly worse. Develop for the
highlights & expose for the shadows is still valid.

Ok. But I would think here expose for the shadows on the face and don't
worry about the really black bits. OTOH, I could probally not blow out the
highlights if I had developed for longer!


Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on
certain cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

It would fill in the shadows and help quite a bit. But it should
only fill the shadows if you want the same 'look'. If this is a
stage performance there may be a lot of bitching with a flash, but if
Aunt Clara is there taking picks with her P&S then flash away.


Well, usually I'm taking snaps for myself at socials where its not an issue.
However, in this particular circumstance I could have got away with flask.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

JJ wrote:

The film performed adequately.

Camera shake, focus error and subject movement is what makes the images
soft.

Believe this - grainy images can be sharp, but everything has to be
right. I can post examples if you wish.


http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305221825.JPG

was of a static subject - could be sharper - but in this case might be the
scanner limiting.


Just ask.

If you could stick one up just for comparison I'd be grateful.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of
alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that
normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror
isn't coming fully down [more likely].

When tested using a flash gun the mirror appears to behave itself.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of
alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that
normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror
isn't coming fully down [more likely].

When tested using a flash gun the mirror appears to behave itself.

Ah ha, confused down with up, will check.
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Peter Chant" wrote
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
It seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the
subject.
If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of
alignment.

I have not used that camera for a while, perhaps it's
recently got a fault (unlikely as its sat in a cupboard)
but before I took hundreds of sharp slides with it.

Sounds like a good candidate for gummed up grease in the mirror
mechanism or some such.

Every time I have had a focus problem it has turned out
to be a problem with the camera. One or two OOF shots -
mea culpa, a whole bunch out of focus - it's been the
camera every time.

Easy to check: 1) Take a picture at infinity and make sure
infinity on the lens gives a sharp image in the finder and
on the film; 2) Lay a newspaper on the floor, draw a line
across it with a black marker and take a picture parallel
to the line and at a 45 degree angle to floor with lens wide
open - there should be as much in focus behind the line as
in front of the line.

Bit concerned that I 'snatch' the shutter release.

It doesn't look like camera shake.

Inhale, let your body go limp and squeeze the shutter
release on the exhale. You should be able to get sharp
pics at 1/30th with no problem and mostly sharp pics at
1/8th.

[If I pull any more I'll be at ASA 400]

If setting the meter at 400 is what it takes then 400
is what it takes. What ASA you set the meter at isn't the
film speed - it is what you have to set the meter to
to get a good picture. The _film_ has the same speed
no matter where the meter is set. The development you
use determines the highlight density but doesn't change
the film speed.

'Pulling' isn't really shooting the film at a lower ASA,
it is correcting the meter setting because an averaging
meter will make a balls up if the subject isn't of normal
contrast.

If you have a spot meter then meter the _darkest_ shadow on
the dancer's body and close down 2 stops with the meter set
at the film's rated speed. Then measure the lightest spot
- usually it's a white shirt or pants: if the reading is
1-2 stops over then all should be OK, if 2-3 stops over then
use ~20% less development, if 3-4 use ~40% less
development.

I don't know about Delta3200, but TMax-3200 is not ASA 3200
film but ASA 800 film. TMax exposed with the meter at
3200 and with normal contrast subjects results in the poorest
acceptable shadow density. If the subject is contrastier
than normal then there is _no_ shadow density. If spot
metering the shadows with TMax it is best to set the meter
to 800. You may want to try this with Delta as my guess
is the emulsions of the two films are pretty much the same.

If you don't have a spot meter then get a volunteer in a
white shirt to let you shove a handheld meter into the
shadows and highlights to take readings.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:

"Peter Chant" wrote

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

The scan is sharp enough, at least the dust and grain are
sharply imaged.

I seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the
subject. Looking at the floor in the lower right, and
assuming the scratches and dirt are on the floor and not
the neg, then the scratches closest to the photog are
sharp while the rest of the pic is fuzzy.

If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of
alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that
normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror
isn't coming fully down [more likely].

So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders?

Just kidding--sort of--but noting that you made the assumption that
Peter was using a SLR. A fairly safe assumption, but an assumption
nonetheless.


--
I can't remember where I read it, but in one of the non-official
histories of WP it was revealed that in some proto-version, straight
from the primordial soup, the encyclopedia was in fact to be written
by anyone, but with editorial oversight by People With A Clue. In this
story, it was written that none other than Jimbo Wales sat down and
got to work on some economic theory article or something ... and then,
if I remember this right, he started to get that unusual sensation one
gets while writing a test or doing homework or, in general, just plain
educating oneself. He though "Damn, someone is going to mark this!",
and Jimmy didn't like that. So instead he invented a system where the
TA's are less educated than he is. Bull**** baffles brains, and
intuitively he realized that the more BS, or the less brains, the
easier the job is. Thus Wikipedia, where as soon as you demonstrate you
are transcending the system, you are kicked out...

- An illuminating insight into the mess that is Wikipedia, from
Wikipedia Review (http://wikipediareview.com).

David Nebenzahl wrote:


So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders?

Just kidding--sort of--but noting that you made the assumption that
Peter was using a SLR. A fairly safe assumption, but an assumption
nonetheless.


Actually I was using both! The shots in question were from an SLR (ME
Super) but I also took some on a Yashica Electro 35. Waiting for the
films. I suspect I won't get much as there was probally not enough light
to work at 800ASA but we'll see.

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

David Nebenzahl wrote:
"Peter Chant" wrote
This shot was taken using an ME Super with
50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60.
So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders?
You assumed it was an SLR ....

????????????????????????

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
"Peter Chant" wrote
This shot was taken using an ME Super with
50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60.
So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders?
You assumed it was an SLR ....

????????????????????????

!

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

"Peter Chant" wrote

This shot was taken using an ME Super with
50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60.

So, Nick, are you prejudiced againt rangefinders?
You assumed it was an SLR ....

????????????????????????

Regardiung your comment about the mirror being locked up/down--remember?


--
I can't remember where I read it, but in one of the non-official
histories of WP it was revealed that in some proto-version, straight
from the primordial soup, the encyclopedia was in fact to be written
by anyone, but with editorial oversight by People With A Clue. In this
story, it was written that none other than Jimbo Wales sat down and
got to work on some economic theory article or something ... and then,
if I remember this right, he started to get that unusual sensation one
gets while writing a test or doing homework or, in general, just plain
educating oneself. He though "Damn, someone is going to mark this!",
and Jimmy didn't like that. So instead he invented a system where the
TA's are less educated than he is. Bull**** baffles brains, and
intuitively he realized that the more BS, or the less brains, the
easier the job is. Thus Wikipedia, where as soon as you demonstrate you
are transcending the system, you are kicked out...

- An illuminating insight into the mess that is Wikipedia, from
Wikipedia Review (http://wikipediareview.com).