Opinion on handheld Delta 3200 shot

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Peter Chant spake thus:

BTW - low light MF with a TLR - are you insane! Just noticing from
experience that MF seems to need more light and 35mm.

Why on earth would you think that? Same film = same exposure; doesn't
matter what size the frame.

I hope this came across correctly - I was mearly being humorous - may not
have come across that way, if so I apologise.

Take your point re exposure - however, lenses tend to be slower than 35mm.

I hope that clears it all up - no offence intended.


Maybe you're thinking of the smaller f-stops needed with larger formats
for the same depth of field.

Well, I was not but good point. A very noticeable difference from 35mm to
6x6 in my (limited) experience.

Pete

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

On Mar 21, 7:50 pm, Peter Chant wrote:
Peter Chant wrote:
Like them - they came out nice. How light was it in there? I ought to
make up a chart of EVs people have sucessfully used Delta 3200 and compare
it to my experience.

OK, from my calculations:

Serial Name 1/Time f.stop ASA EV Comment
1 Sunny 16 100 16 100 14.64 As a check, (15)
2 Peter Chant 30 1.7 1600 2.44 Grainy, underexposed
3 Peter Chant 60 1.7 1600 3.44 Grainy, underexposed
4 Peter Chant 30 2.8 3200 2.88 Grainy, underexposed
5 Dave the Guy 60 8 3200 6.91 OK

Best viewed in a fixed width font. Also I don't think ev values are that
exact a science - round to the nearest half.

Need to add in a few more examples. Looks like I am working rather in the
dark, 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 stops below Dave the Guy, assuming all of our
exposures were metered correctly. There's the rub, if my negs are too thin
and are processed correctly then my exposures are out...

Pete

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

Makes sense. I underexposed half the roll, bracketing my f8 with f11
and one or two with f16. The f11 frames were darker while the f16
shots definitely looked underexposed although ultimately usable with
some scanner/photoshop fiddling.

By the way, if you were using 35mm with those dancer shots, we're
comparing apples and oranges. The grain on my 6x6 negs are bound to
be less noticeable. Don't be so hard on yourself!

Dave the Guy wrote:

Hey, thanks! Very dark in there (as usual in most venues) with only a
few spotlights for the band and those weak bulbs lighted around the
stage. This was the first time I got a decent shot of the crowd at
any show, with or without a flash, thanks to the D3200. The flash I
was using, by the way is an el cheapo Vivitar 2800 without any
diffuser. ISO400 just doesn't cut it for wide shots like this for my
cheap gear.


Ah ha. I must admit I did not read your post carefully enough. I think I
ought to build up some flash skills. I've cut my pc cable in half and
extended it with some bell wire and spotted an interesting website.
http://strobist.blogspot.com/. Quite bold use of flash there! Suspect on
camera really was the only practical option in the circumstances of your
photos and also the situation I was in.


I've moved from 35mm to MF about 1.5years ago and haven't noticed any
difference really. I was used to using 50/1.4 supertaks and other
fast lenses and thought how slow the 80/3.5 yashinon was, but now I
don't go under f5.6. I actually wanted the C330, but I'm pretty happy
with the mat 124. It was ship shape when I got it save for the ugly
lens (arguably grounds for dismissal, I know).


I've probally been using MF for the same amount of time. Spend too long on
usenet and not enough taking photos! Wanted to give it a go as I was well
aware of the difference between MF and 35mm prints from colour neg. Just
really like getting fantastic looking prints from 400 ASA film. Alternate
between 35mm compact (GR1v) and a Yashica Electro. Depends on circumstance
as the C330 is relatively slow to work with especially as you do need to
meter separately. Probally just want a change from 35mm SLRs for a while.

Can't beat it for nice prints. If I had nothing better to do and money was
no object I'd probally spend all day making large prints. BTW - a bit of
heresy - I'm scanning and digital printing - though the urge to make some
quick and dirty 8x10s on the enlarger is growing...

Pete

C330s have changeable backs?

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

Dave the Guy wrote:

By the way, if you were using 35mm with those dancer shots, we're
comparing apples and oranges. The grain on my 6x6 negs are bound to
be less noticeable. Don't be so hard on yourself!

Oh yes, appreciate that. Shot some pictures at another venue with C330 on
mini tripod on the floor with Provia 400 pushed to 800. Worked reasonably
well. Unfortunately fluorescent lighting although brighter means a little
bit of digital adjustment is required. Nothing really 'pops' out from the
transparencies - except one. A fortuitous accident. My friend's (on the
other side of the room) flash fired at the same moment I was taking a
photo. A little overexposed (burnt out highlights) but apart from that it
was a lovely shot. Background a little cluttered - but can't do too much
about that.

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070308224903.jpg

The trick is now, to be able to take these short of shots intentionally and
repeatably. :-)

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

Isn't that all we can hope for though, for the one frame within
countless dozens that we can be really proud of?


On Mar 21, 8:53 pm, Peter Chant wrote:
Dave the Guy wrote:
By the way, if you were using 35mm with those dancer shots, we're
comparing apples and oranges. The grain on my 6x6 negs are bound to
be less noticeable. Don't be so hard on yourself!

Oh yes, appreciate that. Shot some pictures at another venue with C330 on
mini tripod on the floor with Provia 400 pushed to 800. Worked reasonably
well. Unfortunately fluorescent lighting although brighter means a little
bit of digital adjustment is required. Nothing really 'pops' out from the
transparencies - except one. A fortuitous accident. My friend's (on the
other side of the room) flash fired at the same moment I was taking a
photo. A little overexposed (burnt out highlights) but apart from that it
was a lovely shot. Background a little cluttered - but can't do too much
about that.

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070308224903.jpg

The trick is now, to be able to take these short of shots intentionally and
repeatably. :-)

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

Dave the Guy wrote:

Isn't that all we can hope for though, for the one frame within
countless dozens that we can be really proud of?

Well, yes, I suppose. Just like to try and work on the hit rate!

Pete

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

Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band
photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the
players in the head?

They did it here a few years ago. Too bad it isn't more frequent.

http://www.nasta.ws/Alrosa.htm


I'll take band photos over a bunch crap like you gave a link to. Don't you
think the world has enough violence? Why in the world did you think it
necessary to bring it into a darkoom discussion? Don't you get enough of it
in the daily news on the internet, television and newspapers? Besides, it
wasn't even photography related. Where's the photos? Where's the comments
about color and film grain? Come on, stick to the topic.

By the way, I thought the band pictures were pretty good.

nathantw spake thus:

Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band
photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the
players in the head?

They did it here a few years ago. Too bad it isn't more frequent.

http://www.nasta.ws/Alrosa.htm

I'll take band photos over a bunch crap like you gave a link to. Don't you
think the world has enough violence? Why in the world did you think it
necessary to bring it into a darkoom discussion? Don't you get enough of it
in the daily news on the internet, television and newspapers? Besides, it
wasn't even photography related. Where's the photos? Where's the comments
about color and film grain? Come on, stick to the topic.

By the way, I thought the band pictures were pretty good.

No need to get worked up he the only pictures Mike (Michael
Scarpitti, aka Uranium Committee aka UC) likes are his crappy ones of
"waffle boys" and such.


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

On Apr 3, 7:18 am, "nathantw" wrote:
Just what the world needs: more stupid bands and more stupid band
photos. Why doesn't someone do something about this? Like, shoot the
players in the head?

They did it here a few years ago. Too bad it isn't more frequent.

http://www.nasta.ws/Alrosa.htm

I'll take band photos over a bunch crap like you gave a link to. Don't you
think the world has enough violence? Why in the world did you think it
necessary to bring it into a darkoom discussion? Don't you get enough of it
in the daily news on the internet, television and newspapers? Besides, it
wasn't even photography related. Where's the photos? Where's the comments
about color and film grain? Come on, stick to the topic.


Because I'm sick and tired, in fact nauseated, by popular culture and
rock 'bands'. Bands that are so bad and so full of themselves that
they make me want to puke. Too bad more of them don't get blown away.
They're scum. Always were and always will be. Grateful Dead? Please,
they all should be put to death for incompetence and arrogance.

Even when I was in college in the late 60s and early 70s, I hated that
crap. Today's bands are even less talented than the crappy bands that
were around then, if that is possible. A band makes a few good records
then the drugs and alcohol take over, and they destroy their brains.
Might as well kill the rest of them too.