Mamiya RB67 Pro SD - an Amateur's Diary

I think you are on to it there Pete ... Those sky's do look a little white in places

have you checked the meter against your x100
 
Yes, Joan gave me a fairly lengthy email (I didn't have time to phone, so just sent her a quick email asking for advice) including screen shots explaining exposure and image sizes. What a star!

Thanks Pete and Hamish for your continued support.

I think it's fairly obvious that I underexposed these two films, but I've learned from it (I hope) and will be reading up on all the sources mentioned, but more crucially spending more time trying things out.

Here's one area of confusion...

When I looked at the first image I included here (the trees, river, etc) in Finder on my iMac, it said the image was 2MB - which I wasn't impressed with. After I edited it in Nik, and hit Save As, the resultant file had moved up to 4MD or there abouts. So, I uploaded it to Flickr. OK so far...

Then Joan pointed out that the saved figure was not the real size, and I should look under Image Size in Elements. The same saved edited image shows up as 21.1 MB. I even downloaded the one on the Flickr page to test it - and it also showed up as 21.1MB.

Now I'm confused. If I save an image and it tells me it is 4MB, why can it still be 21MBs????

- - - Updated - - -

And another thing! :rolleyes:

I made the sepia-ish version into my Desktop image, full screen, and it looks MUCH better. All my students today said, "Wow, that looks stunning!" or words to that effect. I realised I had been over-worrying about technicalities, literally forgetting the bigger picture. These guys all think it the best photo I've taken.

So there! :p

So, here it is again, faults and all :cool:


Crammond2a by RobMacKillop, on Flickr
 
It is a nice pic Rob! Bleak! I like bleak ... Watch them horizons though ... Darren will lend you his corrective shoes if you ask him nicely ;)
 
Bleak for me too. And there looks to be tons of fine detail in the trees on the other bank and the gradation of tones is very nice. Under exposing has reduced the contrast which suits this image well.

Not sure what is going on with the file size. What is the file type? TIFF?
 
Joan did it, Hamish, and I asked for the Pro CD. I'll phone her later today to ask about the contrast, and recommendations, etc. The CD came with low, medium and high res images.

Rob - assume Joan has saved files as JPEGs for you? - so file size could be around 1-2Mb for a high res scan

If you open one in Photoshop, what is the image size in pixels? That's the key metric.

My 6x9 image 'enhanced' scans come in at around 7139 x 4903 pixels - and are 1-2 MB on the CD.

When I open them into Photoshop as a 16 Bit Image, Photoshop generates a 100-200 MB PSD file.


Might be worth shooting a test roll of color film - all of the same scene

Set up the camera on a tripod and shoot a roll with a range of exposures - starting with the meter reading exposure, and then doing one stop variations up and down giving you a range of exposures +/-

Make notes of which is which so you can review when they come back from scanning.

Take a shot of the scene with a digital camera set to the same exposure as the meter, just for ref.

When you get the scans back - review and see if there's a difference between the metered reading and the best looking exposure. You may have been under exposing the film - or your meter may be off - or the camera exposure may be offset from the meter - or you may have set the ASA wrong etc etc.

Slide film will show the exposure differences more clearly, as it's far more critical of 'correct' exposure - A good excuse to throw a roll of Fuji Velvia through the camera :)


Regarding the B&W - I like to fit a Yellow filter when shooting B&W, as this produces more punchy images. The filter is less punchy than a RED filter, which produces black skies etc - but Yellow is enough to make a nice difference. The filters are cheap as no-one uses them these days - Hoya or such like on Amazon or EBAY - I use the K2 Yellow (There are variations in the color of Yellow)

Here's what Ilford have to say about using a Yellow filter: ILFORD PHOTO - Yellow Filter

This also leads me to a 'trick' that you might want to try when using a Yellow filter.

The Yellow filter reduces the light hitting the film, so in theory you need to offset your hand-held light meter by a stop or so to compensate for this. (Through the lens metering would see the yellow filter and adjust itself)

However... I have had good results leaving the hand-held meter as is, and shooting with the filter on - so technically I am underexposing the film to a small extent.

Worth a trial to see if you like the effect of the Yellow filter, and then the effect of the un-compensated metering vs compensated metering.

Personally I love shooting Ilford PanF (50 ASA) as the grain is insanely small - but it does require sunlight and/or tripod as exposure times can get long with small aperture settings.
 
Thanks Chris, not just for the info, but for caring and taking the time. I do appreciate it.

Yes, Joan gave me three resolutions, the highest for the first photo showed up as 3.2MB. In Elements the size reads as 21.1MB and 3035 x 2432 pixels, 72pixels per inch.

How do you open it as a 16 bit image? Mine automatically opens as 8 bit. And your file sizes are 100 to 200 MBs? As a PSD file, mine is 22MB.

I have ordered some other film types - 125 FP4, Pan F, even Delta 3200! I will eventually be developing them myself - so much to learn!

Good advice re the multiple exposures of one image. And I will take notes! Today I spent more time at the local Victorian graveyard, and took notes for each shot, while using the light meter. So, I'm hoping this next batch are better exposed. I'll send them off soon, as they are colour. I plan to self-develop the B&W film.

Will certainly get a yellow filter in time - it's all happening so fast.

Thanks again.
 
Back
Top