Still-Life Vase - exposure discussion

[Rob MacKillop]

Just got back some exposures using the Nikon F4, with the 85mm 1.4 Nikon lens. I took a number of shots of this vase at different settings, some manual, some aperture priority. Generally almost all the shots are exposed to the right, one or two almost overexposed. Since taking these I bought a yellow filter, so we shall see what difference that makes. All XP2 at 400 ASA.

The first two are the same exposure. The second version has been put through Nik Silver Low Key 2, and cropped. I did this out of curiosity, to see what detail there was in the parts that are almost overexposed - it turns out there is a lot of detail. F5.6.








These two are at Aperture Priority F1.4




Again, Low Key 2 in Auld Nik:




This last is a manual exposure: F8 1/4". I'm not far away from what the camera was doing in Ap Priority.




Overall, I feel they are exposed too far to the right, so either the yellow filter will sort that out, or I'll be using -1 or -2 EV. They were developed by Ilford at some expense, almost twice what I pay Boots The Chemist, but the quality is on a much higher level. Boots jpgs are around 900kb to 1MB. The Ilford lot are averaging 8 to 9MB.

Thoughts?

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Rob personally as the main subject is the wooden vase, where the second pic shows a decent exposure to play with, I'd then light the darker areas with lighting, which when measured would bring it into the dynamic range of the film . Or change the cloth or cushion surrounding the vase to a lighter colour. But others here have far more experience than me with this.
But simply put if the dynamic range is to great no attempt at shooting at any aperture or shutter speed is going to give you a good exposure, in some situations.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Understood. I was going for contrast, but I get your point fully. Thanks, Julian.

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Understood. I was going for contrast, but I get your point fully. Thanks, Julian.

Rob I was here the other day it may well be of interest to you, I found all quite informative about changing the quality outcomes of XP2.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/8-pentax-film-slr-discussion/122816-ilford-xp2-tips.html

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Interesting read. For still life, I might try 200. I have five rolls left, but I also got five rolls of Delta 400. I found the Ilford factsheet for XP2 interesting, so will search for their Delta 400 version.

I'm enjoying this, and making notes of all my exposure settings - something I was too lazy to do before. Hopefully I'll learn something (for once).

 

[Rob MacKillop]

A cleaned-up version...

​

https://flic.kr/p/qqNN3h

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Looking good Rob . Nothing better than finding your own little twist on something and pursuing that.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Julian.

 

[Brian Moore]

I like #2 and also the "cleaned up version" Rob. Also, as a former wood turner I'm appreciating the vase.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Brian. I remember turning wood at school, and how impossible it seemed to do well, so I appreciate it from that perspective also. I remember you saying before, maybe a couple of years ago, that you did wood turning. Did you photograph any of your creations?

 

[Brian Moore]

Thanks, Brian. I remember turning wood at school, and how impossible it seemed to do well, so I appreciate it from that perspective also. I remember you saying before, maybe a couple of years ago, that you did wood turning. Did you photograph any of your creations?

I made a few nice bowls and boxes and pens and so on but I never got to be expert at the craft, Rob. I gave away most of what I made although I have a few bowls and boxes left around the house. Never took any foties.

 

[Ian Grant]

Rob, I'd suggest getting a hand-held light meter, I use Spotmeters but they are expensive and are over the top for what you need at this stage.

Back in the 70's and early 80's I used a Weston Master V and a Euromaster, and for a shot like yours would use the Invercone (diffuser) and from the subject measure the light falling on it, you point it at the main light source. It's an accurate way to work.

The Selenium cells on most Westons are well past it now and they aren't worth buying, however the cheap and cheerful Russian Leningrad 4's can be found for well under £10 ($15) just make sure you get one with a diffuser.

The major benefits on an incident meter (reading the light falling on the subject) is its not fooled buy the subject matter, a white cat against a black wall, or a black cat against a white wall, the first will give over-exposure the latter under exposure using a cameras TTL metering.

Ian

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Ian. I think you are right - I need a better light meter than I have.

How about using a digital camera? I could set the ASA/ISO to the speed of the film, and dial in the preferred aperture (in manual mode), take a few shots altering the shutter speed. Once I'm happy with an exposure, I have my settings. Of course, this would not be incident metering, though I could possibly use it like one. Is there a big flaw in this approach?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Big Ken does it: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/meters-digicam.htm

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Thanks, Ian. I think you are right - I need a better light meter than I have.

How about using a digital camera? I could set the ASA/ISO to the speed of the film, and dial in the preferred aperture (in manual mode), take a few shots altering the shutter speed. Once I'm happy with an exposure, I have my settings. Of course, this would not be incident metering, though I could possibly use it like one. Is there a big flaw in this approach?

I've carried a digital camera for this along side , using a film camera. I set the digital to spot, it works.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Well, I still have one or two small digital cameras lying around somewhere...

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks, Ian. I think you are right - I need a better light meter than I have.

How about using a digital camera? I could set the ASA/ISO to the speed of the film, and dial in the preferred aperture (in manual mode), take a few shots altering the shutter speed. Once I'm happy with an exposure, I have my settings. Of course, this would not be incident metering, though I could possibly use it like one. Is there a big flaw in this approach?

Using a hand-held meter will help you learn far more and is very much faster than using a digital camera as your meter. You'd still need to interpret what the Digital camera's spot meter is actually reading and make the necessary adjustments.

I use a few types of metering, hand held with a Gosssen Luna Pro SBC or the Leningrad 4, Spotmeters - a Minolta and a Pentax , on camera meters on my Yashicamat 124 or Leica M3, and of course the TTL meters in my Pentax and Canon SLRs that includes my DSLR. You quickly learn to use whatever meter you have, the most accurate are the hand held & spot meters.

What's most important is understanding why and when you need to compensate by increasing or decreasing the exposure reading given by the camera meter, that goes for film and digital, this is where a separate meter helps enormously.

Ian

 

[Pete Askew]

An interesting set of experiments and lots of great advice here, Rob.

My first piece of advice would be to buy yourself an A4-sized 18% grey card. You could then stand it in your composition (for example standing vertically against the vase) and take a reading from it using the camera's meter and employ this readings. Getting an incident light meter would also be useful (I think you have one don't you). Hold it with the dome extended (if it can be collapsed) close the main subject and pointed towards the camera. This should give the 'same' reading as the one from the card.

This process would give you the correct exposure but not necessarily what you want artistically. But having measured it you can then make changes to maybe increase intensity of shadows etc (or at least be confident that you can interpret it in the 'print'. You would also then be able to explore the scene to see whether shadows and highlights will be within the dynamic range of the film and have the opportunity to adjust the exposure (or the development) to get what you want.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Pete and Ian. I've just bought that Minolta IV meter, so have no excuses anymore. I'll also get a grey card

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Just for the record...one more...the last: