Re: LX at night.
Hi Steve, on 13 Jan 03 you wrote in pentax.list: trees, fences, etc., were quite easily visible to the eye. The LX exposures of roughly 30 sec at f/5.6. Rather short, I think, compared to some of the suggested exposure tables that I've seen, and sure enough, the negatives are so badly underexposed as to be useless. That's too short, really. If there was no additional light source than the LX should have made a longer exposure. I can't imagine, what the cause was. But maybe you have a look at http://www.designshed.com/lostframe.html There are some interesting tips and links concerning night photography. I really like that page... Regards, Heiko
Re: LX at night.
Dnia 14-01-2003 o godz. 9:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Heiko Hamann) napisal(a): Hi Steve, trees, fences, etc., were quite easily visible to the eye. The LX exposures of roughly 30 sec at f/5.6. Rather short, I think, compared to some of the suggested exposure tables that I've seen, and sure enough, the negatives are so badly underexposed as to be useless. That's too short, really. If there was no additional light source than the LX should have made a longer exposure. I can't imagine, what the cause was. But maybe you have a look at http://www.designshed.com/lostframe.html There are some interesting tips and links concerning night photography. I really like that page... Maybe, Steve, you have some exposure correction set? Other thing is, that Ilford XP2 needs some corrections due to reciprocity failure. If I recall correctly it is about 4x the metered time at 30sec - so it would be 2min exposure. But apart from that, 30sec in theese conditions seems rather short exposure. Maciej --- Daj si pozna! Wstaw swoje zdjcie! Nowy KONTAKT pozwala ZOBACZY internetowych przyjaci ! http://kontakt.wp.pl
LX at night.
Hello, I wanted to experiment with the low light capabilities of my recently acquired LX, so last week I went out on a clear night and tried to take photographs. The results were a little disappointing, and I'm hoping that somebody will be able to explain why. I used the LX in 'automatic' mode with MLU, an SMC-M 28/2.8, tripod and cable release, and XP2 Super rated at 200 ISO. When the scenes contained some artificial light, such as car headlamps, streetlights, etc., the LX got the exposures just about right. e.g. 10 sec at f/8. I bracketed +/- 1 and 2 stops, and normally found that the +1 or +2 images gave negatives that scanned fairly well. When I tried some much darker scenes, the results were less good. I tried pointing the camera into a starlit field, fairly dark, but trees, fences, etc., were quite easily visible to the eye. The LX chose exposures of roughly 30 sec at f/5.6. Rather short, I think, compared to some of the suggested exposure tables that I've seen, and sure enough, the negatives are so badly underexposed as to be useless. I realise that it might be better to shoot at dusk rather than in near complete darkness. One of my problems was that it was almost impossible to compose shots in the dark, so even the photos that were properly exposed weren't very good. :-) At the moment though, I'm curious about why the exposure seemed to be so wrong with the starlit landscapes. The exposures that the LX was choosing seemed to suggest that it was within the metering range described in the user manual, yet the negatives are almost completely transparent. Is it unrealistic to expect these sorts of shots to work in 'automatic'? I was hoping that the LX's super-meter would take some of guesswork out of shots like this. Thanks for any suggestions and advice, Steve.
Re: LX at night.
Steve wrote: When I tried some much darker scenes, the results were less good. I tried pointing the camera into a starlit field, fairly dark, but trees, fences, etc., were quite easily visible to the eye. The LX chose exposures of roughly 30 sec at f/5.6. Rather short, I think, compared to some of the suggested exposure tables that I've seen, and sure enough, the negatives are so badly underexposed as to be useless. The film you use is not familiar to me. You need to know the reciprocity sharacteristics of the film you use. Another issue is that the meter will be grossly fooled by any highlights like spotlight or even the moon. When I use Ektachrome 100VS pushed one stop the LX meter is dead on even when exposing for several minutes. Pål
Re: LX at night.
Hi, the meter thinks that the scene it is looking at is 18% grey and bases the exposure time on that assumption. If you're photographing a starlit field then the scene is unlikely to be 18% grey. It is the 'black cat in a coal hole' situation. In an extreme situation such as the one you describe you can't hope for Automatic to work properly but will need to use the exposure tables, guesswork, experience or an incident meter. When the scene contains street lamps, car lights and so on the extreme contrast is likely to average out close to 18%. In addition, the LX meter is constantly evaluating the exposure and can cope with sudden changes, such as a car light moving through the scene. --- Bob Monday, January 13, 2003, 8:54:23 PM, you wrote: Hello, I wanted to experiment with the low light capabilities of my recently acquired LX, so last week I went out on a clear night and tried to take photographs. The results were a little disappointing, and I'm hoping that somebody will be able to explain why. I used the LX in 'automatic' mode with MLU, an SMC-M 28/2.8, tripod and cable release, and XP2 Super rated at 200 ISO. When the scenes contained some artificial light, such as car headlamps, streetlights, etc., the LX got the exposures just about right. e.g. 10 sec at f/8. I bracketed +/- 1 and 2 stops, and normally found that the +1 or +2 images gave negatives that scanned fairly well. When I tried some much darker scenes, the results were less good. I tried pointing the camera into a starlit field, fairly dark, but trees, fences, etc., were quite easily visible to the eye. The LX chose exposures of roughly 30 sec at f/5.6. Rather short, I think, compared to some of the suggested exposure tables that I've seen, and sure enough, the negatives are so badly underexposed as to be useless. I realise that it might be better to shoot at dusk rather than in near complete darkness. One of my problems was that it was almost impossible to compose shots in the dark, so even the photos that were properly exposed weren't very good. :-) At the moment though, I'm curious about why the exposure seemed to be so wrong with the starlit landscapes. The exposures that the LX was choosing seemed to suggest that it was within the metering range described in the user manual, yet the negatives are almost completely transparent. Is it unrealistic to expect these sorts of shots to work in 'automatic'? I was hoping that the LX's super-meter would take some of guesswork out of shots like this. Thanks for any suggestions and advice, Steve.
Vs: LX at night.
I´d say it should be the other way round - properly working LX on automatic should overexpose - produce normal looking negatives, not too thin. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Steve Morphet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 13. tammikuuta 2003 21:55 Aihe: LX at night. Hello, I wanted to experiment with the low light capabilities of my recently acquired LX, so last week I went out on a clear night and tried to take photographs. The results were a little disappointing, and I'm hoping that somebody will be able to explain why. I used the LX in 'automatic' mode with MLU, an SMC-M 28/2.8, tripod and cable release, and XP2 Super rated at 200 ISO. When the scenes contained some artificial light, such as car headlamps, streetlights, etc., the LX got the exposures just about right. e.g. 10 sec at f/8. I bracketed +/- 1 and 2 stops, and normally found that the +1 or +2 images gave negatives that scanned fairly well. When I tried some much darker scenes, the results were less good. I tried pointing the camera into a starlit field, fairly dark, but trees, fences, etc., were quite easily visible to the eye. The LX chose exposures of roughly 30 sec at f/5.6. Rather short, I think, compared to some of the suggested exposure tables that I've seen, and sure enough, the negatives are so badly underexposed as to be useless. I realise that it might be better to shoot at dusk rather than in near complete darkness. One of my problems was that it was almost impossible to compose shots in the dark, so even the photos that were properly exposed weren't very good. :-) At the moment though, I'm curious about why the exposure seemed to be so wrong with the starlit landscapes. The exposures that the LX was choosing seemed to suggest that it was within the metering range described in the user manual, yet the negatives are almost completely transparent. Is it unrealistic to expect these sorts of shots to work in 'automatic'? I was hoping that the LX's super-meter would take some of guesswork out of shots like this. Thanks for any suggestions and advice, Steve.
Re: LX at night - comments please
Finally got a chance to play with the LX at night. Overall, I'm pretty impressed with the low light and OTF metering - I got by taking 2 or 3 of each rather than the 8 or so I was doing with the k1000 in low light. a couple samples are at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=248862 I'd appreciate a little input on 1 in particular: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1091068size=lg Mike, I liked three of the four photos. The 1 in particular is the only one that I didn't care much for. The third one, which is easily overlooked in the thumbnail view, is actually my favorite - it's not flashy, but it's understatedly subtle and quite elegant - a really nice composition in my opinion. However, the actual star trails were not immediately visible to me - I had to adjust the gamma value here to bring them out (maybe my monitor is set too dark)- I only guessed that there ~had~ to be star trails there since the title of the photo was Star Trails. And, then, I actually prefer ~not~ seeing the star trails - seeing just the indigo silhouetting the trees at the bottom fading into blackness made the photo more effective to me - but my taste is only in my mouth, so don't take what I say with too much significance - g. OK, gotta get the LX outside tonight - oops, it's supposed to be overcast tonight - well, maybe tomorrow night... (g) Fred
LX at night - comments please
Finally got a chance to play with the LX at night. Overall, I'm pretty impressed with the low light and OTF metering - I got by taking 2 or 3 of each rather than the 8 or so I was doing with the k1000 in low light. a couple samples are at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=248862 I'd appreciate a little input on 1 in particular: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1091068size=lg Part of the problem is my scanner - just not enough range to pick up the details of the slide. I'm planning on paying for a good scan later this week. My dilema is: The stray light in the left side is a light leak in the wall. We were staying in a converted 400 year old barn and it was a bit drafty. I think the stray light is distracting, my girlfriend however loves it. Comments? Mike Y
