lens questions, my 3rd cent

From: BOB KISS ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/06/05-08:50:30 AM Z
Message-id: <NIBBJBPKILANKFOAGNHEKEPLDKAA.bobkiss@caribsurf.com>

            I forgot to add, not a bad idea to use old fashioned Polaroid or
Fuji instant calibrated to your film speed (Provia and instant film should
be pretty close) to double check exactly what your Blad lens is seeing.
                                                CHEERS AGAIN,

 Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/ <http://www.bobkiss.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: BOB KISS [mailto:bobkiss@caribsurf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:48 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: lens questions, my 2 cents

            The other thing to do is FLOOD the area with strobe lightI mean
LOTZA watt-seconds. If you blast it enough and use your strobe meter
reading as your exposure, the arc will be less blocked up in the negative.
            Further, use a strong UV blocking filterperhaps even gang two
in a row over your Blad lens.
            The combination of the UV filter and the plethora of strobe
light will render the arc less blocked on the neg. This presupposes that
you have, can rent, or, better yet, can borrow powerful strobes, a good
strobe meter, and two UV blocking filters.
            Good luck!

 Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/ <http://www.bobkiss.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Thom Mitchell [mailto:tjmitch@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:47 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: lens questions

Have you tried this trick previously under stable conditions? Using the
sunny F/16 and be there, etc. My guess is that the lab guy is correct and it
most likely is the way the film and sensors operate. Did you bracket your
exposures with the Hassy? Maybe you can generate a "conversion factor" in
the future. What did your hand-held meter say? Obviously the light generated
by the welding process changes with the welding activity, did you add any
artificial light? You mentioned that your D-1 generated exposures that
weren't great "but within tolerance". My guess is that baring any problems
with the gear the Provia latitude is less than that of the D-1. The only way
to know this is to test it for the future. Good luck. -Thom

Barry Kleider wrote:
Last week, I was shooting some welders.

My ultimate goal was to shoot them with a Hasselblad and a 150 f4 lens. (No
internal meter.)

Since these exposures are obviously tricky, I started with my Nikon D-1 and
a Tamron 28-70 f2.8

I was getting some decent exposures - nothing great, but certainly within
tolerance for a first attempt. So I decided to switch over to the Hassy
using the same readings.

Since the Nikon was running at ISO 200 and my provia is 100, I gave it a
full stop. I got the lab results today: $%#^$%. (Translation: way too dark
and looks like s**t.)

So my question is: what's the relationship between a medium format Hassy
with a 150 f4 lens, and a 35mm Nikon with a 28-70 f2.8 lens (running close
to 70 if not full on)?

I assume there's a very straight-forward (though possibly hard to follow)
explanation having to do with the difference in lens designs rather than a
format comparison or a digital vs. analog thing (as my lab guy surmised.)

Received on Wed Jul 6 09:49:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/25/05-05:31:51 PM Z CST