Pre vision - Under exposed images

[jcdeboever]

I set out to experiment with the EC dial on Nikon F3HP, 50mm. Acros shot at 400. I did not add any filters. I simply looked at a scene, determined the exposure setting in my mind, properly metered, selected my visual choice, logged it, and then applied my -EC based off of visual. Super productive experiment. I learned that I have a good understanding of exposure, visually. I also learned control of high lights and shadows. Project EC brain

1.

2.

3.

 

[espresso2x]

Good pictures and interesting to read. I find it hard to comment, viewing digitally manipulated scans of negs. It's satisying to be adept at Sunny 16 shooting, EV system estimations, Zone five identifying etc but equally i find it very productive to use Program, with eyeballed EC adjustments based on the light/reflected light or lack of. I like how you see and the overall vibe of how you present the light. Similarly, i feel it's a tiresome dogma to always judge processed digital camera imagery in terms of needing an optimised histogram to validate the image as correctly done.

 

[smoke665]

Interesting approach. I'd have to agree that your eye/mind exposure meter seems to have become pretty accurate. I really wish that light pole and light wasn't in the first shot, because I really like it.

 

[jcdeboever]

Good pictures and interesting to read. I find it hard to comment, viewing digitally manipulated scans of negs. It's satisying to be adept at Sunny 16 shooting, EV system estimations, Zone five identifying etc but equally i find it very productive to use Program, with eyeballed EC adjustments based on the light/reflected light or lack of. I like how you see and the overall vibe of how you present the light. Similarly, i feel it's a tiresome dogma to always judge processed digital camera imagery in terms of needing an optimised histogram to validate the image as correctly done.

Thanks. Yup, the first image was -2 because there was a great deal of light blasting on the mannequin, off the glass, and the angle I wanted to include the pin up girl sign. I was elated when I scanned this, I thought for sure it was going to be a fail. I cropped a little bit, and bumped the highlights a tad in post. So my approach was solid. The second one was different, no glare, so I bumped it -1 EC for the white hat. In post I bumped contrast a smidge and tiny crop. I really am experimenting, trying to find my way. My goal in film is to be able to have a nice negative to work with when printing, minimal fuss when ever I get an enlarger. I never look at my histogram in digital and it has bitten me a couple times. However, my continued focus is to work on getting it right in camera. I think film has really helped me in this area. I spend very little time in post when I do shoot digital.

 

[jcdeboever]

Interesting approach. I'd have to agree that your eye/mind exposure meter seems to have become pretty accurate. I really wish that light pole and light wasn't in the first shot, because I really like it.

I kind of wondered myself. I accept it but not sure if I have the skill to get rid of it in post, plus it's a negative scan which makes the cloning thing weird. I guess I could try, it bugged me a little too. I know eventually I will have to gain skill in editing for this type of situation. I will at some point. Right now I am focused on the image in the camera. I suppose I could always come back to it. I am so mental with things, everything is a SOP. I need to lighten up eventually.