James G. Dainis

I had a partial eclipse here in Florida. About 1/2 of the sun got covered. I took a gray card reading before and after. It didn't look that much darker during the 1/2 eclipse but I did get about a one stop difference on my gray card reading. If I didn't know that there was a partial eclipse I never would have know that it was occurring. The sun was too bright to look at. I had heard that one could see the stars during a total eclipse.

Living in Florida I only saw a partial eclipse. I had heard that during a total eclipse things got very dark and shadows from tree leaves took on a surrealistic appearance. There was no longer direct light from a ball in the sky but lighting from a circular source in the sky causing strange shadows. Many people joined large crowds such as at the grandstand at Indianapolis speedway. They saw just as much as the people at home watching on television, just staring up at the sky. How dark did the scenery get on the ground during totality? It was impossible to tell. The TV cameramen did not know what exposure to use to show the true scene. At one time everything looked dark then, blink, an exposure change so everything looked light like normal daylight then, blink, everything looked very much brighter than normal daylight. Then another blink and everything looked very dark again. There will be another USA eclipse in another 20 years. Perhaps by then the TV people will figure out what exposure to use to show the correct scene. And, people will realize it is better to be in a park or open area to seen the effect that the eclipse has on the landscape rather than just staring up at the sky to see what people watching on television are seeing.

i never had any problem changing from a horizontal to a vertical position quite quickly. Are you worried about getting dust in the camera when you momentarily remove the back?

AJG, that doesn't look translucent to me. It doesn't even look like glass.

In my above photo of the swan the light is traveling toward the camera off the backdrop. there is no front lighting except dim ambient. I think all photos of glassware looks best with the light traveling through the glass.

I took this shot long ago using a Sony Mavica FD73 digital camera. The purpose was to show eBay users how to back light a translucent item very simply. It is just a straight photo with the lighting supplied by a desk spot lamp shining on a light background. No real magic needed.

I agree with AJG. Also, use of the Zone system, (expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights) would be of tremendous help. https://www.jdainis.com/zone.html

Maybe this:, Outdoor Photography: https://www.outdoorphotographymagazine.co.uk/

I would say that all film cameras are classics in the making.

"sucker" is used as a verb as in "entice film shooters to buy scanners requiring endless hacks and antique OS adaptions.

c_watson1, is sharing his opinion. This moderator fails to see it as a nasty toxic response.

I used to make Cibachrome prints for friends from their slides until I got tired of hearing, "But these don't glow like the projected slides do." Project a slide of a light bulb on a slide screen and the darkened room lights up from the light reflected off of the screen. Stick a photograph of the light bulb on the wall and what do you see? Nothing. The room remains dark. You've lost the glow.

Note: The longer the development time the darker the blacks on the film will get.

It is good to know that all desiccants are not the same. Make sure it is silica gel.