khiem_le1

Hello everyone, I'm about to purchase my first mirrorless/Sony camera ever and am looking at using Commlite adapter for my existing Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G. Just wondering if anyone has used the particular system A7iii with Commlite V06 with Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED and if you could please share some opinions about the system? The lens is listed as 'Compatible' on CommLite's official website, but i'm just wondering if someone could please share some insights :) Cheers

<p>Great, thanks for the inputs everyone. <br />I guess what was confusing to me was the illumination of the subject, i.e some reflects more than others therefore might look brighter/darker with the same exposure, but looks like it does not matter, and the incident reading will give the exposure just to render the subject perfectly as it should be. </p> <p>Thanks for the Black & White cat example above, it did help to make more sense. </p>

<p>Hello everyone,</p> <p>I'm at that stage where I find the zone system is very fascinating and am trying to read and understand the basic theory about it (still hasn't finished that book though).</p> <p>My questions is: when to use the incident or reflective metering of a handheld light meter with subject that has high/low reflectance property. Now, I understand that reflective metering is usually a spot reading, which gives the exposure to render that spot middle gray. But with the incident metering, isn't that the same too? as in: it gives the exposure reading to render the part where we are holding the light meter middle gray?</p> <p>I find it particularly confusing in this scenario: I am photographing a darker skin bride in a white wedding dress, if I hold the meter in front of the bride's face to take an incident reading, would it give the same reading as if I were holding the meter in front of her dress (given that the light falls on her uniformly). What if that was a brighter skin bride? Still in the same lighting condition and everything, would the meter give the same reading? I suppose it should be the same because the incident meter does not know if it is placed in front of a high or low reflectance object. But if the readings are the same, would it make either the darker skin bride underexposed or brighter skin bride overexposed (or the other way around). I am not sure if I am making sense here as it also sounds this confusing in my head :(.</p> <p>SO, the bottom line is, how does the incident light meter know if it is placed in front of a high or low reflectance object to give the correct readings to render that object correctly?</p> <p>With the reflective meter, as far as I can understand the zone system, we may place the reading of the brighter skin bride's cheek in Zone VI, or Zone V for the darker skin bride. Will these two readings be the same as the ones generated by an incident meter?</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your inputs. </p> <p>I suppose the photo above is not that hard to use an incident meter like the 308s to measure the light. But like Andrew and David said above, it is almost impossible to use the 308s when the light is a bit more complicated, eg litting some parts of the scene but not others, or extremely bright where the photographer is standing, etc. </p> <blockquote> <p>I see nothing in that scene above that would present any problem for an incident meter-reading. Why complicate things when a simple single incident reading would get you the same result?</p> </blockquote> <p>You're right, with the above photo it is not that hard to use an incident meter to meter the light where I was standing. What I think is a bit more difficult is when where I'm standing to take the shot is completely dark or in shade.<br> Looks like I have to save up a bit more for (probably a used) a spot meter.</p>

<p>Hi everyone, </p> <p>I'm thinking about getting a Sekonic L308s light meter to use together with my film bodies. What I don't quite understand is how would one use the light meter to meter for landscape photography. <br> For example with this scene: </p> <p><a title="Lens testing sample image by Khiem Le, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8815/17889389448_75b11cf1a5_c.jpg" alt="Lens testing sample image" width="800" height="574" /></a></p> <p>The trees and lake are so far away, without the spot-metering ability of the L-308s, how can I use it to effectively meter? <br> I can understand with more expensive/advance Sekonic meters, they have a viewfinder that allows the photographer to spot-meter the spots they want. but don't know how to do that with the cheaper/less advance meter such as the 308s. </p> <p>Thanks in advance,<br> Khiem</p>

<p>Thank you everyone with your detail comments and constructive advice. I haven't been able to log on the forum for the last few days so couldn't answer straight away.</p> <p>I went back to the same place, this time I used a (4 months expired) roll of Ektar 100 with my FE2 and the results are stunning. The weather was much better than the other day (when I shot and the results did not look sharp at all). Therefore, I can safely conclude the level of light also contributes greatly to details in distance. With more light, it resolves details better and hence give a better definition.</p> <p>This is a shot that was done earlier today at the same location. Bright sun-light, unlike the other day when it was wet and overcast:<br />Same setting, F100, 24mm f/1.4 G, Fuji Pro 400H, shot at f/7.1 <br /> <a title="Untitled by Khiem Le, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5336/17454673084_587b5045be_b.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="1024" height="735" /></a></p> <p>I also tried shooting with a roll of Ektar 100 and the results are stunning. This will be the only film I'll ever use for landscape. There is literally no grain. Colours are rendered beautifully, and the sharpness is, of course, top notch.</p> <p>This is a few shots done with FE2, Ektar 100 and Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI-S lens:</p> <p><a title="Untitled by Khiem Le, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5322/17889842410_b322554898_b.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="1024" height="735" /></a></p> <blockquote> <p>Lenses that don't have hard infinity stops simply don't have to have correct register distance, only that the autofocus is calibrated to the register distance. So they are easier to make. It's also possible for the autofocus to overshoot and go beyond infinity and then go back slightly. With a hard infinity stop there would be a mechanical barrier. So most modern AF lenses goes beyond infinity. On longer lenses, even manual focus ones, the focusing ring went beyond infinity to account for temperature differences. I have a manual focus Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED that is like that.</p> </blockquote> <p>Very informative thank you!</p> <p>For more photos of today's shoot-out: https://www.flickr.com/photos/khiemnikon/</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your inputs. </p> <blockquote> <p>Khiem, from your description, it sounds like your equipment and shooting technique should give good sharpness on the film. The other guys who have posted here about scanning will be of more help to you, I think.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mark: I thought so too. But after reading the comments and researching a bit more, I think film is not meant to behave like digital, pixel wise. The sharpness of film is probably defined a bit differently. So, it all comes down to the last variable, the scanning process. I got my films scanned at a supermarket lab before and the results were not even worth looking at. There were colour cast every where in the photos, all the colours are incorrectly presented, and sharpness was not even worth mentioning about. After that I changed to a different lab, a more customer-focused one and the colours were improved dramatically. So after that I understand how important the scanning process is. It can make a huge different. </p> <blockquote> <p>If you can find it, I suggest reading Ansel Adams' book "The Negative."</p> </blockquote> <p>Yep, ordered the book and still waiting for it to arrive ;-) </p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks Mark, this is exactly what I'm looking for. </p> <blockquote> <p>Some things to consider: landscape shots like your example may have allowed you to shoot at f/11 or f/16, which offers a lot of depth of field but may not be the sharpest aperture - you might try opening up a couple stops to see if it makes a difference.</p> </blockquote> <p>I didn't use f/11 or f/16 as I was worried about diffraction. Therefore I didn't' go north of f/6 or f/8. But do you think I should? I read the MTF chart from one of the many review sites, and they all show that sharpness decreases after f/6.</p> <blockquote> <p>Second, things in the far distance will be sharpest if you focus <strong>at or very close to infinity</strong>. If you set the focus at the <strong>hyperfocal distance</strong>, you'll get a lot of depth of field, but not maximum sharpness in objects at infinity</p> </blockquote> <p>This is exactly what I'm looking for. However, I'm quite lost at what you said, would u please explain again, esp the "hyperfocal distance" focusing. I'm not quite familiar with the term.<br> What I did was to use auto focus and focused at the furthest tree. Now doing that made the focus ring on the lens turn to the "infinity" symbol in the little window, so I think I focused at infinity for the shot. I could still actually turn it up a bit more than infinity (i can see there is a marking of "16" pointing toward that position of the focusing that is beyond infinity), but that would make furthest objects out-of-focus. Why is it there, in what situation should I use that 'beyond infinity' focus? </p>

<blockquote> <p>It isn't so much the body as the glass. Good glass helps you get a good image on film or sensor from the beginning and I've always thought it's better to get the very best image you can from the start and not rely so much on post processing or printing</p> </blockquote> <p>That's exactly right and I do think so too. However, the Sigma 35mm lens produces amazing results on my digital body, both at close and far distance. Therefore I was a bit surprised it did not make as sharp images with the 400H fuji film that I used for those shots the other day. It is still sharp, but definition is definitely no where close to it would have been on the digital body. <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>You will lose something in the scan - I always do from my Epson 4990 - not a lot - but some. An optical print from the negative will most likely look different.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>I asked the lady to do a high res scan for me, she did a pretty good job, the images are about 25mp and, to my eyes, the colours are very good too. You reckon we still lose a bit of sharpness even through higher resolution scan? </p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p><br /> I recently migrated to film from digital (had a great time in that domain) and have been enjoying film very much. however, there is one thing I am still quite not sure about: I have the feeling the my shots done on film are not quite as sharp as if it was done on my digital body. this must be a very common question for newcomers who recently migrate from digital.</p> <p><br /> To be more specific, shots that make me wonder about sharpness are landscape shots, where things are at infinity and where there are a lot of small details further away (leaves, tree branches, etc.). With digital, it can be quite easily to get a reasonable definition/sharpness for details that are that far. With the shots done on film, I have to crank up the "sharpener" in pp a bit. A friend told me that because the lab didn't want to do any sharpening at all at their end, they want to leave the shots as 'original' as possible, whereas in digital, the camera itself does a bit of sharpening every time the shot is made. That sort of makes sense, but is it true?</p> <p><br /> This is a shot that was done on a F100 body, with Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens and Fuji Pro 400H film: - I had to crank up sharpening quite a bit to achieve the definition that we can see from the photo. I mean it doesn't really bother me, but I jsut would like to know if there is anything that I did wrong or it is what it is.</p> <p><br /> Another reason that I could think of is because I've been shooting with ASA/ISO 400 film. Is slower film supposed to be sharper, capture more details? from what I've read, 400 is not meant to be for landscape anyway. Is that true?</p> <p>From what I observed sharpness is totally fine with object that is closer to the camera, for example: close-up, portraits, etc, but not so much with objects that are further. Would slower film solve this?</p> <p>Thanks in advance for your inputs. <br /> cheers</p>

<p>Thanks and I am so glad I've been received a lot of constructive feedback and comments from this community. Really appreciate it! </p>

<p>Thanks Lex. <br> This is another shot done at box speed and scanned at a proper lab: <br> http://i61.tinypic.com/2eevivs.jpg</p>

<blockquote> <p>Nope. Fuji color negative film, even their low priced Superia and Superia X-tra, are very good. Any competent minilab should be able to deliver neutral color. If anything I find Fuji color negative film tends toward over-saturated greens in foliage. But it should never be magenta, unless the mixed lighting is impossible to overcome - such as a mixture of metal halide, tungsten, fluorescent and halogen in the same shot.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>You are right. I tried shooting again with a whole mix of different indoor lighting and the result does not look that bad at all. I used a different lab thought. This is what it looks like: </p> <ul> <li>http://i61.tinypic.com/2s5y8up.jpg</li> <li>http://i58.tinypic.com/709yqu.jpg</li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>...First off always use film that has not expired. (Was yours expired?)...</p> </blockquote> <p>Yea Alan, the film I used for those shots expired a few months ago. I did realise that when I took it out and loaded to the camera, and I thought a few months after expiry would not make much different. I think this contributed more or less to this issue. Thanks for the advice re bracketing. Since starting shooting film, I haven't really thought of using bracketing but it is actually a very good idea. Used it all the time before on my digital body to shoot HDR. <br> Re Exposure books: do you have any recommendations? I find it a bit harder to find books or material regarding exposure for shooting films. I've shot with my fullframe digital body for quite some years now, but when it comes to shooting film, getting the spot-on exposure is a bit harder than I thought. Even when using auto meter. </p> <p>Thanks everyone for your inputs. I've shot another roll and tried getting it scanned at a different lab and am quite please with the results. Therefore it's quite conclusive that the grocery store lab did quite a bad job, probably at developing the film as well. </p> <ul> <li>http://i59.tinypic.com/11awvio.jpg</li> <li>http://i60.tinypic.com/fxurrt.jpg</li> </ul>

<blockquote> <p>Although as you said if you use f/1.4 in sunny day with ISO 400 it would surely be overexposed as the camera do not have a high enough shutter speed. But looking at your pictures I can't see any sign of overexposure. I am sure all of your pictures can be scanned darker.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think this is what happened too. </p> <p>Also, I'm a bit confused about the process of developing and scanning film. So people seem to agree on the fact that each lab will give a dramatically different scanning result, due to the setting they use with their scanners, staff, training etc. However, is the very first step of the whole process (develop films with chemicals) standardised? i.e is developing film the same process in terms of quality, everywhere? Reason is I've been thinking about getting myself a scanner, but if the film developing process is also another factor to consider, it'd be a bit more difficult to eliminate all the variables. </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your opinions and advices. From most of the comments, it looks like the lab I used was the one who caused the magenta cast over the photos. </p> <p>From a few rolls that I got back from this Grocery store lab, It does look like shots that are done indoor/under shade area/lack of direct light always get that magenta cast? Is that a typical thing that can happen? With shots that are shot under bright direct sunlight, the magenta cast almost disappeared. This is an example shot: http://i62.tinypic.com/1zqek9i.jpg</p> <p>Also, like some of the members said, using wide open (at f/1.4) on a sunny day is probably a not good idea and that also might have caused the flower shot to be a lot over exposed. </p> <blockquote> <p>Is the lens by any chance an AiS 35mm f/1.4 lens? The first photo looks rather typical of that lens' behaviour wide open, plus I'd say it is a bit overexposed (ISO400 film, bright daylight and f/1.4 do not mix well).</p> </blockquote> <p>It's a Sigma 35 f/1.4 lens, but I guess it'd be similar to the Nikon AI-s. <br> <br> </p>