Not Fast enough? How to solve it?

I took my 503 along with 35mm equip. to beach last sunday. It was a beautiful sunny clear sky day. A

lot of meter reading are acctually very very fast like f16 1/1000+

 

Then When I look at my 503 with 80mm lens. The max speed is 1/500!!!....??? Well, turn f stops to f22

can solve but what if there is a situation that needs speed that is faster than f22 + 1/500 combo? What

does a Hassy pro do to solve a situation that seems impossibe to make with my knowledge of

photography.

 

Thanks,

 

W.

Have another film back loaded with slower film and / or use a ND filter on the lens.

starting from the easier (and cheaper):

1) slower film

2) ND filter

3) buy a 200 or 2000 Hasselblad body

Thinkning about it5... If you're getting a shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second at f/16 on a sunny day then the "sunnny 16 rule" would suggest that you have 1000iso film loaded? Is this correct?

If I shoot BW, I usually have orange or red filters with me, which eat enough light. Slow film is a good idea and if you have no ND filters: a polarizer eats a f-stop too.

How are you metering? Incident, reflective, spot?

Use a Polariser/set to unpolarised if preferred. Takes up two stops.

The "use slower film" advice makes most sense, i think. Slower film produces better results too. ;-)<br><br>I'm curious to hear the answer to Alice's question: what speed film were you using?

When people say ND filter, they're talking about a Neutral Density filter. They come in different strengths depending on how much you want to reduce the intensity of the light. I second David Henderson's advice: use a polarizer set to an angle that doesn't reduce polarized light--it makes a good 2-stop ND filter, and with a twist, you also have a polarizing filter.

Your meter can get fooled at the beach (all that white sand). Objects in full sun get the same exposure no matter where you are.

 

If you have 400 speed film shoot 1/250 at f/a6 no matter what the meter says (assuming full sun).

High speed film (ISO-400) is NOT an all around film, despite what the advertisements say.

 

You have to use a medium (ISO-100) or slow speed (ISO-50 or below) film for BRIGHT conditions.

 

Or you put a Neutral Density (ND) filter on the lens. An ND filter is like a sunglasses to your camera, it simply reduces the amount of light that passes through.

<i>"use a polarizer set to an angle that doesn't reduce polarized light"</i><br><br>Now that is quite a challenge. If the only polarized light present in a scene shares one common plane of polarization, that would indeed be possible. But how often does that happen, i wonder?

Q. G. - - there you go again . . . you're getting a little too sophisticated--or should I say

cynical--in your comments. Most of the folks on this site won't understand. I know what

you are saying (and what Mike was trying to say) but if you set the polarizing filter at its

minimum effective angle it won't contribute very much to reducing the light intensity which

is the reason for using it in the first place.

Regarding the film speed question, most likely the author had ASA 400 film. He says that he was at the beach, where the EV is usually 1, if not 2, stops above the sunny 16 rule - beaches and snow are simply brighter in such conditions. This would, then, still be consistent with the so-called rule.

However, I must agree with several other comments about using 400 speed film outside on a sunny day. Unless one is looking to freeze extremely high-speed action (which would seem to preclude the Hassy), then ASA 100 or even 50 would be more appropriate.

 

 

ciao,

jim

 

Ciao,

Jim

CPeter,<br><br>Light loss that occurs when using a polarizer does not depend much on how you hold the thing. It is caused by two things: the fact that it stops (at least) 50% of the light because 100% of the light is indeed polarized, and the colour/density of the plastic foil that is the working part of a polarizer.<br>This, the filter factor of a polarizer is a constant, and only depends on those two thingies. Even at the "minimum effective angle".<br><br>In some scenes, some large parts of them will have light sharing a common plane of polarization, instead of the usual random mix. That's when the selective power (the "effect") of a polarizer comes in play. We do not count that as extra light loss, because the selective (!) darkening of those parts is the reason we should (!) use polarizers. Light reduction then still is the same, due to the two factors mentioned above. No matter what angle.<br><br>However (and this was my point) even in scenes where there are no large parts with a common plane of polarization, there will be many smaller of such parts. The selective action of a polarizer dulls down your image even though the filter is at the "minimum effective angle".<br><br>In short, when you need a light reducing filter, use a ND filter. That's what they were made for. Not a polarizer, that was not made to do that.<br>;-)<br><br>Best advice still is to use slower film.

I shoot on the beach and desert alot and use slower film (50/100 iso).

I'm with Kevin Bourque on this one.

 

With 400 ISO negative films, I've never been anywhere, there is a need to go faster than

1/500 at f/16, even when it's painfully bright and sun glasses are essential.

Beaches and snow aren't illuminated by a different sun, William. It's still the same old lightbulb up in the sky. The fact that the subject matter is a bit lighter should make very little difference to your exposures, regardless of what your meter tells you. Just one stop less exposure is usually more than enough to compensate for the extra light reflected off sand.

Maxing out the shutter speed and aperture to me turns the Hasselblad in to an expensive box camera. You loose the flexibility of selecting aperture and shutter speed as appropriate for the subject.

Gary,<br><br>You're absolutely right, pushing things to their limits will always move you near the limit of what (more) you can do with these things. What else can you expect?<br>You were right earlier too: the fault is not in the thing, but in the use of it. In this case it is the choice of film.