p.j.

Folks,<br>

  Thanks. The idea looks like a non-starter.<br>

-P.J.

Folks,<p>I am a council memeber of the <a

href="www.dublincameraclub.ie">Dublin Camera Club</a> and we are

exploring the possibility of buying a printer for our digital

darkroom. The idea is that the users use their own paper and ink

cartridges in the printer.<p>Is this a practical proposition? What happens if one user installs a set of black and white inks after another user has used colour inks, for example? Can a non-high-volume printer cope with this? Will it destroy the poor thing, especially if some enthusiast uses non-OEM inks?

Neil,<br>

My meter was saying f/2.4 1/90 so you can see how dark it was. The camera just couldn't autofocus the f/4-5.6 lens at all unless it was at the widest end. There was barely enough light to manually focus and neither lens nor camera made that easy.<br>

Oh well, it was a learning excercise. I just hope I draw the right conclusions.<br>

-P.J.

Lex,<br>

Thanks for your reply.<br>

I hear what you say about the development time and agitation. What suggested to me that the development wasn't at fault was the fact that the flash shots came out fine. Perhaps something akin to reciprocity failure skewed the results for the available light shots.<br>

I used Microphen 1:0, agitating for 10 seconds every minute.<br>

I did check the meter last night in similar light, checking to see the deviation that Matrix mode made from centre-weighted. Yes, Matrix sometimes was half a stop away from CW, but rarely a full stop.<br>

Scanning is something I've mostly done with colour neg and am looking forward to how it works with B&W.<br>

Thanks for the help.<br>

-P.J.

Folks,<br>

I just developed a roll of Delta 3200 exposed and developed for

12500ISO with some odd results.<br>

The shots were all (except for the last frame) taken at my friend's

dimly lit comedy show on Sunday. The light was so poor that I pushed

the film to its limits, primarily using shutter priority and matrix

metering mode. All the shots where I used flash came out fine.

Without flash it was poor in the extreme. Every shot I took with the

50mm F/1.4 was underexposed by more than one stop. The light was

around 1/90s F2.8 on 12500 which to my mind comes to LV 3, well

inside the metering range of the camera. I used an EI of 6400 and set

the meter to underexpose by one stop so bringing the effective ISO to

12500.<br>

I developed the film in Microphen 20C for 16:30 minutes, like it

said inside the package.<br>

There were no light sources in the frame, nor any very light

shades. The background was a dark red colour which if anything should

have coaxed the meter into overexposure.<br>

The available-light shots were all taken with the 50mm 1.4 but the

flash photos were taken on either that lens or a 70-300mm AFD. The

aperture closes down smoothly on both lenses.<br>

I checked the meter last night to see if there was a significant

deviation between matrix and centre-weighted metering in similarly

low light and for a large area of grass there was no difference.

In normal light the meter is fine for slides. <br>

So, what's the story? I have grossly underexposed available light

shots and acceptable flash shots.<br>

-P.J.

Stephen,

I use the same flash with a Nikon F80 and dedicated module.

The distance is the maximum reach of the flash.

The minimum distance depends on the camera, not just the module, so I assume that Metz made the decision to leave out the minumim range readout for cost reasons if nothing else.

Whether or not the background is lit or not will depend on the ambient light condition and how far away the background is compared to the foreground anyway. I don't think that a humble TTL flash will do that for you, though I find that bouncing off a white ceiling will illuminate the floor of an average sized room. Be careful that the top half of the room is not going to be radically over-exposed compared to the bottom half (bitter experience etc).

-P.J.

Bruce Rubenstein wrote:<p>

<b>It is an extreme test, and the Nikon literature would have one believe that the flash system can handle it, but it can't. If I don't pay attention, and shoot with a mirror straight in front of me, I get under exposed film with N80 & F100 with the N80 built in flash, or an SB28. The only way to be sure of getting this exposed right is with the flash in manual mode. (I have no idea why you would want to do this, since it produce a crummy picture and probably lots of lens flare.)</b><p>

Thanks for your response Bruce.<br>

It looks like the test was too stringent for the system. Oh well. Now I know.<br>

I don't expect to take flash shots in similar circumstances again. I did take a <a href="http://pj.mc-kenna.com/Photography/Album/USA2001/Florida/Orlando/ScienceMuseum/SelfportraitFlash.jpg">picture</a> (90KB) using the built-in flash while inside a three-sided mirror arrangement and it came out alright, despite using my 50mm AFn. I am reasonably confident that the camera considered itself 'in focus' at the time the photo was taken which might have had some bearing on the result. More investigation or a visit from Nikon's Men In Black might help.<p>

-P.J.

Hal Bissinger wrote:<p>

<i>The flash used was the Metz 53 with 3402 module (3D etc).</i><br>

<b>Ahah! Just caught that one! Have you ever read anything I have written about third party flashes? That thing probably isn't even doing 3DBMFF although it may claim to. Try this again with an SB-80DX and forget the mirror!

</b><br>

<ul>

<li>Due to other commitments I haven't been able to keep up with your writings but I hope to be able to reacquaint myself with your postings as soon as decorum and stomach-lining augmentation allow.

<li> Given that the three exposures were different (though still underexposed) suggests that 3DBMFF is happening, just not giving me the results that I was looking (and hoping) for. Metz have a more than decent reputation and work without fault when used with the dedicated moudles for other brands of camera. I can only imagine that they have crippled their latest Nikon module out of a sense of misplaced fun, the lovable little circus freaks.<br>Next time I will contrast the results with the built-in flash on my F80, though next time I will probably not use just the last three frames on a roll.

<li>I will await your sending me a SB80DX with huge relief. I thought that my budget would never allow me to buy such a beast! To think that I saved myself the cost of a mesely few hundred rolls of film by buying my (second hand) Metz flash!

<li>As to not trying the experiment again, perhaps my innate fixation on seeing the boundaries of the automation in my equipment will get in the way again. How knows? Perhaps prayer is my only recourse to resist the temptation, though it's had to find a live chicken in the shops these days.

<LI>I am intrigued though. Would using a SB80DX pass such a difficult test?

</ul>

<p>

-P.J.

Hal,<p>

<b>Why the hell did you use a mirror and what was the purpose of your experiment anyway???</b><p>

I said this to Jim Gifford when he asked the same question:<br><i>

Because Nikon and Nikon users make great claims for what the 3D Matrix Balanced flash system will do. I wanted to do a simple(!) test to see. It's one of the reasons I haven't dropped Nikon for Canon long ago.</i><p>

Shooting into a mirror would seem to be the most extreme test of the Nikon flash system, no?

<<1st problem; You sed Sensia and I think that is clor negative (I'm probably wrong here), so I presume you are judging the prints and not the film. what does the film look like?>>

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=0&parent=PRODUCT_CATEGORY_238119&product=1000520

<<2nd problem: Yes you should have kept the camera position locked down,>>

How could this have made a difference?

<<3rd problem: If the camera is looking into a mirror the distance calculations are going to be thrown off, especially if you are pointing the camera at differing angles to the mirror.>>

Re-read the original question. I focused on the frame of the mirror.

<<So your tests are extremely inconclusive and prove basically nothing.>>

Yeah, yeah...

<<A more rigid methodology would be to remove all ofthe variables; the mirror, put the camera on a tripod and shoot slides. Write down all of your settings. make sure the flash has enough time to fully recycle between shots.>>

The whole point was to shoot into a mirror! Take a look at the title of the question!

Being on a tripod makes no difference to the reflectivity of the mirror or the other items in the scene.

I gave you all the settings!

Yes, the flash had long enough to charge! The 'OK' light was still lit after firing and the in-viewfinder lightening symbol was solid.

Ah, a response!

<< You're changing too many variables. Change just one variable per exposure. >>

The change in camera ambient metering mode and lens was to make the camera/flash combination use the various flash metering modes. The aperture and shutter speed were the same for all shots.

<<Why did your test incorporate a device that will direct so much of the flash power in a useless direction? You did prove one thing: a mirror in line with the flash gun can deceive your meter in any mode. >>

Because Nikon and Nikon users make great claims for what the 3D Matrix Balanced flash system will do. I wanted to do a simple(!) test to see. It's one of the reasons I haven't dropped Nikon for Cannon long ago.

The camera knew from the D-lens that it was set to 1.5 meters (say) but that only mattered a little.

<<Really?>>

Yes.

<<A mirror prependicular to your shot doubles the "subject" distance if you focus on the frame but shoot into the mirror. Since the mirror in this case was angled 15 degrees from the vertical, the effective distance is more then double the focused distance. One would expect that to foul up the 3D matrix calculations of proper flash output (although the preflash ought to have compensated).>>

Because the lens was focused at the mirror edge the subject-to-flash distance should not be doubled. The mirror itself took up less than 20% of the image and the reflection of the flash head was just visible at the bottom of the mirror. The rest of the scene was within 30 centimetres from the plane of the mirror and took up 80% of what the camera saw.

<<The camera doesn't give a hoot, so no, you're not asking too much of it. But your test appears to incorporate too many variables. You can conclude that, despite multiple combinations of lens, flash setting and focus point, your test fooled your meter every time. You cannot yet draw conclusions about WHY it did so... needs further testing with (to repeat) just one variable changing per shot.

Have fun,

-- Jim Gifford (Silver Spring MD USA) >>

Yes, Jim, I'm going to do more tests, but I'm asking if anyone can explain how to get the perfect (or even borderline acceptable)exposures in the same circumstances without using a flash meter or manual flash and a measuring tape.

Folks,<br>

  I had three shots left on a roll of 200(?)ASA Sensia that

I had left from a trip to Paris and decided that an experiment on 3D

matrix balanced flash was in order.<br>

  In a room with tungsten lighting a chair stood against a

wall with a 1/2 length mirror sitting on the seat cushion lying

against the seat back at approx 15 degrees from the vertical. On the

right side of the mirror I put a white cotton tee-shirt and on the

left a black shirt. Below the mirror I put a gray item which escapes

me now.<br>

  The lens used were my trusty 50mm f1.8 AFn non-D and the

much-rubbished 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 AFD, all mounted on an N/F80. The

flash used was the Metz 53 with 3402 module (3D etc).<br>

  Sitting on a coffee table about 1.5 meters away from the

mirror the head of the flash was just visible at the bottom of the

mirror. I focused on the edge of the mirror and then moved the

central focus point so that it was exactly on the flash head's

reflection. The three shots were all taken at f/8, 1/60s. The first

was straight TTL with the 50mm, manual mode. The second was with the

28-80 set at 50mm, 3D Matrix on the flash and A-mode on the camera.

The third was with the 50mm, matrix on the flash and A-mode again.

  I got the results back yesterday morning and was

perplexed - the shots were all under exposed by a large amount. The

first shot in TTL was the darkest, the second in 3D Matrix yadda-

yadda was the least dark then the Matrix-balanced one was half-way

between the two.<p>

<table border="1">

<tr><th>Lens</th><th>Flash Setting</th><th>Result</th></tr>

<tr><td>50mm AFn</td><TD>TTL</TD><td>Darkest</td></tr>

<tr><td>28-80 AF-D</td><TD>3D Matrix balanced

TTL</TD><td>Dark</td></tr>

<tr><td>50mm AFn</td><TD>Matrix balanced TTL</TD><Td>Darker</td></tr>

</tr>

<table>

<p>

  In each case the flash head appears as a totally clear

spot in the centre of the frame and in no case was the white garment

anything other than a slightly less opaque patch on the otherwise

very dark film.<br>

  I had thought that even in the most basic flash mode the

fact that the camera was not focused meant that the central flash

sensor was ignored or at least down-graded but that seems not to have

happened.<br>

  Perhaps the camera tried to prevent too much contrast

from appearing on the frame by biasing for the most reflective areas.

This I could accept from straight TTL but the much-vaunted 3D Matrix

Balanced (Fill) Flash was only a little 'better' than Matrix, which

was itself only a little better than straight TTL.<br>

  The camera knew from the D-lens that it was set to 1.5

meters (say) but that only mattered a little. It did seem to count,

but I wonder how fine-grained the distance reading is from the

lens.<br>

  So my questions are:

<UL>

<LI>Should I have kept the camera focussed on the mirror frame and

not recomposed?

<LI>Has anyone else performed similar tests?

<LI>Am I asking too much from the camera?

<LI>How good is the distance reading from the lens? Is it accurate to

particular distance or does it gate the scene e.g. (1m, 2m, 4m, 8m

etc) so that the results are at most 1/2 stop out?

</UL>

<br>-P.J.