Underexposing can make colors *appear* more saturated. It runs the risk of losing detail in shadows and darker areas, however.

I've shot Velvia for quite a while (ISO 50) and always had good results shooting it as rated. Same with Provia.

Example 1:   http://pug.komkon.org/00febr/WoodenBoats.htm

Example 2:   http://pug.komkon.org/01nov/docked.html

Example 3:   http://pug.komkon.org/04oct/elan.html

I would trust the camera's meter for the correct exposure unless you know/suspect some compensation is needed. Why not take a test roll of film and bracket your exposures, writing down the data, and then compare and see what you think?


Tom C.



From: Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: slide exposure?
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:39:33 -0800

At 10:21 AM 2/15/2005 -0700, you wrote:

For a short non-technical answer...

I typically let the meter determine exposure unless I'm shooting in unusual lighting/circumstances where I know better than the meter, for instance shooting a subject in a snow covered scene or with significant backlighting.

Remember, the meter itself will not determine the exposure made on the film, the aperture and shutter speed will.

Typically with slide film you'll want to expose for the highlights so they don't 'burn out', but in practice in fairly even lighting it's not a major concern.

Ah ha -- that is just what I wanted to hear!
So in friendly lighting situations (no bright highlights) it should tell me the optimum exposure (as it does when using print film)? This kinda makes sense but I've heard that under exposing just a touch gives better colors.



Tom C.

Francis






Reply via email to