[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: stock recommendation sought
At 03:55 AM 11/6/96 -0500, JKreines at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/6/96 12:13:48 AM, Craig wrote:
>>I hope Geoff meant to say overexpose -- because that's what he is
>>Even with 79 though, you'll find that the pro recommendation for 500 asa
>>stocks is really around 320, so overexposing a stop takes it to around
>Actually, Craig, if the stock were rated at 320, and you exposed it rating it
>at 640, that would be underexposing it a stop (i.e. giving it less light than
>Kodak says it needs). Also remember that unlike almost all color neg stocks,
>'77 and '87 do not like to be overexposed, and get grainier when you do so.
> Not true of '79 of course.
Jeff you are right. I shouldn't post late at night, but I've said that before.
I get that Over/under thing reversed sometimes. I think you got the jist
that I was just suggesting more exposure than expected in low light
situations is a great help to telecine transfer. I understand that flashing
brings up the base fog, but my thought was that with greater neg density,
the fog could be brought down to black while holding better dynamic range
due to more exposure. I've also suggested that pushing 500 to 1000 seems
like a bad idea to me irregardless of stock. I'd rather see an asa rating of
500 with a 1 stop over exposure, and then possibly pushing that neg. I made
the wrong assumtion that more (artificial) light would be easily accesible
Thanks for the patience, I'll get my dyslexia fixed soon.
aleffel at ix.netcom.com
cleffel at aol.com