Couple of considerations for low-light situations using large apertures
with focus in mind:
1) if you have not already, try a brighter focus screen. I'd
suggest the Beattie 82400.
2) you might also try the "two-thirds" method afforded by the
etched grid pattern John Hermanson can
score your focus screen with.
3) If you're shooting B&W (and I know this might sound awful
passe), consider the use of Tri-X pan. I've
also had okay results with Tmax, but the Tri-X seems to be a bit
more forgiving after the fact. (Just personal
taste, or perhaps spin, but I've found the inherent graininess of
Tri-X negatives to actually impart (in certain
cases) a sort of "soft" and "warming quality to enlarged prints
while drawing viewer attention to the subjects
primary character feature set. I've found this effect pronounced
when applied to close-up, shoot-from-the-hip
portraiture work in the field--which seems to be the central theme
here--though I just came on board so forgive
me if my addition is redundant or otherwise irrelevant--just the
modest opinion of an old photojournalist.
Getting back to the relative properties of Tri-X and Tmax: I might well
have bias as my experience with Tri-X goes
back a long way while my work with Tmax is somewhat limited. I'd appreciate
feedback from anyone who has more
in-field use with the latter film.
Tris
At 01:10 PM 7/8/01 +1000, you wrote:
Simple - the faster you go, the shallower the depth-of-field. In low light,
you are more likely to be shooting wide open and, with the f1.2, the DOF
can be horribly shallow. Easy to make an error. I'm struggling with this
myself, right now, with the 1.2. Had a lovely profile shot of a young woman
- but the point of focus was on the neck, not the eye which was just one or
two inches closer. Damn!
AndrewF
>I have two fast OM lenses, the 50/1.2 and 100/2 that are fairly new to me...
>While shooting with them over the last few months, I have noticed that they
>seem harder to focus than the 50/3.5 or 100/2.8 in low contrast
>situations... (Example: trying to focus at a certain point on a field of
>grass while it is cloudy...)
>
>While they are brighter, I am a bit stumped as to why they are harder to
>focus in certain conditions.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Thanks, James.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|