It sounds like the average exposure reading given by your OM2 was an
accurate way to meter the scene. With half the image bright sky and
half the image darker ground that seems reasonable.
For the second picture, adjusting the exposure compensation higher
causes a longer exposure burning out the highlights compared to the
first.
For the third, adjusting the exposure compensation lower shortens the
exposure saving the slightly burned out highlights you had in the
first exposure.
( I hope I followed what you are saying. I'm taking a short break from
some data manipulation my mind may not be working that well)
-jeff
On 6/27/07, Lukasz Grabun <lgrabun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have been playing with Kodak slides recently and have to tell I am
> impressed with results. Even on expired Kodak Elitechrome I got shots
> with decent colour definition and more than satisfying sharpness.
> Pictures from last Sunday are here, if you care:
>
> http://grabun.com/zdjecia/lato/
>
> (Fifth image is dedicated to geebee, if he does not mind, of course :-)
>
> Now, back to business, here are two questions I've been puzzling my
> mind with recently:
>
> [1]. Take a look at forementioned fifth image
> http://grabun.com/zdjecia/lato/05.html
>
> It was taken with OM-2n on Kodak E100VS; OM-2n has no exposure lock
> which would come handy in a picturized scene. Manual mode is somewhat
> flowed in my camera so I had to bracket in orded to get a good
> exposure. First shot was taken in full auto with no compensation at
> all. The frame looks pretty good, the dynamic range of a scene
> overpasses the range of a slide so some parts are underexposed and few
> minor spots are washed out. For the second frame I used +0,6EV to
> compensate for bright clouds that could tricked the camera's
> lightmeter. As it turned out, it was not the case. The slide is
> slightly overexposed which pretty confused me. Third picture was taken
> with -0.3EV compensation and I am not pretty sure why I actually took
> it as it made no sense to me. But, actually, it's the pictured I
> linked to above as it shows most detail with just a small patches of
> underexposed areas.
>
> Would someone enlighten me what is wrong with my thinking and why did
> the camera metered the light the way it did?
>
> [2]. The second question is on GND. How do you use one? According to
> what I've made up it should go as follows: use spotmeter to expose for
> darker foreground, compensate as much as needed, lock exposure, place
> filter against the lens, make a picture. Am I correct?
>
> --
> Lukasz Grabun
> http://www.grabun.com/
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|