Darin wrote:
> Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
>>> Darin <d.rhein@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just thought I'd share the results of my first attempt at photographing
>>> scorpion fluorescence.
>> They look very good. What is the difference in technique between 81, 91 &
>> 111 ?
>>
>
> Well, like I said, I didn't think to time the exposures and take notes. So,
> my best guess is that 91 is the one frame where I desided to try using the
> spot meter. All others I used Center-weighted metering.
>
They came out well. If the image numbers are any indication of the
number of shots you took, I reiterate my suggestion of using a digital
"meter"
I'm not suggesting going digital. Back in the olden days, many pros in
commercial and portrait photography used polaroid backs to test the
lighting and exposure before exposing the MF or LF film. The polaroids
were just throw aways to ensure they got the goods. Somewhere, I've got
one or two of me in a conference room with my then baby.
Management decided to put my rear projection system on the cover of the
annual report. So they had the honchos sitting at the conference room
looking at a 6x7 foot rear projection screen while an analyst pointed at
something of interest. Lighting was tricky, with dimmable overhead
fluorescents directed down and the considerable light from the screen
from the front. It took several polariods to get it right, and then the
real shots were right on.
Needless to say, the cover didn't use me, but the girl analyst.
A technically obsolete, low MP camera with manual settings could do the
same thing today for very little money and a lot of saved time and film.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|