Friday, 28 September 2012

My Little Soviet Girl (Part II)

Last week my new little Soviet girl arrived at home. It was a Zorki 4: a telemetric camera from 1967. Without lightmeter or other sensors, I started my new adventure for a non-digital world.

I thought that the most difficult would be calculate the right exposition, so I made some tables with a extrapolation of good settings (from my digital experience).

Last Thursday I sent my first film for be developed. Today, I have the results (notice: all pictures were taken with a ISO 200 film):

#2*: F/3.5 - T=1/30s - Model: Paty
I put the focus in the model (first plane) with a wide aperture, playing with the depth of field.
I think the exposure is right, a little over-exposed, but I think the model would be sub-exposed with other settings.

#3: F/16 - T=1/30s
I put the focus in the metallic structure in the background (at 20m from me).
I think that the exposure is approximately OK in such a difficult situation. We have a strong back-light with a indoor with a poor light. Maybe a longer time exposure would be fine, but then the sky would be more burned yet.

#4: F/16 - T=1/250s
I put the focus in the clock. The exposure is right, is a practical case of the "sunny 16 rule". Here we can view the parallax error: the picture should be symmetric, but the different point of view between the view-finder and the lens produces asymmetry.

#5: F/16 - T=1/60s
The focus is in the monument. I thought there was no sun enough for "sunny 16 rule", so I shot with a larger time exposure. Now I think it's lightly over-exposed, maybe I should shoot at T=1/125s (with the same aperture).

#6: F/16 - T=250
The "sunny 16 rule" works fine here.

#7: F/16 - T=1/250s
Other example of "sunny 16 rule" with a good result. The focus is in the nearest object.

#8: F/16 - T=1/60s
The sky and the hight part of the building are a little over-exposed (however, you can watch some clouds), but the down part of the building has a correct exposure. I think that the parameters used were the correct.

#9: F/5.6 - T=1/4s
The exposure is correct: the sky is over-exposed but the stairs have a correct exposure. What is failing here? I think the main factor is the movement of the camera: exposure times about 1/4s or less are too much large for get the camera be static. The focus is in the hyperfocal distance at F/5.6, i.e., at about 10 meters. The first 5 meters from the camera could be unsharpened.

#10: F/16 - T=1/125s
I think the exposure is OK. The afternoon was running to the evening and the light wasn't enough for a "sunny 16 rule".

#11: F/16 - T=1/125s
The conditions were identical to the previous picture, so the same settings were applied. Maybe the picture is a little sub-exposed in the left-down part, but It's OK in general. The focus is in the door of the temple.

#12: F/16 - T=1/250
Here the "sunny 16 rule" is not enough. Maybe for the ground... but the sky is over-exposed.

#13: F/16 T=1/60s
We have here a difficult light setting. We have a backlight with a principal subject with a poor light. With longer exposure times, the sky would be over-exposed. With shorter times, the temple would be darker yet. I've used the hyperfocal distance at F/16.

#14: F/16 - T=1/250s
In this picture I used the "sunny 16 rule" in a situation with lack of light and with strong backlight. The idea was to obtain silhouettes. The exposure is OK. Maybe the result would be better if the exposure time had been a little shorter, but with T=1/250s we can view clouds and the details in the monument.

#15: F/16 - T=1/15s
In this case the situation was very difficult. The exposure is a problem, the best solution probably would be change the point of view. The first plane is too much dark, and the sky too much clear. The dynamic range necessary for this situation is much bigger than the dynamic range of the film. The focus was in the fountain.

#16: F/11.3 T=1/60s
We can view here the colours of the sunset with silhouettes. The expose is OK. The focus is in the objects in the first plane.
We also can view a strong vignetting. I don't know if  it's because the film didn't move correctly or it's because of the scanning process. I think It's for the first reason.

#17: F/11.3 - T=1/60s
A similar situation to the above, without the vignetting.

#18: F/4 - T=1/60s
This picture was an error. I was thinking in shoot at F/16 (the picture would be 16 times darker). The exposure is OK, a little over-exposed. If I had shooting at F/16 probably the picture would be very sub-exposed. The focus is in the hyperfocal distance of F/16, nearest than the hyperfocal distance at F/4, so the image is blurred.

#19: F/16 - T=1/30s
The focus is in the hyperfocal distance. The exposure is OK.

#20: F/16 - T=1/30s
Similar situation to the above, with a strong error of parallax.

#21: F/11.3 - T=1/8s
Another difficult situation. Dark and clear tones in the same picture. The exposure is not bad: you can see the texture of the clouds and people in the street. Maybe a little larger time would be fine. T=1/8s is a large time and the camera doesn't move. The focus is in the hyperfocal of F/11.3. F/11.3 is not a very closed aperture, but everything is sharp in the image.

#22: F/11.3 - T=1/15s
This picture is wrong. I don't know what is the cause, but it seems a fail in the film.

#23: F/11.3 - T=1/60s
This is a difficult case. I wanted take a picture of the moon but I was wrong. I should use faster times: the houses would be silhouettes, but we could view better the moon.

#24: F/3.5 - T=1/30s
I wanted take the picture of a near object in a first plane in focus, with a blurred background. I think this goal has been completed. The exposure is good.

#25: F/5.6 - T=1/4s
The exposure is not bad, but the picture is blurred. It could be due to the long exposure time (1/4s). Maybe the focus was wrong. I tried put the focus in the hyperfocal distance at F/5.6. F/5.6 is a very open aperture, so the depth of field is short (except with the hyperfocal distance, then, the D.O.F. is infinite). If the focus is not right, the depth of field could be too much short and the picture could be blurred.

#26: F/3.5 - T=1/8s
Another blurred picture. Once again, it could be due to the short exposure time or it could be due to the bad focus. F/3.5 is the maximun aperture for this lens, so the depth of field is, in general, very short.

*The first picture of the film was destroyed by the light, so I start the count from number two.

Conclusions:


i) My calculus for the relationship between the exposure times and aperture for different situations is very good. Maybe little corrections are allowed. I have to learn about to judge better different light situations. By other hand, success with the exposure seems be less sensible than I thought in a first moment.

ii) The parallax error is huge for near and far objects. Symmetrical pictures are converted to asymmetrical images. It's not a depreciable effect, it's a first order effect.

iii)  Exposure times shorter than 1/8s could produce blurred images due to the movement of the camera in these times.

About the film and the scanning, I thought that the noise in a ISO 200 film would be less. Noise is an important default in these series. I'm looking for lower ISO speeds films, but a lot of shops only sell ISO 200.

The scanning was made by a local shop. I think is a very bad scanning: low resolution, crooked, and even with hairs and other stains!!!

Finally, I show some over-processed (digitally) versions of the previous images:








And that is the story of my first film. I hope it will be the first of a lot of them :)! Next time, maybe, in black and white.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Do you like these pictures? Do you want share your point of view about this post? Would you like ask me anything? Please, comment :)!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...