Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Is a lens fast enough? A way for digital shooters to answer.
Old 01-14-2018   #1
karateisland
Registered User
 
karateisland's Avatar
 
karateisland is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 169
Is a lens fast enough? A way for digital shooters to answer.

In anticipation of my CLE arriving, I have been thinking of what I can do to smooth my transition to film from digital. I started by using my Fuji in fully manual mode to mimic the restrictions of film. That is, I set the ISO to 400, and set the shutter speed and aperture according to the sunny 16 method.

It has been an eye-opening experience. I have come up against some limitations in terms of light gathering—which I have never really dealt with before. Since the little Fuji has such great high-ISO performance, in the past I would simply set auto-ISO, pick an aperture that suits me and run with it. In low light, I set it to F/2 and the camera would take care of the rest. Now, shooting it like a film camera, with ISO 400 (or 100), I am coming up against the limitations of the F/2 lens *sometimes.*

So I started to wonder, is F/2 fast enough? The answer, of course, is that it depends on who you are and what kind of subjects you shoot. If you shoot film, you can learn from experience--you’ll likely just know that you rarely hit the limits of your F/2 or F/2.8 lens. If you shoot digital and let your camera do it all for you, then, well, you lack the same lived experience.

Many of you reading this will probably think, “Then just go out and shoot with film, get the lived experience, and you’ll find out!” This is true, of course, and excellent advice. However, in my excitement for my new camera to arrive, I decided to try the next best thing: data analysis!

I extracted metadata for aperture and shutter speed for every digital picture I took in 2017. Next, I plugged those numbers into a formula to calculate the EV for every shot, which I tallied and converted to a chart. This gave me a quick visual guide that shows me how many pictures I took at each EV during 2017. (See attached chart.)

I took more than 90% of my pictures over EV 7, which Fred Parker’s handy dandy Ultimate Exposure Computer guide rates as "Bottom of rainforest canopy. Brightly lighted nighttime streets. Indoor sports. Stage shows, circuses." (http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm) Furthermore, my guess is that most of the pictures I took under EV 7 were the result of my playing around with the camera at night in my condo--so I'd put the actual number of shots taken below EV 7 much lower than 9 out of 10.

Using that information, I can check Fred Parker's EV exposure factor relationship chart, which gives me a way to see if a lens would be up to snuff for my normal use. My M-Rokkor 40mm (original version) opens up to F/2 and can be handheld down to 1/30. Finding those numbers on Fred’s chart, I see that this can be used comfortably in lighting down to EV 5 if I use ISO 400 film, and EV 7 if I use ISO 100 film. The lens is likely to be more than good enough!

This also helps me when thinking about what lenses might be the best use of my (limited) funds in the future. Let’s say I want a wide-angle to accompany my normal 40. Would the VC Color Skopar 25mm be fast enough? To find out, I can repeat the same steps as above: The lens opens to F/4 and can be quite comfortably handheld down to 1/30. Using ISO 400 film means I can shoot in light as dim as EV 7, ISO 100 gets me workable results in light as low as EV 9, which is still good enough for most landscape shots. Alongside my rokkor, that would make a rather affordable and extremely small two-lens kit with my Rokkor that would get me pretty far.

I can run the same analysis for a 50mm F/2.5 and see that shooting ISO 400 film gets me a little below EV 7. That makes it more than passable for daytime outdoors work and portraits, which, again, is probably good enough for me as part of a small kit. F/2 would get me even further.

Some of you may say this over-complicates things, that my preferences may change in time, that I may decide to move on to new lenses after my initial purchase, or even point out that there are plenty of other factors to take into account—those are all fair points, and this is definitely not a perfect system. For me, however, any concrete metric that makes me feel more comfortable buying a slower, cheaper, and easier to correct lens is a good thing. It will save me money for film.

In the end, it eliminates one more unknown factor, helping me to maximize the quality of my lens kit, and minimize the cost. It's a very personal thing, of course, but this helped me a lot and I thought I would share in case anyone else could benefit.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg EV chart.jpg (8.5 KB, 30 views)

Last edited by karateisland : 01-14-2018 at 08:13. Reason: clarify
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #2
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by karateisland View Post
...My M-Rokkor 40mm (original version) opens up to F/2 and can be handheld down to 1/30...

...Would the VC Color Skopar 25mm be fast enough? To find out, I can repeat the same steps as above: The lens opens to F/4 and can be quite comfortably handheld down to 1/30...
I'd be careful here. I know I am operating at the limits at 1/30th, and can't be certain of a lack of motion blur. You may be very steady though.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #3
karateisland
Registered User
 
karateisland's Avatar
 
karateisland is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I'd be careful here. I know I am operating at the limits at 1/30th, and can't be certain of a lack of motion blur. You may be very steady though.
Another wrinkle! Thanks for the tip--I tend to be quite steady, but I suppose I'll see soon enough...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #4
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 542
Interesting approach to lens choice(s).

One budget 50mm you might look for, if you decide to get a 50mm, is the Canon LTM 50/1.8. Quite good image quality and not much more than $100 if found without haze and would fit your bang for the buck/size approach. I have one and it fits my CL quite well, much better than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 which I also have (1.4 is now gone) but use on my M3 more comfortably.

Enjoy the film path and as you likely have already heard, when in doubt (with negative film), give it more exposure.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #5
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,678
FWIW, I rarely hit a shot at 1/30th. I still attempt it though

Even 1/60 can have movement blur if you're in motion or have had too much coffee or just don't have your technique down. I have the images to prove it. (and just to clarify, with a 35 or 50mm lens).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #6
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,934
It's fast enough.
Many of the greatest photos ever taken were shot with f/2.8 or f/3.5 50mm lenses drawing on 50 or 64ASA film. Most of Bresson's greatest work. Erich Salomon was scale focusing a fast long focus lens with incredibly slow film. In what we may call darkness.
Maybe we've gotten more jittery in the last 50 years and I keep saying that I need to buy more Delta 3200 but really, I can shoot handheld Tri-X down to 1/15 at f/2 and get what I need in focus. If I'm walking around the city at night, I may even take my 2.1cm f/4 Nikkor O on my M4 as the wide angle lens really cuts down the jitter effect. I can handhold that lens for decent images to 1/4 second. If I have a wall to lean on, I can shoot on Bulb.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #7
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by karateisland View Post
... I have been thinking of what I can do to smooth my transition to film from digital.
I wish I could help you but my experience was just the opposite of yours. I made the transition from film to digital.

When I was a film only shooter, I shot under a variety of lighting conditions and usually shot ISO 100 and ISO 400 film. Occasionally, I would have to push process my 400 film to 800.

Since I rarely carried film with an ISO rating higher than 400, I relied on fast lenses (f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2 and f/2.8) with my small format 35mm film cameras. With my medium format and large format film cameras, I still use slow lenses. I must rely instead on a sturdy tripod and a long shutter speed for correct exposure.

With my small format digital cameras (full-frame, FX, DX, APS-C, and micro 4/3), I still use my film shooting style and habits. I usually set my ISO to 100 or 400 and only occasionally use ISO 800, 1600, or 3200. I never shoot auto ISO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #8
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
It's fast enough.
Many of the greatest photos ever taken were shot with f/2.8 or f/3.5 50mm lenses drawing on 50 or 64ASA film. Most of Bresson's greatest work. Erich Salomon was scale focusing a fast long focus lens with incredibly slow film. In what we may call darkness.
Maybe we've gotten more jittery in the last 50 years and I keep saying that I need to buy more Delta 3200 but really, I can shoot handheld Tri-X down to 1/15 at f/2 and get what I need in focus. If I'm walking around the city at night, I may even take my 2.1cm f/4 Nikkor O on my M4 as the wide angle lens really cuts down the jitter effect. I can handhold that lens for decent images to 1/4 second. If I have a wall to lean on, I can shoot on Bulb.

Phil Forrest
Respect! I wish I could achieve 1/15. As I said, I still try but often end up with an image that doesn't meet my objectives. However, because I'm not afraid to try, I've found myself with a few surprises. One of my favorite images of "city life" during the last year was shot at 1/15, and blurry as hell in most of the image, except for where I actually wanted sharpness. I'll freely admit it was a happy accident, but I'll take it!

I honestly don't expect images at [handheld] 1/30 and below to be sharp. OK if I planned it that way, disappointing otherwise. I'm even worse with a SLR/DSLR
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #9
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,201
How enough is F2 for family, group of five, seven?
If you are forum photographer, then lens is never fast enough. If you are real life photographer and aperture is for gathering of enough light, not bokeh masturbation, you will quickly realise why flash was photographer friend and why modern digital cameras have clean ISO 12800 and up.

The only limit I have with film, is how far I could push it. My limit is @3200. And it limits my real life photography by 1/8 with f2.5. But once I have flash added...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #10
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
I use a 2.5/50mm and it's fast enough 90% of the time.
One thing I find now over the years is, I'm not afraid to underexpose a shot.
More specifically, leave shadow details unexposed.
It often represents the scene better and adds contrast.
It's an approach of looking for the image that is there and not over reaching.
Limits create opportunities !

One of the reasons we use film is to compliment Digitals "perfection" and ability to go deep into the shadows.
Letting some of what we might think of the "traditional shortcomings" of film photography exist in the work.
Digital has made it too easy to always get the shot. Even with an iPhone one can have a fully exposed room that measures ev 2 IRL ....
My eyes can't see what the Digital sensor does.
Using film, I show what my eyes see.

When using a faster lens, it's to get faster shutter speeds not expose more deeply into shadows.
That f2.5/50 is complimented by a f1.2/50.
In your case with the CLE, I would eventually choose the Nokton f1.4/40.

With a digital camera it would have been too tempting to expose deeper. With film... the choice was limited.
Seriously by Adnan, on Flickr

Cheers
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #11
Jdsegra
Registered User
 
Jdsegra's Avatar
 
Jdsegra is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
It really depends on how steady your hands are and your development process.

I use a 60min semi-stand in rodinal most of the time for HP5 at 800. Using this, I can pretty reliably shoot indoors at night in a well lit room at f2 ,1/60(think kitchen). If I need more light, it'd be nice to have 1.4. I suppose I could also use a conventional development and push to 1600, but I'm lazy.

Most of the time I just open up to 1/30 or 1/15, take a deep breath and hope for the best. Most of the time it works out, but every now and then it ends in heart ache.

Best of luck on the conversion to film. Once you adjust, it'll be hard to go back to digital. When you nail a shot on film, it's magic.

Best advice I can give you.... If you develop at home, make sure you pay attention to how long your fixer is good for.. I couldn't figure out why my shots looked so ****ty for a while and was blaming my exposures.. then I realized that I had been using exhausted fixer and had ruined several rolls through bad development.
__________________
The single fastest way to become a better photographer is to become a ruthless editor.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #12
Jdsegra
Registered User
 
Jdsegra's Avatar
 
Jdsegra is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
Also, part of the fun of film is that if you're up against a constraint and need say 1/15 make an exposure, you're forced to pan to get the shot.

It may not work out, but you may end up with an even better shot than if you had just upped your ISO on a digital camera.
__________________
The single fastest way to become a better photographer is to become a ruthless editor.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #13
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdsegra View Post
Best advice I can give you.... If you develop at home, make sure you pay attention to how long your fixer is good for.. I couldn't figure out why my shots looked so ****ty for a while and was blaming my exposures.. then I realized that I had been using exhausted fixer and had ruined several rolls through bad development.
Just curious why the film couldn't have been salvaged by refixing in fresh fixer?
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #14
Jdsegra
Registered User
 
Jdsegra's Avatar
 
Jdsegra is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
My assumption is that the fix prevents the film from continuing to develop to light. It may stop it getting any worse, but it won't retroactively keep it from continuing to develop.
__________________
The single fastest way to become a better photographer is to become a ruthless editor.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #15
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,849
How low you can hand hold a shutter speed differed wildly for people. It also depends on how / what you photograph and what acceptable sharpness is for you. If you are standing still waiting for a photo to happen and you breath properly, you have a better chance of getting a low shutter speed shot than if you are walking, see something quickly, and have to bring the camera quickly to your eye for the moment. Handholding at low shutter speeds seems to have a macho element attached to it... but does the photo work? In the past, many had no choice but to try to get the shot at a low shutter speed or risk having no shot. I see no need to handicap yourself if there is another option available today. I'll take the fast lens and the high ISO. I also have shaky hands and tend to walk a lot waiting for something to catch my attention. I may need to bring my camera to my eye quickly, and just shoot.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #16
karateisland
Registered User
 
karateisland's Avatar
 
karateisland is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I see no need to handicap yourself if there is another option available today. I'll take the fast lens and the high ISO.
In this case, the idea is to get myself out there shooting ASAP, and to do it with lenses that offer the aesthetic qualities I like, in a package I can afford. If slower lenses will work for more than 90% of my shots, why not start with one of those instead of waiting until I've saved for an F/2?

Though it's likely add faster lenses to my kit in the future, I can still have a lot of fun--and take most of the pictures I want to take--with some small, slow lenses while I'm saving up.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #17
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by karateisland View Post
In this case, the idea is to get myself out there shooting ASAP, and to do it with lenses that offer the aesthetic qualities I like, in a package I can afford. If slower lenses will work for more than 90% of my shots, why not start with one of those instead of waiting until I've saved for an F/2?
I can agree with that... certainly better to be making photos than dreaming about equipment.

Quote:
Though it's likely add faster lenses to my kit in the future, I can still have a lot of fun--and take most of the pictures I want to take--with some small, slow lenses while I'm saving up.
Certainly... my response wasn't in direct response to you necessarily but the whole thread. Sorry, I agree wholeheartedly with buying a 2.5 or 2.8 lens and just making photos. The worst that can happen is you can't make some photos. That happens even when you seemingly have it all!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #18
karateisland
Registered User
 
karateisland's Avatar
 
karateisland is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Certainly... my response wasn't in direct response to you necessarily but the whole thread. Sorry, I agree wholeheartedly with buying a 2.5 or 2.8 lens and just making photos. The worst that can happen is you can't make some photos. That happens even when you seemingly have it all!
Ah! Understood. And I totally agree with your sentiment!


Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
With a digital camera it would have been too tempting to expose deeper. With film... the choice was limited.
This is part of what I'm looking for with film, honestly--sometimes it's almost too easy being able to get a perfectly competent photo in any circumstances using my digital!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #19
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by karateisland View Post
Another wrinkle! Thanks for the tip--I tend to be quite steady, but I suppose I'll see soon enough...
I have one word for you: monopod.

Actually, a bunch of folks used to take a 1/4 screw and tie a long piece of sturdy string to it. The screw goes into the tripod socket and you stand on the string and pull UP until the string is taut. Helps with the shakes.

BTW 1/30 with a 50mm lens is ok, but I wouldn't call it "no problem." You have subject movement to consider too.

Where I live f:2 at 1/60th will do for many indoor settings during the day. But at night? Let's just say that I own a lot of f:1.4 and faster lenses . . .
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #20
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
My fastest lens is a 28/2.8 at ISO 320. I can hand hold down to 1/15th provided the subject is stationary, and sometimes go down to 1/8th with acceptable (not excellent) results. After that, I'll put down my camera and pick up a beer.

One other point to think about:
Lets say I'm at 1/15 and f/2.8 and you're at 1/60th and f/1.4 and in both cases the subject is moving a little. Is it better to have a uniform motion blur over the whole image, or miss focus as the subject moves in and out of the narrow plane of focus?

Personally, I find people shots at wide apertures like f/1.4 are hit and miss unless they are sitting for a portrait or my shutter speed is high enough to stop the subjects motion (not my camera motion), or about 1/250. I pick uniform motion blur.

For the record, my best shots have been shot at f/4 to f/8 with shutter speeds down to 1/30th.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #21
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,036
Having made photos for 35 years before a digital camera I could afford to touch even existed, what determines if a lens is fast enough is simply determined by answering:

Does it fit my camera?
Can I afford it?
Is it light enough to move?



Seriously, in those 35 years of photography and in the ensuing 20 years of photography that followed, I've only occasionally had lenses faster than f/2.8 maximum aperture to work with, other than normal lenses for 35mm cameras. Most of my exposures, for sure, have been made at the f4 to f/8 aperture setting for 25, 50, 100, 125, 200, 250, 320, 400, 640, and 1000 ISO films. I've rarely pushed films more than one stop ... two at most so 1600 maybe ... because quality gets to be so crappy it isn't worth taking pictures—at least with small format cameras.

I'd advise, rather than calculating this and worrying yourself about that, just wait for your camera and lens to arrive, load the camera, and go learn how to shoot with it. I shoot with the Leica M-D and normally use a Summicron 50mm f/2 lens. I almost always have the lens at f/2.8 to f/5.6. I set the ISO to 400 90% of the time. I meter, set the exposure I think is right on that basis, snap, and move on. I get lots of great photographs that break any rules of calculation or correctness.

BTW: When shooting film, you normally put the slowest film you can get away with in the camera based on the available light. Daylight: 50 to 100 ISO. Nighttime: 400 to 1600 ISO.

That's photography.

G


Leica M-D + Summicron-M 50mm f/2
ISO 1000 @ f/3.4 @ 1/60
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2018   #22
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
My fastest lens is a 28/2.8 at ISO 320. I can hand hold down to 1/15th provided the subject is stationary, and sometimes go down to 1/8th with acceptable (not excellent) results. After that, I'll put down my camera and pick up a beer.

One other point to think about:
Lets say I'm at 1/15 and f/2.8 and you're at 1/60th and f/1.4 and in both cases the subject is moving a little. Is it better to have a uniform motion blur over the whole image, or miss focus as the subject moves in and out of the narrow plane of focus?

Personally, I find people shots at wide apertures like f/1.4 are hit and miss unless they are sitting for a portrait or my shutter speed is high enough to stop the subjects motion (not my camera motion), or about 1/250. I pick uniform motion blur.

For the record, my best shots have been shot at f/4 to f/8 with shutter speeds down to 1/30th.
What a great point.

My most used film camera at the moment is a IIIf with an f3.5 collapsible 50mm Elmar. It worked for our ancestors.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2018   #23
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,413
Hi,

It's mostly a matter of technique with you, rather than a built in computer, doing the thinking. Slow shutter speeds need a technique in which you stay steady and breathe carefully and then squeeze the shutter at the right point. Once mastered you can usually get it OK at one or half a second but it gets worse as you age. And, of course, you can always jam the camera against something solid.

I used to do a bit of pistol shooting and the same applies there and pistols recoil and jump about when you fire but it can be done. Again you just have to learn and practice the right technique.

In your shoes I'd start with easy subjects and learn and get the feel of the camera and film before the more difficult subjects. Luckily there's more than enough old secondhand books about dealing with film photography and so on.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2018   #24
Arbitrarium
Registered User
 
Arbitrarium's Avatar
 
Arbitrarium is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 319
I used to use a 1.4 lens on my main everyday camera and often used the widest aperture, but since then I've been using f/2 or slower lenses and not felt like I was missing out, and I shoot plenty at night. With a leaf shutter, I shoot down to 1/8th of a second (or on my Retina, 1/5th) and am happy with the results, but I'm not obsessed with sharpness so a hint of motion blur doesn't bother me.
__________________
Arbitrarium on Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2018   #25
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,413
Hi,

I worry about this; "I can run the same analysis for a 50mm F/2.5 and see that shooting ISO 400 film gets me a little below EV 7. That makes it more than passable for daytime outdoors work and portraits, which, again, is probably good enough for me as part of a small kit. F/2 would get me even further." I can understand this, BTW, as we all worry before committing out money to some unknown article.

A lot of us grew up using 25 or 50 or 64 ASA (meaning ISO) slide film and with cameras with f/4 lenses or f/2.8 because f/2 lenses were unaffordable. You'll find that the (?Minolta) CLE has an f/4 portraiture lens (from memory - so beware) and few complain about it, if any.

I think part of the problem is that digital cameras are sold by emphasising numbers and they give a completely wrong impression, according to this old idiot. With film cameras you usually end up loving one version of film for colour and one for B&W. And if the film has an ISO of 125 or 64 you learn to work with it. Look at the history of Kodak slide film and you may see what I mean. I can think of a film as fast as 25 ISO that people would kill for...

Anyway, that's just my 2d worth. And may I add that you don't get an EXIF with film cameras? You can get around that by using a notebook and pencil. It's a great learning tool.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2018   #26
karateisland
Registered User
 
karateisland's Avatar
 
karateisland is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

[...]

You'll find that the (?Minolta) CLE has an f/4 portraiture lens (from memory - so beware) and few complain about it, if any.

I think part of the problem is that digital cameras are sold by emphasising numbers and they give a completely wrong impression, according to this old idiot.

[...] And may I add that you don't get an EXIF with film cameras? You can get around that by using a notebook and pencil. It's a great learning tool.
Hi David--Good points. Thinking more on your argument, I remember that I shot film for a few years about a decade ago using a 50mm F/2 lens (I think?), and I recall learning to work with that lens and never feeling like it was a burden. Since then, I've certainly fallen prey to the idea that bigger/smaller numbers make better photographs, when we all know it's the photographer who makes the photograph.

I suppose part of the idea with this experiment was to turn my obsession with numbers into a net positive: Here, the numbers are telling me that I don't need to worry myself about getting the fastest lenses around. A more assured photographer might not need this help, but it definitely did the trick for me. That is, I will definitely be buying the F4 90mm for my Minolta CLE and can't imagine I'll end up complaining.

The whole thing reminds me of buying a stereo a few years back--After a lot of research, I had convinced myself I wanted a pair of Harbeths, which are in the same league for audio as Leica glass is for photography. While I saved for these extremely expensive speakers, I purchased a set that cost 1/10 as much in an effort to tide myself over. Wouldn't you know it, these speakers turned out to give me 100% of what I needed. That extra money is going toward my photography now.

And, for what it's worth, I have my notebook and pencil ready in my backpack for recording notes on my film!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2018   #27
karateisland
Registered User
 
karateisland's Avatar
 
karateisland is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post

Leica M-D + Summicron-M 50mm f/2
ISO 1000 @ f/3.4 @ 1/60
By the way--gorgeous shot!
  Reply With Quote

Simulating exposure based on film media is problematic
Old 01-15-2018   #28
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,299
Simulating exposure based on film media is problematic

I do not find F2 to be a limitation with the newest APS-C cameras. This is because my work usually requires wider DOFs.

With a digital camera all you can do is maximize exposure. When DOF is not a consideration, wide apertures are important because they are more flexible. Fast lenses have more surface area. When the lens is wide open more light (signal) can be recorded by the sensor for a given shutter time. However as the need for DOF increases, the advantage of a fast lens (in terms of S/N) decreases.

The way to maximize exposure with raw files was explained by Emil Martinec.[1]

"Maximize Exposure; maximize subject to three constraints:

(1) maintaining needed DoF, which limits how much you can open up the aperture;

(2) freezing motion, which limits the exposure time;

(3) retaining highlight detail, by not clipping wanted highlight areas in any channel.

Note that ISO is not part of exposure.

Exposure has only to do with aperture and shutter speed. Maximizing exposure guarantees that one captures as many photons as possible subject to photographic constraints, and therefore optimizes S/N.

How does ISO enter?

It enters as a subsidiary aspect of optimizing S/N.

On many cameras ..., there is little or no advantage to raising the ISO, which aids point (3) -- leaving the ISO at a low value may leave the histogram "to the left" for your chosen exposure, it will give more highlight headroom but will not degrade S/N; such cameras can safely be operated at close to their lowest ISO (the precise optimal ISO depends on the details of a given camera design). On the other hand, for many other ...cameras, ... noise relative to exposure is improved by increasing the ISO; after you have maximized the exposure (ie by satisfying criteria (1) and (2)), you have a tradeoff to make for (3) -- raising the ISO lowers shadow noise (up to a camera-specific point of diminishing returns, usually about ISO 1600), therefore improving S/N, but reduces highlight headroom for your chosen exposure, so one has to decide how high the ISO can go and still keep wanted highlights unclipped.

Anyway, the prescription is to set the exposure (shutter speed and aperture only) according to (1) and (2); back off the exposure if at base ISO and you are compromising (3). If you are compromising (3) with your chosen exposure and you are not at base ISO, then you should have started with a lower ISO. Afterward, depending on the specifics of the camera's noise profile, further optimization results from raising the ISO, up to the limit specified by (3), or the camera's ISO point of diminishing returns, whichever is arrived at first.
"

This exposure technique can be quite different from simulating how one uses a film camera. For one thing, the light meter is only critical to avoid clipping highlights. With raw files intentional underexposure is not necessarily bad as long as the S/N (exposure) was maximized. An aesthetically appropriate global rendering brightness is achieved during post-production.

For in-camera JPEGs the film analogy and light meter usage is relevant. However the convenience of in-camera JPEGs has a potential price. The image S/N may not always be optimal because the ISO required for acceptable in-camera image rendering brightness may degrade the S/N compared to a lower ISO setting.

Another consideration for you is the S/N vs ISO profile with you FUJIFILM could be different than the CLE's. It is possible enjoying the best low-light image quality with the CLE will require different ISOs because the two cameras' noise profiles are different.

[1] A direct link to Prof. Martinec's post has been censored in the past as it was appeared in another photography Forum.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2018   #29
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,036
The downsides of using Emil's strategy are that you have no way to accurately gauge whether your capture succeeded since the in-camera image is unviewable when reaching the limits of exposure, forget about taking advantage of the metering system of the camera to determine correct exposure, and the range of adjustment possible in the raw converter (which has its limits too).

Utterly unnecessary in the world of modern sensors, it was useful 15 years ago when he proposed it. Sensors today have both more dynamic range and more sensitivity than you need 90% of the time so there's little need to dogmatically always maximize the curve on the right of the histogram.

And it has NOTHING to offer when it comes to film photography.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2018   #30
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
To try and re-iterate my previous point in fewer words.

Go where the film/lens takes you.
It's not digital where your camera may be capable of adapting to nearly any light level.
With a film camera, the photographer is there to bring back what is available.
After some familiarity, you'll know when to lift the camera or whether it's time rather to set down the camera and lift a beer (as Michaelwj says nicely).
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:36.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.