Dealing with dull skies

donaldejose

I started with film and I exposed Kodachrome 25 one third stop under because I like to increase the saturation of an already over saturated baseline! So I have been on the over saturation binge a long time.

vtc2002

@donaldejose Do you think you time using film helped you develop your skills and style? I have friends that started with film and swear that it made them a better photographer and feel that those that started with digital cameras are missing out on some skills and I have some friends that started with digital that do not see the value in film photography and have excellent skills. I see both sides but lean more towards the film side as helping develop skills that I am not sure digital can. Not saying that digital can't just that you have to be more disciplined. I think this comes into play when you are faced with challenging situations such as dealing with dull skies. Film tends to force you to slow down to think about composition and framing more so than digital. If you developed your own prints I believe it also helped to develop a understanding of what is recoverable or what you can do with the image in post processing. There is not a right or wrong answer, just curious about your observations and experiences.

WestEndFoto

Slowing down to frame is one reason I typically do not use zooms. I looked in an old box a few weeks back and is seems I used Fuji Velvia when I shot film, so I liked the saturation too.

donaldejose

Yes, I think starting with ASA 25 slide film (you get what you shot with no negative either lightened or darkened as it is printed) and a Nikkormat FTN (everything manual with a simple needle indicating proper exposure) helped me because I worked slow and thought of everything before I pressed the shutter. Back then: what part of the image was medium gray to meter off of or how much + or - exposure should I give it if I am metering off something that is not medium gray? Now it is just trust matrix metering most of the time. Back then: I would often meter the highlight and the shadow to see what dynamic range was in that image and think about if I wanted the shadows black or not and if I was willing to accept some reduced saturation in the highlights. Now it is just assuming the camera has sufficient dynamic range or I will adjust it in post processing. Back then: what is the sharpest f-stop for the lens I am using and can I adjust all the other factors to use it? I still do think of this before I press the shutter button. Back then: tripod or brace against something (I could hand hold down to 1/30 of a second in those days but not to 1/15th of a second)? No need anymore due to great high ISO ability. Back then: what shutter speed do I need to stop motion (I often had to wait for the wind to stop blowing flowers or tree branches in those days)? Only need to consider this these days for fast moving subjects but no longer for flowers or tree branches because you can set auto ISO with a minimum shutter speed for the wind conditions that day. Back then: what depth of field would work best on this image, especially where should I set the manual focusing lens for best hyperfocal distance using the scale right on those old lenses? Now there is no scale on the lens to use so I guess by placing the AF on neither the closest nor the farthermost part of the image I want in focus and recompose while holding focus, but this is more of a guess than it was in the old manual focus lens days. Nikon AF tends to focus on the closest part of the image in the focus area and this is wasting part of your DOF which extends in front of that focus point. When shooting at f5.6 or f8 or f11 I tend to look at the front and the back of the area I want in focus and then AF on some item about one third back from the front because generally DOF is about one third in front of the focus point and two thirds behind it. If I am a bit off I can usually fix it with increased contrast and sharpening in post processing. When shooting at f1.4, f2.8 or f4 I obviously just AF on the main subject because of the shallow DOF. Back then: I would then consider if I needed a warming (skin color in the shade) or polarizing (bluer skys, remove relfections on leaves, etc) filter and use them if desired. Now I never use a warming filter, I have many sizes of polarizing filters but seldom use them anymore. Finally, even composition has changed. Back then: I could not crop a Kodachrome slide and I did not shoot or print negatives so I had to compose carefully before I pressed the shutter button. Now it is entirely different. I shoot either 24 or 36 megapixels and have discovered I can print just one forth of a D800 image poster size with no one noticing. Today I tend to error on the side of composing slightly wider than I intend the final image to because I know I am free to crop extensively. I also love no longer being bound by the old ratios (1.25 for an 8x10 or 1.4 for a 5x7 or 1.5 for a 24x36). Now I crop (or stitch) to whatever ratio I think best suits the image. However, there is a downside: now "odd size" images need professional custom printing, matting and framing which increases cost. Certainly, starting before digital helped me because I had to learn so much more about how to best create in the first instance on transparency film what my mind saw or imagined. This is your point of starting with the best image possible and I do agree with that. However, I am lazy today (that looks nice, compose and click) and would benefit from slowing down and thinking more before I pressed the shutter. Yet, I would never give up the digital darkroom, huge megapixels and high ISO advantages we have today. Those advantages also make me a better photographer than I would be if I had stuck with film. To me shooting film today is foolishly limiting unless you are seeking an historical experience.

Photography201

interesting

donaldejose

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt3FmOtEUpA&feature=em-uploademail