Hmm, there have been times when I've had a simple question about photogrpahy
that doesn't necessarily warrant entering a while separate item about. So I'm
creating THIS item as a question/answer/feedback item that anyone can use for
those short discussion questions/problems.  Thanks in advance for any
feedback!

67 responses total.

One of the features that my automatic camera has is the 'multiple exposure'
feature.  I haven't TRIED this feature yet... What's the best way to make
ideal double exposures--for best lighting, compositions, whatever, for good
overall effect?

Hmmmmm......   I have never (Knowingly) made a double exposure so I have zero
experience here.  I have seen some nice shots, though.  As an example, you
could shoot a picture of the moon in one of the upper corners of the frame,
then come back and shoot some other feature (building, landscape, etc)
ensuring that the exposed corner is not overlapping the feature.  

A variation of this would be to use tele-zoom for the moon, and wide angle
for the landscape to get a huge moon effect.

Another example would be to show motion, ie: two or more shots on one frame
showing a dancer. 

Why don't each person reading this try a multiple exposure and report back
on the results?

I once made a photo of me playing chess with myself, by taking two exposures
with the alternate halves of the lens covered. It worked perfectly.

I think the same exposure would have worked just as well without covering the
alternate halves of the lens.  (I'll have to try it).

I'm going to have to do some experimentiong sometime soon!!  I do recall
hearing awhile back, something about doing either the brigher picture first
or the darker one first, [if there's a big diffrence] but I don't recall which
was which....

Re #4: only if you have a dead black background. I had a bookcase as the
background in my picture. If I had done two exposures then, I and the books
would have been a double-exposure. There are some optical subtleties in
doing this - it would not work if the half-lens screen were in the plane of
the shutter. However, if placed before the lens, the image is split, though
with a moderately wide band where the two images are blended. I had to stay
back from that zone in where I placed my hand.

Well, it's not double exposure, but Saturday I went out and took pictures in
the fog.  I bracketed my exposures at -1.5, 0, and +1.5 stops from the meter
reading.  The subject was the fog rising off the river at the Delhi rapids.
I also took shots with and without a circular polarizer, which can make the
"non-white" water very black.  Finally I took some bracketed time exposures
of the white water rushing around the rocks.  

I used Tri-X film and was shooting at 300 mm from very low angles.  I still
have half a roll to shoot, so I wont have results soon, but if they turn out
I'll let you know.  btw, I plan to print these myself in high contrast prints
bringing out as much of the fog as possible.  

Maybe the next half of the roll will be good for double exposures.

(all the above shots were on a tripod)

the little I've done with 2x exp's was a long time ago.  you either have to
have a good eye for composition to get a consistent result, or use a tripod,
etc.

covering a portion of the lens and shooting separate images is pretty good,
but you can wind up with a line if you don't "dodge it out" in the darkroom.
some wedding photographers have a tube fitting which allows just the center
of the frame to be exposed, and a complimentary ring-type fitting for the
remaining portion of the frame.  the hardware keeps the two images in register
and works great for making a picture of the wedding couple appear in a glass
of bubbling champagne.

If you do 2x exp's of full frame content, reduce the exposure for each one.
If they are both of about equal lighting, reduce each to (about) 1/2 the
normal exposure.  You might want to do some bracketing (2 or 3 2x exp's) to
see what works best.  If you're doing one shot that has a good deal of light
and a second which is dark, I'd tend to slightly underexpose the 1st, and
overexpose the darker one.  OTOH, for that "moon shot" described above, be
careful not to over-expose the moon too much because you'll lose detail and
the moons light will "muddy up" the rest of the frame (on which you want to
get a clean 2nd exposure).

The "moon shot" should be at the prescribed exposure for light objects in
bright sunlight (because that's what it is).  I recall shooting ASA100 at F8
and 1/250th of a sec and got good details of the surface.  

Hmm, has anyone gotten any double exposure pictures back yet?  [I haven't yet
tried...]

Next question...  What do y'all do with your negatives? I've got years worth
of negatives and am not sure what to do with them or the best way to store
them. Ideas??

I have two methods of storage, both of which seem to work.      

1) commercially processed color negatives - I keep in the polyethylene 
   envelopes or holders that the processors return the cut negatives in.

2) b&w negatives - I buy clear polyethylene sheets which are heat-sealed to
   yield 6 or 7 rows of 6 negatives each.  I have been doing this for decades
   and they seem as good as new.        

The only other precaution is that I would store them in a dark dry place.

I always put a code on the negatives and write the same code on each processed
picture so I can find it easily.  The actual negative number is automatically
added to the back of each print by most color processors.

Have any of you tried using the Kodak "max" film? It supposedly adapts to
various lighting conditions, still pictures, action shots, etc.  I did buy
some of this to try but haven't tried it yet... Am wondering how this compares
to the standard films?  
..

hmmm. . . .     Not aware of the "max" film unless you are referring to T-Max.
T-Max is a B&W film which can be shot at a wide range of speeds.  It has good
ability to show detail in sunlight and shadow, but can not cover extremes
within a single exposure.  I have processed this film at very high speeds with
good results (perhaps asa 3200).  

  I have 2 12 shot rolls, and I am going to shoot this one next, just after
a roll of Gold 24/200 that I have in there now. I'm wondering how it will do
on sunsets, which I love to shoot. When I was in WV, all my sunset shots
turned out like crud because I was using 200 asa. I couldn't find 1000, which
I really wanted.
  From what I saw in the ads on TV, it looks promising, but I don't believe
that until I see it. 

I have had good luck with ASA100 as well as ASA400 on sunsets.  The trick is
to let the camera choose the exposure (which is usually very long) and then
make sure your camera does not move during the exposure.  Faster films tend
to be more contrasty, grainy, and poor in color replication.  

Try your normal film and set the camera on a solid surface and use the timer
if you have one.  

  Unfortunatly, I have a fixed focus, fixed shutter camera, not that I'm
complaining. I think use of the faster film can compensate for not having the
features that you mentioned, Marc. Then again, I could be wrong.
  I am looking forward to buying an APS camera which I have found for sale
at Meijer for around $30, which ain't too bad.

Marc, this "Max" film isn't the Tmax b&W. Rahter, its something new by Kodak;
it SAYS in one place on the box that its ASA 800 but then, on a couple other
places on the box, it says that its virtually adaptable to any kind of
lighting and/or speedvs still shots.  I've brought some but haven't tried it
out yet, Was going to go shooting some stuff this week while I was off but
the weather's been lousy [with the remnants of Hurrican Danny coming through].

If any of you try this new film, do let us know whatcha think of it!

#16.  Omni - I believe you are right.  With the fixed shutter you have a good
chance of getting an improved photo of sunsets with faster film.  I think it
is a trial & error procedure, but if you know what your shutter speed is and
what film speed you get the best results in bright daylight, we could take
a reasonable guess on what film speed would be best.

#17.  Denise.  I have NEVER heard of this film, but it probably is pretty good
if it is made by Kodak.  Do they say it is good for huge light differences
picture-to-picture within a role or within a single frame?  I am curious -
let me know what you think of it.  

Sounds like Max is something worth trying - here are a few words from a site
pulled down by HotBot:


New! KODAK GOLD Max Film
Improved! KODAK GOLD 100, 200, and 400 Films
KODAK GOLD 100, 200, 400, and Max Films are a new family of color negative
films that offer the best combination of color saturation, color accuracy,
and
sharpness at ISO 100, 200, 400, and 800 available from any manufacturer. They
are designed for general picture-taking situations for exposure with daylight
or
electronic flash. You can also expose them under photolamps (3400 K) or
tungsten illumination (3200 K) with filters. Improved! KODAK GOLD 100, 200,
and 400 Films feature better color accuracy, more color saturation, and higher
sharpness than the current generation of GOLD 100, 200, and 400 Films. They
also feature wide exposure latitude--from two stops underexposure to three
stops overexposure.
New! KODAK GOLD Max Film is the newest addition to the family of GOLD Films;
it features high speed (ISO 800) and outstanding emulsion efficiency. It
also offers extremely wide exposure latitude--from two stops underexposure
to five stops overexposure.

Thanks, Denise.

  Didn't Kodak have a ASA 1000 on the market in the early 70's? I seem to
recall shooting a roll or two when I owned a Konica that my parents gave me.

Yes, I recall a 1000 print film.  As I recall it was pretty grainy and
contrasty.  I have used Kodak 1600 print film indoors (graduation ceremony)
with telephoto and no flash with pretty good results.

  Kodak.com has more info on Max film than any human should know. ;)

 I found that they made a asa 25 film for bright lights. But it's
not for my camera. I guess in some cases, the camera does matter.

I'm still looking forward to trying this film--but between my work schedule
and the too hot and/or wet weather outdoors, I haven't been able to do any
shooting with it yet.  Soon, I hope!

Ok, here's my question: has anybody ever taken any underwater shots? I have
decided that I want to take some... suggestions on film type, shutter speed,
etc? PLus, there is the obvious question of has anyone ever seen a
"camera-condom" (something that will keep a camera dry) that won't noticeably
degrade image quality? I saw something meant to do this, but it was plastic
and I figured that it would just smear my image to hell... anybody ever tried
this?

You can buy the "disposable" type of cameras for under water.  I saw pictures
from these and they were really impressive.  I think they had Kodak 400 film
in them.

Yeah, I use those disposable ones and, if the water is pretty clear, and the
sun is bright enough, you can get good shots.  Obviously, the deeper the water
the more light needed.

I once saw a plastic bag type thing that had a glass lens, sort of like a
large dive mask.  The bag was flexible enough to manipulate the camera, but
I could never figure out if you'd get distortion in the event the lens was
not parallel to your focal plane/lens.  Never used one...didn't trust it to
keep my camera safe either.

I'd have a hard time trusting an expensive 35mm camera & lens inside a
low-cost device which has no warranty for the equipment inside.

ditto that. I am sure there are professional devices intended for this though.
Maybe i will go take a look at Canons website -- considering a lot of the
other stuff they make, I have a feeling that they might have something along
these lines...

Let us know what you find.

Thanks

Ok, here is what I have found: there is in fact at least _one_ company that
makes waterproof camera's that use standard 35mm film and are waterproof to
a substantial depth (200 feet and more).

Here is the company that I found (actually I kind of stumbled across this by
accident in a sailing magazine).

Pioneer Research
97 Foster Rd, Suite 5
Moorestown, NJ 08057
Telephone: 1-800-257-7742

The Autofocus SLR that was in this particular ad is called the "Sealife
Reefmaster." I had an opportunity to check one out, and it looks pretty nicely
built, very sturdy. The price tag is sorta hefty, though -- it will probably
cost at least $125 (probably closer to $200 if you buy it in Ann Arbor), for
a camera that if it wasn't waterproof would likely cost around $50. If you
do a lot of underwater shots, or need to take an underwater shot that is more
than the 9 feet or whatever that the Kodak disposables allow, this is quite
likely a good bet.

I did find a few companies that make camera housing. For _video_ camera's,
check out aquavideo.com

So, you are planning on taking the next epic underwater photo series for
National Geographic, huh? You need something more than a point and click
camera? Check out the Nikonos system (no, that is _not_ a typo) at larger
camera shops, or check out ikelite.com, which also distributes underwater
color filters and camera housings.

The camera housings they make look pretty dependable (plus, they ahve been
manufacturing them for 31 years now...) They have housings fitted for
Minolta, Nikon, and Canon SLR's and lenses, as well as color corrective
filters. Oddly enough, they also have a housing fitted for the SONY Mavica
digital system, but I have no clue why someone would use a CCD system for
an underwateer shot, where the image quality is going to be negatively
affected by lower light levels. The Mavica system seems to work okay for
closeup shots, though there is still some visible aliasing on close
inspection, but for wide angle shots, the system is terrible, especially
when there is a wide variance in light levels (this is a problem with CCD
systems). I have put a _good_ example of what can be done with the Mavica
system in an underwater setting here on Grex as
/a/a/g/agent86/mavica-fish.jpg -- if you have internet access, just check
it out directly at http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/mav_pic5.html.

Ah, well, thats all for now.

Anybody know anything about cleaning accumulated grime and dust off of old
slides?  I just got a slide scanner and I've been digging through the family
shoebox...

A fine camel's hair brush is usually used, after blowing. You can wash
the slides in distilled water, if you take them out of their mounts.

I was going to buy one of those camera lens brushes...

Question two:  Glass slides.  They won't fit in the scanner, so how likely
is it that they can safely be taken apart?

There are different kinds of slides *in* glass - old ones with thick glass
and paper around the edges, and more modern ones of plastic with
ultra-thin glass inserts. The former come apart by cutting the tape, and
inside the photo is held in a paper frame. The latter snap open. In the
former, the film is at most tacked with spots of glue on the edge. I'd
suggest if you have the former that you remount them in the latter kind
holder - they are thinner and lighter. 

My dad is worried that the film itself may have become stuck to the glass.

Yup these are the Olde Kinde of slides, thick slabs of glass held together
with some kind of black tape.  The projector we have actually has a "preheat"
section for the next slide, so that it can warm up before having 500+ watts
of incandescent heat blast through it.

Open a few and find out - it is easy enough to close them back up with
new black tape.

hmmm...just wondering - what type of photography equipment is
used to take poster size photos??? I have a hard time believing
that so much detail could fit on 35mm, even with the top of the
line SLRs.

You'd be amazed at how much information is contained in a 35mm negative.  I
used an 1800 dpi slide scanner to archive family photos, and even at the top
resolution (yielding 13Mb files) I could zoom way in and see that there was
still some stuff on the slide being messed up by the scan quantizing.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss