Re: HIE for Weddings

[Stanee Rae Pettit Murray <stanee-rae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:25 PM 8/14/96 +0000, Willem Jan Markerlink wrote:

>However: my lab printed the sheet 2-3 stops darker, to compensate 
>for the rather overexposed neg's....still not sure what happened; I 
>have used lots of HIE before with TTL, @400ASA and #70. 
>Part of the reason might be that I shot most of the film *under* the
>trees....apart from our recent scientific discussion about the IR
>reflectance taking place at the bottom of the leaves, I do recall
>some article or statement about false meter readings below or inside
>foliage. 
>Combined with a dark red filter reading into a overall dark green 
>scene, much of the mis reading can be explained I guess. My normal 
>TTL reading are mostly on bright sunny days, out in the open. 
>
>Anyway, I still believe the overexposure adds to the unwordly
>atmosphere, the only draw back are the 0 & +1 exposed neg's, they
>show washed out faces and wedding dress. But best of all: the married 
>couple was very excited about them, so who am I to complain....8-))

I'm glad the couple liked the pictures!  I'd be surprised if they didn't.  I
had a beautiful shot in the shade where the negative also turned out very
overexposed.  The lab who does all my competition prints (Jonathan Penney,
B&W Darkroom Services, 6 Adelaide Park, Center Moriches, NY, USA, 11934,
Phone (516)-874-3409) had an explanation.  Mr. Penney said that the built-in
meter only reads visible light, and would tell the camera to give more
exposure in the shade.  But just because it's shady doesn't mean the
infrared is low, too.  WPPI (www.wppi-online.com) gave me a third place
ribbon in the special effects category for that shot, so even though it was
grainy without much detail in the faces, it was still good enough.

I get washed out wedding dresses too, but since the white fabric (especially
satin) reflects so much, that's expected.  Besides, I like the glow.  Lack
of detail in the faces doesn't bother me much either, if it's a distant
shot.  That unflattering "shark eyes" effect isn't as noticable.  

>
>Btw, I also shot some of the pic's with fill-in flash, for the
>backlight compositions (the background scenery was convincing in a
>few cases): I think this might even save the IR shots on a really
>dull grey overcast day. 
>Have you ever used flash for those occasions, Stanee?
> 

I've never used flash with HIE.  Since I carried my 35mm camera around my
neck for quick switches between it and my Bronica, I didn't want to have the
added bulk of a strobe bracket.  But I don't see any reason why you couldn't
use flash.  I also told the couples in advance that the HIE was done only on
a "time and weather permitting" basis.  I didn't want to make any promises I
couldn't keep if we ended up not taking outdoor photos, or if things were
running late.

>
>- I also feel that I need a larger format to compensate for lack of facial 
>details....landscapes are okay, but these wedding shots shout for 
>more detail everywhere.
>- That would also bring me a 50 shot option within one magazine of 
>70mm film....8-)) Even changing those magazines would be faster than 
>changing film in a camera....
>

Part of the reason I liked using HIE at weddings was that the 35mm was so
convenient to take along.  I pointed out to the couples that the film had a
very "artistic grainy effect" so they didn't expect a lot of detail. I also
said that the surreal quality helps capture the dream-like atmosphere of the
wedding day. (Marketing plays a vital role in the acceptance of the
weirdness of HIE!) Besides, their color photos had plenty of detail, so
nothing was missing from their wedding coverage.

>
>All in all: a very positive new experience with HIE. 
>Good thing I once went skinny dipping with her....;-))
>

You're something else!

So, Willem, have you ever tried hand-coloring your HIE prints?

Stanee

P.S.--don't forget to enter the contest for a FREE flatbed scanner at
www.agfahome.com, they give one away each month!  If you go to the winner's
page, you will see my photo as the May 1996 winner.  (Just so you know who
you're talking to.)
Stanee Rae Murray, CPP, owner
Stanee Rae Studio
stanee-rae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
voice phone (908) 842-5268


------------------------------

Topic No. 2