Various

[Andy Finney <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have had some very curly HIE negs.  The stock seems (on a very small
sample) to be more prone to it than the colour stock I use from Kodak.
This can make contacts go in and out of focus.  Those curly strips are also
very awkward to get into the Coolscan carrier :-(

Tammy,  was it you that uses an N-90?  I have a Sharp/Nikon PCMCIA
card/organiser combination for my F-90 and that stores data on the shots
which I can download to a computer.  Unfortunately I use my FM2 for IR but
that's showbiz!  BTW ... the technique of metering through a dark filter
with a sophisticated camera like the F90 can lead to errors.  The
'shot-matching' algorithm which helps judge exposure takes the overall
brightness of the scene into account when it makes its decisions.  Think of
the difference between a landscape with the sun in shot and a table in a
dim room with a lit lamp on it and you'll see the potential problem.  Under
some circumstances, the automatic exposure will give incorrect results
because it will think the scene is a dark one.  This problem could be more
tricky with the F5 which has an even more 'intelligent' system.

And finally ... my consistent exposure error.  I usually shoot under an
open sky but, once in a while, I have taken shots under trees and other
foliage.  These shots are usually overexposed (using the Kodak recommended
fudge from my Weston readings) by 2 or even 3 stops while the stuff in the
open works fine within the +/-1 stop bracket.  Does this mean that the
transmissive capability of foliage for near-IR is greater as well as the
reflective ... if those two are not incompatible.  I've had the same
results with both reflected and incident readings.  What does the team
think?

I should add that the grainy overexposed look actually enhances some of the
images.  The tunnel of trees shot on my site ...

(http://www.demon.co.uk/atsf/ilight/images/tunnel.jpg)

.. is a classic example of this effect.

Andy



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

Topic No. 8