rangefinders

hey guys i just got a canonet "new" QL17 on the cheap. supposedly it's the poor man's leica (at 1/50th the price of a new MP), but we'll see.

anyway, i still don't really know much about shooting film. figure a fixed lense RF from the '70s seemed like a good entry, since they're not much i can fuck with aside from the film, the aperture, and the shutter speed.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/69/169942585_3b2d2b7a2e.jpg?v=0

not mine, but this is what it looks like

light seals may need replacing soon

assuming yr light meter is functioning properly (mine, i guess, is underpowered in that the original batteries are no longer available, so the voltage is lower), how will the picture be different as I change the aperture? i realize the depth of field will narrow or widen, but is that it? or will the contrast/saturation/whatever change as well?

this is like basic photo 101 stuff that i am too lazy to look up. mostly that's because camera forums and the like are awful places. and i'm not even going to wade thru flickr forums unless given a very compelling reason to do so

aperture changes depth of field, that's it. contrast/saturation is all exposure stuff

^^that's SLR-specific advice, whether or not it works for rangefinders i dunno but 90% sure it does.

aperture and shutter speed work together to determine exposure - every full stop of aperture (or shutter speed) lets in twice as much light

a standard for sunny weather is f/16 @ the inverse of the ISO - so f/16 @1/100

if you wanted less depth of field but the same exposure, you'd use f/8 @ 1/250

f/5.6@1/500

etc.

ahhhhhhhhh

on the back of my ancient Rolleicord there's a very helpful EV (exposure value) guide w/ pictures of weather/lighting conditions and the recommended shutter/aperture for that situation. You can probably find something similar online - if you're shooting negative film (B&W or color), eyeballing is good enough.

so are there like city-distance type diagrams that give relative exposures for a given film stock? do most "serious" photographers shoot lots of test rolls? is there a routinized way of doing that?

(again, i could look this up i guess but whatever)

xp h'm how does negative film differ?

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/files/tutorial/expose/exposure.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value - looks a little confusing, but all the info is there (based on ISO 100 - so if you're shooting ISO 400 you can add 2 to the required EV)

Test rolls is pretty much it - learning how your camera (which might have a slightly slow shutter or abnormal aperture) responds to film and developing. So it's good to always use the same film and always develop it the same way (or same place if you're not doing it at home) until you've gotten comfortable with that one.

there are three basic types of film - B&W negative, color negative, color slide (E-6)
each has a different amount of exposure latitude, the number of stops that can be captured on film (basically, the extent of the brightest highlight and the darkest shadow that won't be pure white or black) - this is also related to the amount you can over or underexpose and get a usable image

E-6 has the smallest latitude because it has to capture a WYSIWYG image - basically like 6 stops, I think (slightly less than a standard digital SLR)
B&W is next - Tri-X and the like can capture 9-10 stops IIRC
Color negative has the widest latitude - ~12 on average, because much of it was designed for amateurs who might not nail exposure every time

dude that chart is exactly what i was looking for! thanks

so far i've been using ilford delta 400, and will def not be developing it myself