"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message news:1072544139.17971.0@echo.uk.clara.net...

> "Ron Andrews" <randrew1@rochesterDOTrr.com> wrote in message

> news:0u7Hb.76024$JW3.49554@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

> > Last time I shot Velvia, I compared it to Kodachrome 25 and found

> them

> > to be about the swame speed. I rated K-25 at 32. I would rate V-50 at 32

> to

> > 40.

> I know someone who uses Velvia very happily at 32 in sheet sizes, but

> preferred 40 when using 35mm.

>

> Not sure what that tells anyone, but for what it's worth...

That meters, shutters, apertures, etc. and/or metering

technique have not been calibrated/regularized...?;-)

I have owned perhaps a hundred cameras with built-in

meters, and find they need to have a correction factor

applied maybe 2/3rds the time to bring them to my

exposure standards (correct slide density under both

low and high light levels for the majority of slide films,

for my taste - but this agrees with the best cameras

and most films rated normally...;-). With Nikon cameras,

many older ones (about 1/2) and some newer ones

require -1/3rd stop compensation to agree with my

standards; most newer ones, especially the "fancy" ones,

are "right-on" as-is. Since Velvia is very contrasty, the

exposure must be more precise, and small errors show

more - so it is not surprising if even the same person

would rate Velvia at 32/40/50/64 with different

cameras. BTW, I prefer "40" as correct...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com