File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
wats a good film speed for overcast days? 400 be okay?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:02:13 18:16:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width330Image Height297
>> Anonymous
What is this 'film' you speak of?
>> Anonymous
>>112780

it came after stone and chisels but before silly ccds and cmos and algorithms and jpgs and porn
>> Anonymous
bu t srsly, 400 be okay for overcast?
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>112794
simple answer, yes
more complex answer, depends on what focal length and aperture.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Jebuz... how long is a piece of string.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I used Kodak Gold 200 for Overcast and they came out fine.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:11 19:55:37
>> Anonymous
>>112818
Lmao. That's fine to you? Sage.
>> Anonymous
>>112821
The picture may be bad but I don't think it was the films fault. I'm using a camera from the 70's I don't really know how to work very well and have next to no clue what I'm doing besides. I think in those dire circumstances the film handled it pretty well.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112823
It looks extremely blurry, which suggests (although doesn't say conclusively) that you needed to use a shutter speed that was too slow for you to handhold it cleanly. I.e., ISO200 Kodak Gold wasn't fast enough.