On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On B&W or color negative film you really > > only need to be within a couple > > of stops. Most pros are probably at least that good from constant > > practice. > > > This is one of the most absurd statements i have ever heard, > especially comining from someone who purports to be a photographer. > > Try a little test: shoot a scene two stops under, and with 1/3 or 1/2 > stop increments to two stops over. Look at the negs. Have quality > prints made. You'll see that even 1/2 stop away from "ideal" exposure > will result compromised results. > > Tyrone
Depends on your tolerances, I suppose. Yes, the results will be better if the film is exposed "perfectly" (which is a subjective thing anyway) but the deterioration in quality from a near miss is nearly invisible, and to a point fairly easily corrected in printing/scanning/etc. I've been doing this for more than a decade, as have most photographers more concerned with getting the shot than technical perfection. >From a pure technical standpoint, if you have a film with 7 stops of exposure latitude and you photograph a scene with 5 stops of tonal range you can miss by a whole bunch and not lose A THING. Shooting slide film that is intended to end up as slide film is a different story. since the tonal range of the scene is likely to exceed the latitude of the film. Digital is much the same way, although many photographers DELIBERATELY "underexpose" their digital images because it is easier to save the shadows than the highlights in post-processing. You know that famous shot of the guy standing in front of the tanks at Tiannamen Square during the student demonstrations in China? It's two or more stops underexposed, according to the photographer (mis-set ASA!). I put it to you that very few of the great news photographs are exposed within a half stop of "perfect". And, of course, I'm a photojournalist. I never have "quality prints" made--just nasty little 5x7s on newsprint! DJE
