I agree that some negative films are not particularly forgiving, and that there is almost always one exposure that is obviously best. What I meant to suggest is that negative films do provide an extra layer of control as opposed to positive transparency film in that there is the second step from negative to print. Of course few photographers print their own color.
In any case, the comparison to RAW vs. tiff or jpeg is somewhat faulty. The controls that RAW afford are considerably more extensive and precise than what can be achieved in transferering the negative image to paper. Or for that matter, in scanning a negative. > I think it's about time this misconception has been put to rest, at least > wrt B&W negative film. It is frequently said, and, IMO, too often > believed, that B&W has enough latitude that one can be a bit cavalier with > exposure. Not true. While it's true that one may be able to get a decent > print from a badly exposed B&W negative, that print may not yield a full > range of tones or lack shadow detail. Shoot in a contrasty situation, you > better be on the money wrt shadows and just right in terms of controlling > highlights. > > Last year I did controlled experiment and photographed a fellow covered > with a grey blanket sitting on a milk carton in front of a grey fence on a > grey sidewalk. I made eight exposures, 1/2 stop apart, and the detail in > the shadows started to disappear with even 1/2 stop underexposure. Yes, a > print could be made, but some detail was gone forever, and with one stop > under some of the detail I wanted was lost in the base fog (if that's the > correct term), IOW, gone completely. And this was in a low contrast rather > flat situation. > > Of course, as the exposure was reduced, very subtle highlights in the scene > were also reduced, yielding, with normal development, a very flat negative. > Now, while a harder contrast paper could have been used to "rescue" ~some~ > of those highlights (and I'm talking about bright areas in threads of the > blanket, in the texture of the mans sneakers and socks, the kind of subtle > tonality that gives a photograph life and vibrancy), the result was > unsatisfactory because the harder paper compressed the very subtle shadow > detail even further, turning a small area, with very subtle tones, to mushy > grey or black. > > Yes, there are plenty of printing techniques, and techniques in developing > the negs, that could have been employed to generate better results from the > slightly underexposed negative, but I was making this test on the > assumption that the photographer would not know that the exposure was off > by a bit, or would not care too much since there was a belief that the > "latitude" of the film would save the day. > > If you are seeking average results, and can live with fine subtle detail > missing or diminished, then you can rely on the film's latitude to save > your ass. But if you're looking to preserve as much detail as possible, > much of it subtle, and create an excellent print then your exposure had > better be on the money. > > So, to bring this a little closer to the subject and Ken's comment, as a > B&W shooter I'm quite used to paying careful attention to exposure, > shadows, and highlights. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Paul & Shel, > > following this thread, I'm caught up with the idea that slide > > shooters are more likely to feel at home with digital image > > exposures. IOW, they had to be more on the money exposure > > wise than a print shooter due to the reduced latitude of the > > overall process. > >
