Hi Keith, I didn't mention overexposure because I was already pretty long winded and also because the same situation applies with over exposure as with under exposure, although not always to the same extent. Often one starts to lose detail in what are called spectral highlights, and for the most part this loss of detail goes unnoticed as it's most often irrelevant, such as a few drops of water in a spray that are burnt out. But then, add another 1/2 stop over, and another, and pretty soon the spectral highlights get a little larger, and one starts to lose detail in areas where, perhaps, there should be some detail, and where that detail may have some importance. Buttons and bright objects on clothes seem to get fried in many instances, a small piece of jewelry loses an interesting or important detail. For the most part these things can be overlooked as they are often not an important part of a photograph, but with some detail they add dimension, make an image look more natural, add some characterization. I hate burnt out buttons! On many of the scans I post to the PAW I'll spend time burning in a button, or a reflection from a piece of glass or chrome on a car, or making sure that detail exists in some bright areas, just as i try to do the same thing with proper exposure and development techniques.
Of course, potentially burnt out highlights can be controlled by reducing development, while no amount of extended development can bring back shadow detail that has found its way into too low a zone on the negative. While one can compensate for those "Zone 9" highlights, one needs to know they exist. This requires a good eye for the light in a scene, and perhaps the use of a spot meter. It's one reason I use a spot meter, so I can, whenever possible, measure the spectral highlights, reflections off bright objects, white paper, and so on. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11/23/2004 11:28:48 AM > Subject: Re: *ist DS versus *ist D for the "Digital Newbie" > > I read all thru the message, looking for where you OVERexposed. > Did I miss it? > I'm interested... > > keith > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > 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.
