Shel offered up the following: >"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 I never implied that you didn't, but, in general, I believe that print shooters aren't as attentative to getting exposures "right" as slide shooters are. A missed exposure in a negative can be rehabilitated somewhat in printing, while a missed exposure in a slide is headed for the circular file. ----Not trying to inflame anyone, just my limited observations. Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Nov 23, 2004 1:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist DS versus *ist D for the "Digital Newbie" 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. ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
