Paul wrote: >Even working in a strictly >digital world, an understanding of exposure its finer points will >separate truly good work from the merely adequate.
I second that. No camera or meter can yet figure out what you are in fact photgraphing. Cameras and meters still don't know if you are photgraphing a black dog or a white sheep. Until they do, the photographer must udnderstand that, the metering result is a suggestion, based on the assumption that all photgraphes should end up reflecting 18% of the light. I know that matrix metering can add or subtract perhaps ?-1 f-stop to the average metering. This is very often far from sufficient. Especially for digital photography there's a danger of getting burned out highligts (IME) - which is in fact over exposure. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. maj 2005 12:49 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? I think Shel's right in his contention that the "art" of exposure is disappearing, but it's no less important. Even working in a strictly digital world, an understanding of exposure its finer points will separate truly good work from the merely adequate. With studio situations involving backlight and fill or even trying to produce spot-on color on location, precise control of exposure variables can return big dividends. What's more, how can anyone judge the importance of these variables if they don't even understand them? As my Stuttgart engineer friend once said, "You can never know too much." Paul On May 20, 2005, at 6:37 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Jens, Bob ... > > I've been reading the discussion between the both of you. You're both > right, one or the other more so depending on just what and how one > wants to > learn about exposure, and how much involvement one wants in the > process. > I've made my views on other aspects of the debate known, so I won't > rehash > them here. I will say that it's good that this discussion comes up > once a > year or so as the "art" of exposure is disappearing, and we've entered > the > age of the "generic" exposure because of all the automation and fancy > built-in metering that cameras contain these days. > > Shel > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Jens Bladt > >>> You can subtract shades of grey - when printing - but realy not add >>> them. >> If >>> they are gone (in a too hard neg.), they are really gone. >> >> BTW - one of the reasons I like Pentax *ist D. The images are soft >> and not >> over sharpened. This means I don't loose information before I even >> get to >> see my recordings. I will decide later, which shades I don't want. The >> competing camera brands (Rebel and D70) seem to me to have too much >> "on >> board sharpening" and "on board contrast". They loose information >> from the >> start. They are for amateurs - not for the enthusiast or pro. >> Regards >> Jens Bladt >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >> Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sendt: 20. maj 2005 09:09 >> Til: [email protected] >> Emne: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? >> >> >> I don't agree. It has nothing to do with printing. We are talking >> about >> exposure here - not about how to resque faulty exposures. >> >> First of all, to be a good printer (I belive, I used to be one - >> before > the >> digital revolution) it's prefered to start out with the best possible >> negative (or digital image). That is properly exposed negatives, >> slides or >> image files. Where all shades between black and white are represented. >> When printing you can "subtract" to get what you want. >> Secondly, I was still talking about the negs, not the prints. You >> can't > get >> out of a print what's not there in a neg. >> You can subtract shades of grey - when printing - but realy not add >> them. > If >> they are gone (in a too hard neg.), they are really gone. >> >> This is also one of the reasons that the "contrast/brightness" tool >> is a >> dangerous tool. You loose information. Using "levels" or > "shadow/highlight" >> is better. >> >> >> Jens Bladt >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >> Fra: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sendt: 20. maj 2005 08:33 >> Til: [email protected] >> Emne: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? >> >> >> Yes - those things are important for people who want to go on to >> become > good >> printers. But you have to be able to walk before you can run. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Bob >> >>> >>> That's true, Bob. >>> But you are missing out good old techniques to increase >>> contrast by underexsposure/overdevelopment and decreasing >>> contrast by overexsposure/underdevelopment. >>> >>> >>> >>> I recommend slide film lab as a better medium for early >>> lessons in exposure. >>> There are too many variables involved in b&w development that >>> detract from the early important stuff about exposure. >>> >> >> > >
