Conrad concludes:
> At the same time though I find it also a strange phenomenon
> that there are folks who resist, maybe for sound reasons,
> the technological advances which have been made. Call it
> matrix metering, autofocus or digital photography but
> whatever the newest advances might be and no matter how
> well they work it does happen that there are people who
> resist using them. I have absolutely no objection to folks
> stating their points of view but it will make things much
> clearer if they also state where they are coming from so
> that others who probably are not in the picture also get a
> balanced picture.
And so now I must say my piece:
I'm probably one of the people you refer to with your comments,
although I suspect, over time, I've made it clear why I prefer certain
equipment. But, for the record, and to satisfy any newbies on the
list, and to put a cap on this message, let me make my position
absolutely clear. However, let me preface my comments by stating that
I'm basically a lazy person. I'd love to have the camera do the work
for me and just send the film to the lab for processing.
Unfortunately, I have another, and strongly opposing fault - I'm
something of a perfectionist. So I work my buns off to get exactly
what I want.
I will use a manual focus camera for serious work until
the day I go blind. Why? Because I believe, and my belief stems from
discussions on this list and from some experience, that I can focus
more precisely than a machine. I know EXACTLY where I want the focus
to be, and I often work with wider apertures and try not to rely of
DOF to give me something that's "acceptably" sharp and accurate. These
small differences mean little or nothing when making small prints, but
when one gets up to exhibition sized prints small errors that go
unnoticed in small prints are magnified greatly.
I don't like the feel and the accuracy that one gets when using
typical autofocus gear in manual mode. Yes, there are a few
exceptions, but overall the slop and the added complexity and needless
Captain Marvel electronics and connections just offend my
sensibilities. I like things that are simple, and work directly and
with as little insulation between thought and action as possible.
Excessive
shutter lag, for example, is anathema to the type of photography I
like best. My subjects won't wait until the camera decides where to
focus, works out some metering algorithm, and then decides to fire.
And if I want to focus on something that doesn't have the right
contrast, or isn't in the right spot in the finder, or if I want to
focus where there is nothing to focus on, such as behind a person,
I've got to fight the camera. Some may say it's easy to overcome
these things, but I don't want to overcome my camera's features. I
want my camera to work in harmony with my thoughts, my rhythm, and to
see things as I see them.
And then there's metering. Sure, I like the built in meters in many
cameras, and probably matrix or multi-segment metering is fine most of
the time. But there's that perfectionist part of me again. By taking
the time to understand the light, by knowing what ~I~ want, and by
using a hand-held spot meter I can place my exposure exactly where I
want it. Using a camera with TTL metering in manual mode is also a
good option. By leaving the camera in automatic mode slight changes
in camera position can cause changes in the exposure, as more or less
light or dark areas are metered when the camera moves slightly.
However, the light for the scene hasn't changed, and, therefore, the
exposure shouldn't change, but it does. Sometimes it's not much,
sometimes it can be a stop or more. I'd like to quote a pro
photographer who essentially meters the way I do. He wrote:
"When I meter my hand it meters the light falling on it
and that light doesn't change during the shoot. When I
shoot with the Leica I leave the exposure alone and since
there is no option for auto-exposure I don't have the
temptation to use it. When I used the F5 I was always
lured by the siren call of advertising onto the rocks
of "multi-matrix super integrated" automation. When I
pointed the camera at the doctor's white coat the camera
tried to compensate, kinda. When the camera pointed at the
dark sweater of a patient the camera tried to compensate,
kinda. According to my lab, this "kinda" automatic compen-
sation means that most rolls of pro film are all over the
map compared with film received ten years ago.
In fact, now my film rarely is more than 1/2 of a stop off
and that makes a quality difference even with color negative
film."
And if anyone doubts this, let me suggest a small experiment. Instead
of having prints made from your auto-exposed negatives, where the
machine will compensate for exposure difference (I think of them as
errors) in certain situations - have the lab make a contact sheet.
You'll see that, in many instances, the camera has adjusted as noted
above, and that the exposures are not even throughout the roll, even
though the light has remained constant.
What this automation leads to is sloppy work. How often do we hear
the words "The film's latitude will cover any exposure errors" or
"I'll fix it in Photoshop." Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Granted, there
are times when things are happening quickly and sometimes the
automatic features and autofocus come in handy. But a prepared and
skilled photographer, with the exception of certain specific
situations, should be at one with his gear, and should be able to get
the shot regardless of the equipment used. But the amateur, or the
lazy pro, or the photographer who feels that "good enough" is good
enough, will fall back on technology to save their ass. Some find this
acceptable, as the results are all that matter. Others, like myself,
feel that one can improve upon results earned in this fashion by
utilizing absolute control and diligent attention to detail. I
suspect that neither position is correct all of the time, but by
having the knowledge gained from practice, experience, and
understanding, you may have a better shot at getting better results.
You know the old adage - the more you know the better your luck.
[continued in Part III]
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
