Well, not any number (don't be quite so literal <g>), but depending on the result you can expose for highlights, shadows, mid range. So, you can make, for example, a half dozen or so exposures and find several that will work depending on the mood you want to convey. But, regardless of how one quantifies it, essentially the choice you make with slide film is exposure, and the rest is handled outside your purvey. IOW, for me, there's not much skill involved since everything else is done by predetermined post exposure work.
I don't think a good exposure is easier to produce with B&W negative film. There are those who feel that they can allow for the film's latitude to cover their exposure errors, but, IMO, that's bullshit. I've got negs that are off by 1/2 stop and the shadows go to hell - they're not where I want them to be. I don't believe that precise exposure occurs within a narrower band with any film. Depending on what result you're seeking, there is but one very precise exposure. Take this photo, for example: http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/grace.html 1/2 stop more exposure and there'd be more detail in the shadows in the lower right corner than I'd have wanted, 1/2 stop less and some of the subtle shadow detail would be gone. In both instances that 1/2 stop exposure error would have also effected the highlights, and the detail in the subject's face. And that would have meant working harder to make an acceptable print, and maybe using a different contrast grade of paper, which would change the tonality and possibly affect the grain structure. I think what happens with B&W is that most (not all) photographers don't previsualize their result. They use the camera's meter which determines the exposure for them, and, because B&W may have more latitude, they'll get a negative that will print acceptably, but will they get exactly what they want? I contend that most, not all, don't know exactly what they want, other than to get something that they can be printed reasonably well. Once you start previsualizing the result, there is no latitude, no room for error, unless you're willing to accept a result that's different than what was intended. With B&W, if you develop the film with a particular exposure in mind, and you've not made that exposure precisely, you're screwed. I suspect any number of people will disagree with me, and if so, so ne it, but that's my position and I won't be swayed from it. Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Perhaps, but I can't agree that any number of exposures can be > acceptable with transparency film, since it has a narrower range than BW > negative film. With BW negative film there is still only the exposure to > consider when shooting, and a good exposure is easier to produce. Yes, > it is desirable to produce a very precise exposure, but again, the same > is true of any film. And with transparency film that very precise > exposure occurs in a much narrower band of possible exposures. > I know you don't scan and print digital. But it is perhaps worth > mentioning that the scanning process can be extremely difficult (and the > results less than satisfactory) when a transparency is just a half stop > over or under. For most situations, you can't just shoot to nail a > transparency exposure, even with a good autoexposure system. You have to > be even more aware of highlight and shadow than what would be required > to produce a fine BW negative. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/darkroom-rentals/index.html - 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 .
