edwin posted, among many other things: > The more I think about the idea of "perfect" exposure the more I think it > is an almost useless, unattainable concept. > > The initial comment was that despite the supposed exposure latitude of > negative films, an exposure a half stop off of "perfect" would result in > a "compromised" final print, based on test results.
As I recall, the comment provoking much of that was that HCB could eyeball perfect exposure, and then someone said with b&w film experienced photographers could get close enough to make printable images. I'm nowhere near the age, experience level or fame level of HCB, but when in my early teens I used to use a rangefinder with no built-in meter; mostly I used a handheld but sometimes I didn't want to use the handheld and I'd set the exposure based on experience. And I would get printable images. Seems to me I've heard that among HCB's peculiarities is allowing only one printer to do his work; if that's the case, how many others besides HCB and his one particular printer have seen his negatives, and know how far off ideal exposure they may be? IOW, if a 15-year-old amateur with an older Voigtlander can expose B&W well enough for printing without using a meter, how much more so HCB with plenty of experience and the presumably more-precise shutter mechanism of a Leica? No surprise there at all, I think.
