Re: Exposure: was New digital cameras
i think you are being absurd. the densitometer says you are too. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: Exposure: was New digital cameras > > On B&W or color negative film you really > > only need to be within a couple > > of stops. Most pros are probably at least that good from constant > > practice. > > > This is one of the most absurd statements i have ever heard, > especially comining from someone who purports to be a photographer.
Re: Exposure: was New digital cameras
you have no idea what the lab did versus what can be done then. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Exposure: was New digital cameras > Actually, that's not correct. The lab can make an acceptable print, > but not a perfect print. I recently tried an experiment based on an > article I read in a photojournalism book, in which was shown a scene > shot at varying exposures. Being a skeptic, I took a roll of color > neg film, made a reading off a grey card to establish a base exposure, > and then over and under exposed for up to four stops in 1/2 stop > increments, letting the lab make prints and corrections as they > pleased. It was clear which print was made from the ideal exposure.
Re: Exposure: was New digital cameras
- Original Message - From: Subject: Exposure: was New digital cameras > > On B&W or color negative film you really > > only need to be within a couple > > of stops. Most pros are probably at least that good from constant > > practice. > > > This is one of the most absurd statements i have ever heard, > especially comining from someone who purports to be a photographer. > > Try a little test: shoot a scene two stops under, and with 1/3 or 1/2 > stop increments to two stops over. Look at the negs. Have quality > prints made. You'll see that even 1/2 stop away from "ideal" exposure > will result compromised results. There are many factors at play here. The exposure range of the scene may be very long, but still within range of the film, and a small exposure variance will push the scene outside the exposure range of the film. Or, the scene may fall well within the range of the film, by several stops, in which case an exposure variance of a stop or less may cause negligible quality loss. Also, the direction of exposure error matters. With negative film, under exposure will show up very quickly, whereas moderate over exposure may improve things, may in fact be your "ideal" exposure. The type of negative film makes a difference. If the curve is long and straight, with a short toe (T-Max 100), as long as the exposure range of the scene fits fully into the range of the film, the resulting exposure can be considered correct, and may result in an allowable exposure variance of a couple of stops. Even the amateur grade negative films have exposure ranges now of eight or so stops. Most scenes in nature are less than six, and in the studio, may be as little as three. OTOH, one can use the slope of the film to one's advantage. Tri-X in HC110 B has so much toe that it is possible to separate out the most amazing amounts of shadow detail by merely expanding development a stop or so. Of course, this will blow out highlights, so it is best to be prudent about the range of the scene, or perhaps deliberately underexposing somewhat. For your little test, I could set up a two stop scene, and have an exposure variance of several stops with little to tell between them on the print. Or I could set up a very long range scene and have no ideal exposure. I am sure there are many pros out there who couldn't guess an exposure to save their life, they have always used automated cameras on automatic, haven't had to learn that part of the craft, and haven't ever had a problem. William Robb
Re: Exposure: was New digital cameras
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On B&W or color negative film you really > > only need to be within a couple > > of stops. Most pros are probably at least that good from constant > > practice. > > > This is one of the most absurd statements i have ever heard, > especially comining from someone who purports to be a photographer. > > Try a little test: shoot a scene two stops under, and with 1/3 or 1/2 > stop increments to two stops over. Look at the negs. Have quality > prints made. You'll see that even 1/2 stop away from "ideal" exposure > will result compromised results. > > Tyrone Depends on your tolerances, I suppose. Yes, the results will be better if the film is exposed "perfectly" (which is a subjective thing anyway) but the deterioration in quality from a near miss is nearly invisible, and to a point fairly easily corrected in printing/scanning/etc. I've been doing this for more than a decade, as have most photographers more concerned with getting the shot than technical perfection. >From a pure technical standpoint, if you have a film with 7 stops of exposure latitude and you photograph a scene with 5 stops of tonal range you can miss by a whole bunch and not lose A THING. Shooting slide film that is intended to end up as slide film is a different story. since the tonal range of the scene is likely to exceed the latitude of the film. Digital is much the same way, although many photographers DELIBERATELY "underexpose" their digital images because it is easier to save the shadows than the highlights in post-processing. You know that famous shot of the guy standing in front of the tanks at Tiannamen Square during the student demonstrations in China? It's two or more stops underexposed, according to the photographer (mis-set ASA!). I put it to you that very few of the great news photographs are exposed within a half stop of "perfect". And, of course, I'm a photojournalist. I never have "quality prints" made--just nasty little 5x7s on newsprint! DJE
Re: Exposure: was New digital cameras
> Actually with print film you can miss by a mile and > still get a decent print from it ( a mile to me is a > stop ) with slide film miss by 1/3 a stop and your > screwed. Colour print has reached a point where unless > you study the negs you won't really know if your > exposure is off, the mini labs always make that > perfect print for you. Actually, that's not correct. The lab can make an acceptable print, but not a perfect print. I recently tried an experiment based on an article I read in a photojournalism book, in which was shown a scene shot at varying exposures. Being a skeptic, I took a roll of color neg film, made a reading off a grey card to establish a base exposure, and then over and under exposed for up to four stops in 1/2 stop increments, letting the lab make prints and corrections as they pleased. It was clear which print was made from the ideal exposure. Kind regards, Tyrone -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Non ascoltare chi ti porta sulla cattiva strada, segui le indicazioni del tuo gps: scopri le offerte di Miotti Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2101&d=4-11
Re: Exposure: was New digital cameras
Actually with print film you can miss by a mile and still get a decent print from it ( a mile to me is a stop ) with slide film miss by 1/3 a stop and your screwed. Colour print has reached a point where unless you study the negs you won't really know if your exposure is off, the mini labs always make that perfect print for you. --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On B&W or color negative film you really > > only need to be within a couple > > of stops. Most pros are probably at least that > good from constant > > practice. > > > This is one of the most absurd statements i have > ever heard, > especially comining from someone who purports to be > a photographer. > > Try a little test: shoot a scene two stops under, > and with 1/3 or 1/2 > stop increments to two stops over. Look at the > negs. Have quality > prints made. You'll see that even 1/2 stop away > from "ideal" exposure > will result compromised results. > > Tyrone > > > > -- > Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: > http://www.email.it/f > > Sponsor: > Il pacchetto fiabe - 13 libri di fiabe per ragazzi e > adulti > Sconto del 51% sul prezzo di mercato. > Clicca qui: > http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1906&d=4-11 > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
