Re: perfect exposure
i look at the exposure the camera recommends and if i don't like it, i shoot some extra frames. since i always bracket 3 shots anyway on film, i seldom ever compensate more than what i bracket anyway. if you keep fussing with exposure when the camera is almost always right, you are wasting time you could spend on making a better composition or looking for the exact moment. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 1:29 AM Subject: Re: perfect exposure What the camera actually has, presumably, is 50,000 sets of relative values for the multiple metering areas and some way to decide how to handle them. I prefer to make my own decisions on how to handle them. Honestly, the camera may be right more often than I am. I make fewer stupid mistakes, though, because I know what I am seeing. I find autofocus to be the same--I miss by a little very often when MFing, but AF tends to either hit dead on or miss by a mile.
Re: perfect exposure
Now, as good as HCB was, no one was (or is) better than Shel Belinkoff, late of this list His initials are SCB. Maybe that has something to do with it g. SCB = Super Cartier-Bresson LOL -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Sconti fino al 20% per i magnifici bouquet di Artefiori! Clicca qui! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=750d=6-11
Re: perfect exposure
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, frank theriault wrote: Everytime I walk out of the house with a camera around my neck, I play a little game. I guess the exposure, set the camera accordingly, and then see how it meters. I'm rarely off by more than a stop; usually I'm withing 1/2 stop. I did exactly the same thing for several years in college, plus still doing it sometimes at work. I can eyeball a gym to within half a stop because I'm in gyms three nights a week for several months. And, I'm truly not saying that to brag; quite the contrary. I'm saying that if I can do it, likely anyone with a teeny bit of experience can. It ain't tough. And, it teaches you a thing or two about exposure and your camera. I know, we're not talking tough, low light exposure conditions here, but still, it's a good thing to know, like if the batteries go dead, and like me, you use a mechanical camera. It is also nice to develop a relatively accurate eye-meter so that you know when your fancy-dancy built-in meter is lying to you, either because it is not working right or because it is mishandling tricky light. This is the reason I've never used any of those multi-area intelligent metering patterns. I don't know how they are processing what they see so I don't know what to think of the meter reading. Last I looked the better multi-area meters were supported by a database of 50,000 exposure patterns. At 1000 shots a week for 15 years I've been in a lot more situations than that! DJE
Re: perfect exposure
those are 50,000 different exposure situations. you have a lot of situations, but not necessarily a lot of different ones. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:02 AM Subject: Re: perfect exposure This is the reason I've never used any of those multi-area intelligent metering patterns. I don't know how they are processing what they see so I don't know what to think of the meter reading. Last I looked the better multi-area meters were supported by a database of 50,000 exposure patterns. At 1000 shots a week for 15 years I've been in a lot more situations than that!
Re: perfect exposure
those are 50,000 different exposure situations. you have a lot of situations, but not necessarily a lot of different ones. True, a lot of my bazillions of exposures were made in similar situations. What the camera actually has, presumably, is 50,000 sets of relative values for the multiple metering areas and some way to decide how to handle them. I prefer to make my own decisions on how to handle them. Honestly, the camera may be right more often than I am. I make fewer stupid mistakes, though, because I know what I am seeing. I find autofocus to be the same--I miss by a little very often when MFing, but AF tends to either hit dead on or miss by a mile. DJE
Re: perfect exposure
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 bw 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 BW 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.
Re: perfect exposure
Hi, Wednesday, November 5, 2003, 1:28:13 PM, you wrote: As I recall, the comment provoking much of that was that HCB could eyeball perfect exposure, and then someone said with bw 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 BW 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. A lot of his work is online at the Magnum site. I assume - but could well be wrong - that it's been scanned from the negatives as much as possible. It would certainly be interesting to know. Nevertheless, a number of people who've worked at Magnum as interns or even became Magnum photographers have commented in print about seeing his negatives. I'm not aware of any especially adverse comments. In the days before built-in meters it was quite common for people to be able to judge exposure accurately enough. Film boxes came with some exposure guidelines for 5 or 6 lighting situations, and these are easy enough to learn. That was what my father used to do until he bought an auto-exposure Canon in the 1980s. After that he never got a correctly exposed photograph. People who wanted to learn more about it would make a note of the exposure settings they'd used, and adjust their print exposure development times accordingly. Being that close to their own work, and referring back to their field notes, would help next time they were shooting. I've always assumed that this is one of the reasons why people published their exposure settings with their photos - to help others judge useful settings for particular situations. Otherwise the information strikes me as useless to other people. Incidentally, the Leica shutter mechanisms are apparently not very precise. Probably not more than other mechanical shutters, but obviously within the tolerance limits for film and printing materials. As other people have said, exposure is not that precise a matter. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: perfect exposure
Everytime I walk out of the house with a camera around my neck, I play a little game. I guess the exposure, set the camera accordingly, and then see how it meters. I'm rarely off by more than a stop; usually I'm withing 1/2 stop. And, I'm truly not saying that to brag; quite the contrary. I'm saying that if I can do it, likely anyone with a teeny bit of experience can. It ain't tough. And, it teaches you a thing or two about exposure and your camera. I know, we're not talking tough, low light exposure conditions here, but still, it's a good thing to know, like if the batteries go dead, and like me, you use a mechanical camera. Now, as good as HCB was, no one was (or is) better than Shel Belinkoff, late of this list (I wonder how old Shel is doing these days? Gotta e-mail him one of these days...). A list member once said that Shel could get the right exposure with his eyes closed - he ~felt~ the sun's rays on the back of his head, and that was all he needed. vbg cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] A lot of his work is online at the Magnum site. I assume - but could well be wrong - that it's been scanned from the negatives as much as possible. It would certainly be interesting to know. Nevertheless, a number of people who've worked at Magnum as interns or even became Magnum photographers have commented in print about seeing his negatives. I'm not aware of any especially adverse comments. In the days before built-in meters it was quite common for people to be able to judge exposure accurately enough. Film boxes came with some exposure guidelines for 5 or 6 lighting situations, and these are easy enough to learn. That was what my father used to do until he bought an auto-exposure Canon in the 1980s. After that he never got a correctly exposed photograph. People who wanted to learn more about it would make a note of the exposure settings they'd used, and adjust their print exposure development times accordingly. Being that close to their own work, and referring back to their field notes, would help next time they were shooting. I've always assumed that this is one of the reasons why people published their exposure settings with their photos - to help others judge useful settings for particular situations. Otherwise the information strikes me as useless to other people. Incidentally, the Leica shutter mechanisms are apparently not very precise. Probably not more than other mechanical shutters, but obviously within the tolerance limits for film and printing materials. As other people have said, exposure is not that precise a matter. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
