Re: Dr. T. gets "exposed"...

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. T. writes:

>For a period of about a year recently I was without a light meter and
>guessed most of the exposures.  Did not miss a single exposure and
>I do not bracket.  Two friends at work are using Realists without
>light meters.  They have memorized a couple of rules and they are
>doing fine.  Another friend (Dean Jacobowitz, secreatary of the
>Beta folio of SSA) is shooting 3-d for years without a light meter
>and he prides himself of his ability to "sense the light".

Either you're a better man than I, Gunga Din, or you're shooting
strictly outdoors where the exposure chart on a film box is valid.
Perhaps both.

Do you shoot indoors in e.g. museums where flash is too distracting to
the other visitors, or forbidden?  Do you shoot in historical buildings
where a shot may have both full sun and deep shade, and you want some
detail in the shadows?  With a meter in these situations I *know* I'm
going to get the exposure I'm looking for.  I can meter the light and I
can meter the shade and choose a point somewhere in between.  I don't
have to guess and I don't have to bracket more than 1/2 stop in either
direction.

Slide film only has an exposure latitude of about plus-or-minus 1/2 stop
for a *good* exposure.  Bracketing a full stop would tend to give *me* one
or more unusable exposures, depending on how close the initial guess was.
1/2 stop bracketing with a metered exposure lets me make an artistic
choice of the *preferred* exposure, since all three shots are usually
acceptably exposed.

>>The feeling that I'm eliminating a large part of the guesswork
>>allows me to concentrate on composing the shot and to think about the
>>photograph, instead of worrying about whether the exposure is going
>>to be OK.

>Why worry?  I don't worry about it...  Maybe I am less picky when it
>comes to exposure.  Maybe my photography is based on other values, impact,
>good ideas, composition, etc., and exposure is secondary.  I will accept
>exposures between +1 and -1 f-stops.  Whenever I bracket I do it only
>in full f-stops.  Anything in-between is a waste of time for me... I do not
>remember when was the last time that I threw away a picture because of
>bad exposure...  It sounds crazy but I swear it is true!  Maybe it's the
>film that I am using, or the air in Cleveland ;), I don't know...

I haven't seen your work, and you haven't seen mine, so we cannot guess
who's the more picky, but I dislike losing a single shot, and I have a
definite idea of what I am looking for in each exposure when I compose
a shot.  When I visit a location that I am unlikely to be able to get
back to for years (if ever), or if I am shooting a once-in-a-lifetime
event, I want to be damn sure that I do not lose a shot due to poor
exposure, when it's completely avoidable.  A meter is cheap insurance
against this possibility, and makes my picture taking that much more
fun.  I *hate* screwing up.  Call me a perfectionist, I won't argue.

>And, get this, when in doubt I expose more!  Not less.  Do I end up
>with overexposed slides?  Never.  Can it be that the Fujichrome films are
>more forgiving to exposure and overexposure works better than underexposure
>(against what is traditionally taught for slide film)?  Maybe...

Film generally is more tolerant of overexposure than underexposure.
Underexposure produces results that are grainy, dark and dismal, which is
rarely a pleasant effect.  Slight overexposure tends only to wash out the
colors a bit.  Greater overexposure will burn out the highlights, but will
still produce a viewable slide, even if it is not a work of art.  Some
people might even like the reduced contrast effect this produces.  I
prefer to have the *choice* of whether to burn out the highlights, render
the shadows as detail-less black, or something in between.

Fuji Velvia is generally agreed to be underexposed at ASA 50, so if that's
what you're shooting then yes, you do have more latitude for overexposure.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one, George.  I think you do a
disservice to beginners though if you tell them they should be able to
get perfect results without a meter.  Beginners in particular are insecure
and unsure about enough of the process.  A meter helps to remove some of
that uncertainty, and who knows, it just might make their introduction
to stereography a little more successful.

	-Greg



------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1357
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************