Re: Good exposure

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

Dr. T wrote:

>> IMO, there is a range of acceptable ("good") exposures.  This range can be
>> as wide as 2 f-stops or more.  The best exposure within this range depends 
>> on the viewing conditions as you elaborated.  IMO, there is no such thing 
>> as PERFECT exposure.  I have defended my casual approach to exposure and I
>> believe that a beginner can get very good results without a $300 light
>> by relying on empirical rules or a quick check via an SLR, etc. as I did
>> when I got started into 3d.  This is only a personal opinion based on my
>> experience and the kind of photography that I practice.  Others claim that
>> there is such thing as perfect exposure, 1/2 f-stop can turn an excellent
>> slide into garbage and a beginner absolutely needs a good light meter to
>> get decent results with, say, a Realist camera.  Go figure...  -- George

Mike Sherer replied:

>I agree that viewing method and its brightness does effect the way a
>picture's exposure is perceived, but there are some photographic
>situations where there is a perfect exposure.  If the brightness range of
>a scene is only 5 stops, the exposure latitude of many slide films, than
>setting the camera for the center of the high and low brightness values
>in most cases results in an exposure that covers the whole scene
>and is in most cases 'perfect'.  

That's one definition of 'perfect'.

>Since most scenes have much more than 5 or so stop
>differences in brightness,  3D photographers have many choices on
>how to handle the differences creatively by either exposing for a
>certain part of the scene or using neutral grad and other filters,
>flashes or lighting, or of course using the fine Realist or other older
>camera with a lens that isn't so darn contrasty.

Exactly.  We have a CREATIVE CHOICE in where to place the scene.
How do we exercise that choice, though, unless we know what the range
of the scene is, and how much of it we can capture?  This obviously
requires KNOWLEGE (of the contrast range of the film we're using),
and a means to MEASURE the scene we're shooting.

Dr. T. is playing fast and loose with adjectives... "PERFECT" exposure,
"good" exposures, "good" results, "decent results".

In the past, I have defined my interpretation of "PERFECT" exposure as
"getting on film the scene AS YOU ENVISIONED IT".  This is as opposed
to "just getting it however it happens to come out".  Dr. T seems
satisfied if he gets within +/- a full stop.  Both of these viewpoints
are matters of personal taste, and in that sense are valid and inarguable.
But we all know that Dr. T.  enters his slides in competition, so unlike
some, he obviously cares to an extent what other people think about his
work.

I agree that an exposure that is "perfect" in a Themelized achromatic
viewer may be too dark in projection or a steal-the-light viewer,
while conversely a slide that looks great in projection may appear
"washed out" in a Themelized viewer.  This is a presentation issue,
not unlike the difference between slides and prints.  A wise photo-
grapher will plan for this.  When the situation permits, I've taken
two exposures and selected the appropriate (lighter) one for use
in projection.

What I don't agree with is the viewpoint that you shouldn't confuse
a beginner by suggesting they use a light meter (it doesn't have to
be a $300 meter, as long as it's ACCURATE).  I suggest that they
learn how to properly use one to capture an exposure that they
VISUALIZE when they're shooting, as opposed to being happy just to
get a slide that isn't burned out in the highlights, or deep black
with no detail in the shadows.  Even using the SLR's TTL meter
as Dr. T. himself "admits" he does, requires knowing if it is
center-weighted averaging, or matrix, etc., because the former may
require much more compensation depending on the subject and how
it is framed.

My most interesting slides (again, personal opinion) are the ones
taken in challenging lighting situations where I relied on my meter
to tell me the range of exposure between the shadows and the light,
allowing ME intelligent control of the resulting slide, rather than
taking a "guess" (even if an informed guess based on rules-of-thumb),
or depending on luck, because rules like Sunny 16 tend to break down
in such difficult lighting situations.  And besides, I'd rather be
thinking about such things as composition and framing than be
mentally computing f-numbers away from Sunny-16 or reading the charts
inside film boxes.

        Opinions perfectly exposed,

        -Greg W.


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