Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1797

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

>Paul Talbot writes:
>
>>Dr. T raises a very good point that could stand to be expanded on
>>somewhat.  "Good exposure" can only be defined with respect to a
>>particular *combination* of camera, film, development, and viewing
>>method.

And Dr. T fires off a warning shot across the bow:

>Paul, this has been a favorite topic of discussion for me and, if I wanted
>to be mean, I could dump enough "DrT Quotes" on this and related topics to
>fill an entire digest.  But, I am in a good mood today, so I'll summarize
>my views in a couple of sentences:
>
>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.  <snip>

And the digest kept getting *really* interesting from there!! :)

I never mentioned "perfect" exposure, Dr. T!  I wasn't trying to start
a war!  Although I failed to explicitly state it, my comments presuppose
that each individual is using their own definition of "good exposure."
Whether you are working from your definition, Mike's, or Greg's, all
the factors I mentioned (camera, film, development, viewing method)
will affect *your own* evaluation of whether you hit your mark or not...
no matter whether your mark is 1/3 of a stop or "2 f-stops or more."
Personally, I think 2 f-stops is often workable with print film, but
is generally outside the acceptable range of good exposure for slide
film...but that doesn't mean someone else can't be satisfied with such
a wide range.

Some folks had mentioned needing to "tweak" their exposure calculations
by a full stop extra exposure.  IMO, overexposing slide film is a very
bad thing to do...with all the times I've done it, I know the sickening
feeling all too well.  You have a lot more options to salvage something
from the slide if it is underexposed rather than overexposed (reverse
applies for print film, of course.)

Perhaps some of the context of my comments was lost as a result of the
post getting lost in cyberspace and resent three days late.  I just
wanted to caution people against adding a full stop of exposure to their
slides based on viewing them through a $3 viewer (still the only kind
I have!) *with a weak or far-off light source.*  If that is what you have
done in the past, look again at some slides you think are too dark, but
with the viewer pointed at bright sun, or right up *close* to a bright
bulb (no lamp shade!) and you may be amazed at how beautiful your
pictures really are!  And when you go back to ones you thought were
well exposed, you might find they are washed out when well lit, and
rather dull and boring when you view them again the old way.  I
recently learned this the hard way--with an assist from Dr. T, in
fact--but fortunately in my first year of stereophotography.  I just
hope this helps some other folks avoid a similar experience.

Paul Talbot, diving for cover!


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