Re: Best Exposure

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

Peter Davis joins the melee with:

>There may be no such thing as "perfect" exposure, but it may be
>possible to define a "best" exposure for a given scene.  Both
>underexposed and overexposed shots lose information, because detail is
>lost either in the shadow areas or in the light areas.  Therefore, it
>might make sense to say the best exposure is the one which preserves
>the most information.  By analogy with audio recording, once this
>"master" has been recorded, it could be mixed and adjusted, optically
>or digitally, for particular effects.

Peter's point is a good one and makes a good general rule, although it
apparently presumes that the information in the highlights and the
information in the shadows are equally important.  This will not always
be the case.

As Mike S. suggests and Greg W. emphasizes, our exercise of creative
choice as photographers may cause us to deliberately select an exposure
that does not merely preserve the most information, but creates the
image we envisioned.  As an extreme example, who among us has not seen
a beautiful photographic silhouette?  The best exposure for such a result
would not be defined as the one that captures the most information.

Also, in shooting stereo slides, most of us are usually creating the
final image in the camera and will not readily be able to treat the
slide as a "master" that can be mixed and adjusted, so we often have
to create our exposure effects when the film is exposed.

Paul Talbot


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