Re: Perception of brightness (was Re: Good exposure)

[P3D Gary Nored <gnored@xxxxxxx>]

Paul Talbot writes ..

>Eric goes on to point out that adjusting exposure for shadows pushes the
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:11:08 -0600
Errors-To: 3d-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Originator: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
From: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: PHOTO-3D digest 1814
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:   The Stereoscopic Image (Photo-3D) Mailing List  

>highlights well above what the (positive) emulsion can handle.  This
>is the explanation I have heard as to why it is normally best when
>shooting slides to "expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall
>where they will."  And the reverse applies for negative film...expose
>for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they will.  I suspect
>most people think primarily of monochrome works as print format, which
>makes adjusting shadow exposure a very good general rule. While I would
>not expect it to make a good *general rule* for working with stereo
>slides, I agree that it could be useful in the *special* situation
>where the primary objective is to control the viewer's perception of
>brightly/dimly lit, as Gary stated.
>
>Paul Talbot, probably in the dark, but...
>
I've heard the "expose for the highlights" rule, and it is that very
rule which I believe is not very useful. For example, I was shooting
pictures at Perdenales falls some time ago on a sunny day (I should
have known better, but sometimes you just want to take pictures ...)
Now the sunny 16 rule would have given me white limestone in Zone II
(2 stops over meter reading) and shadows in Zone III (2 stops under).
This exposure would certainly capture the most information. But my
EXPERIENCE of the day was one of dazzling brilliance. Clear winter
light. Bright, sunny beach. And even the darkest shadows well lit
by reflections from the light-colored beach. The sunny 16 exposure
will _not_ look dazzlingly brilliant. The deep shadows, to me, look
artificially dark. By increasing the exposure 1/2 to 2/3 stop, I
get a photograph in which the shadows are much lighter. True, some
of the scene falls off the high end, but then some of the scene,
at least as I remember it, was blindingly white anyway -- very hard
to see any detail. 

In short, the "over-exposed" picture, with concommittant loss of
detail, re-creates my experience of the scene more effectively. And
usually, that is what I am trying to share with my photography --
my personal experience of a scene. 

How often do I adjust exposure to help create mood? Probably every
time I set up a shot. 

So, I expose for the shadows, working under my current theory that
they, and not the highlights, determine our perceptions of a scene.
I wish I knew if there have been any studies done on this matter.

Gary


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