Re: [photo-3d] Re: To math or not to math?

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

George A. Themelis wrote:
> The professional's answer to unknown situations is
> "bracketing".  The old saying that "film is the least
> expensive part of the shoot" is true.  I remember
> a friend of mine commenting that a professional used
> all the combinations of apertures and shutter speeds
> in his camera in one situation.  I have not seen many
> professionals carry thick photo books or advanced
> calculators or even trusting blindly their advanced
> electronic equipment.
> 

First off, I wasn't discussing an "unknown" situation.  We were
talking about a unique situation in so far as subject matter goes
(access to a rare and valuable artifact).  The situation from a
photographic stand point (a large object lit by the sun and perhaps
some artificial light in the hangar) could hardly be considered
"unknown".

Although a number of beginner's photography books written by famous
photographers (or famous photography authors) recommend bracketing, I
don't recall ever meeting, or studying with, a professional that
actually brackets (for exposure) when on the job.  Any of the more
advanced books I've read tell you to make sure you understand exposure
before going out to shoot (and offer help on understanding exposure).

It's one thing to take multiple exposures in order to capture a
particular expression, but I don't understand why the idea of
bracketing for exposure makes any sense for a professional.  Proper
exposure is the most basic of photographic skills (and admittedly one
I sometimes have trouble with).  Living in NYC I often get to watch
professional photo shoots on the street.  I've never seen a wedding,
fashion or advertising shoot where the photographer bracketed for
exposure.

I don't believe that there are "unknown" photographic situations,
unless you are using some new technique, materials or equipment.
Every professional I've spoken to talks about testing new equipment
(camera, meter, lighting, and film) before using it for a paying
customer.  To do otherwise (without the customer's knowledge) is
dishonest.

The whole point of assistants holding (or setting up) reflectors,
using artificial lighting (even outdoors) and a meter is to make sure
that you are not in an "unknown" situation.  By controlling the
lighting (or taking careful measurements of existing lighting) the
photographer can be sure that it is a known situation.

Testing is not particularly time consuming or difficult, and can be
done to a level to which you are comfortable.  For example I trust my
meter and haven't bothered to get a calibrated light source to verify
it.  Likewise I haven't tested my shutters.  I have tested the entire
set up by taking a couple of pictures and making sure they look like
what I thought they should.

The closest thing to bracketing I've ever heard a professional do on a
regular basis is to shoot two identical exposures of the same scene.
This is often done by large format B&W photographers.  The first sheet
of film is developed as the photographer intended (based on testing,
not necessarily the manufacturer's recommendations).  If this sheet
doesn't meet expectations the second sheet is developed differently.
If the first sheet is acceptable the second can be used as a backup
(by processing the same way) or it could be used for testing a new
development technique.  This isn't really practical for rollfilm.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/