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

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mike C wrote:
>  Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxx> wrote (in part):
> > ...  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.
> 
> No offence, Brian, but without your actually operating the camera,
> how would you know?
> 

If they were using natural light, or continuous artificial lighting
I'd agree with you that I could overlook exposure changes.  (The only
ones who used natural lighting were also using 4x5 cameras.)  I'll
even agree that I might occassionally still not notice, but just about
all the shoots that I recall used electronic flash for artificial
lighting.  If they were bracketing for exposure then they weren't
firing the strobe with every exposure.

I also tend to wander in close enough that I could hear the shutter
firing and the motor drive or see them crank the camera.

> In my experience, both behind the camera and in the lab, many highly
> paid professional photographers (especially in the fashion industry)
> rely extensively on bracketing and clip tests.
> 

Again, I didn't say thay no professionals bracket for exposure.  I
said that none of the ones I have met do so.  I do not claim to have
met all professional photographers.  However, all the professionals I
have studied with emphasized understanding exposure and your materials
(through testing) so that bracketing (for exposure) is not necessary.

-- 
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/