Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,273   Posts: 1,534,588   Online: 1018
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by bob01721
    Can't see how it's that "simple" unless he's willing to sacrifice the shadows and/or highlights.
    I'm with you on this one.

    Cheers,

    R.

  2. #32
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    Hi Sparky,

    Baxter and Roger have already mentioned about exposure for highlights for those of us shooting transparencies. We have had several discussions on this at some length in several threads here. It would be an easy search subject. Many of us rely on the usage of a spot reading for the highlight areas and correct. Though the CC may be important many outdoor nature and landscape photographers are familiar with the transparency material and the way that it reacts for CC. For many of us the exposure correction for the highlights are more critical.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  3. #33
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    Possibly, but why bother?
    God. Whatever happened to the 'happy accident'??
    What's wrong with fumbling your way around - making a chrome that has highlights blown out three stops too far - but then realizing that you really, really like it... resulting in some pretty exciting and visually satisfying explorations??

    I understand that many of us here are into representational photography - which, to me, is really more of a branch of reprography (okay okay I know). And I'm sure many of you will scoff at me for being 'artsy' - but for me, this is where the payoff is. I say - why not expose the newcomers to many different ways of thinking about photography - and let them decide for themselves...?

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    "... Whatever happened to the 'happy accident'??
    What's wrong with fumbling your way around - making a chrome that has highlights blown out three stops too far - but then realizing that you really, really like it... resulting in some pretty exciting and visually satisfying explorations...?"
    I don't think there's anything wrong with that... as long as you realize that they're accidents that occurred because you didn't meter the subject properly. And that you don't try to pass them off as anything other than accidents. After all, it's not as though you "created" them -- they're mistakes. They may be pleasing mistakes. They may even be exciting mistakes. But they're mistakes nonetheless.


    "... I say - why not expose the newcomers to many different ways of thinking about photography - and let them decide for themselves...?"
    Again... no problem. As long as you articulate that it's NOT a "proper technique for achieving controlled, predictable results." IMO, propriety dictates that we assume newcomers won't have any way of knowing the difference.

  5. #35
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by bob01721
    I don't think there's anything wrong with that... as long as you realize that they're accidents that occurred because you didn't meter the subject properly. And that you don't try to pass them off as anything other than accidents. After all, it's not as though you "created" them -- they're mistakes. They may be pleasing mistakes. They may even be exciting mistakes. But they're mistakes nonetheless.


    Again... no problem. As long as you articulate that it's NOT a "proper technique for achieving controlled, predictable results." IMO, propriety dictates that we assume newcomers won't have any way of knowing the difference.

    I don't suppose you'd be a scientologist, would you?

    So - let me get this straight - the UPSHOT of what you're rebutting is that - 'as long as you realize it is wrong - and ultimately understand that there's only one way to do photography - then it's okay...?

    I think that you could make the same argument for using such a system of exposure and development as being a mistake.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    God. Whatever happened to the 'happy accident'??
    What's wrong with fumbling your way around - making a chrome that has highlights blown out three stops too far - but then realizing that you really, really like it... resulting in some pretty exciting and visually satisfying explorations?
    Dear Sparky,

    I can do that easily enough by taking the reading... Double checking it... and then forgetting completely to set it on the camera...

    Even so -- point fully taken!

    Cheers,

    R.

  7. #37
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,269
    Images
    60

    Kodak - accurate exposure with your meter

    This might help

    Accurate Exposure with your meter

    Matt

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    "... I don't suppose you'd be a scientologist, would you...?"
    LOL! No... I'm a recovering Catholic.
    "... the UPSHOT of what you're rebutting is that - 'as long as you realize it is wrong - and ultimately understand that there's only one way to do photography - then it's okay...?"
    No... that's not what I said at all. First, my comments were meant in the context of the thread -- metering. I wasn't speaking about photography at all. That's a much broader topic. Not sure where that came from, but I apologize for any misunderstanding about the scope of my remarks.

    Also, I never used the word wrong except to say that there is "nothing wrong..." I used the words "accident" (your term) and "mistake." As I use these words, the shared meaning element is "unintended" and that has nothing to do with "wrong" or "right." It has to do with whether your results have any correlation with what you set out to accomplish.

    To my mind, the raison d'être for metering is to provide predictable exposures in a controlled manner. I think there're a handful of ways to approach this, not just one. As you know, there are incident-light meters, reflected-light meters, spot meters, flash meters, there are gray cards, the "Sunny 16 Rule," there's the Zone System, BTZS... Any of these approaches can give you whatever exposure you intend.

    If you choose to eschew them, I think that's fine as long as you understand that you're not metering in a way that will produce predictable exposures in a controlled manner. Rather, you'll be inviting unintended results... accidents... mistakes. If that's your intention, why meter at all?

  9. #39
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by bob01721
    LOL! No... I'm a recovering Catholic.
    No... that's not what I said at all. First, my comments were meant in the context of the thread -- metering. I wasn't speaking about photography at all. That's a much broader topic. Not sure where that came from, but I apologize for any misunderstanding about the scope of my remarks.

    Also, I never used the word wrong except to say that there is "nothing wrong..." I used the words "accident" (your term) and "mistake." As I use these words, the shared meaning element is "unintended" and that has nothing to do with "wrong" or "right." It has to do with whether your results have any correlation with what you set out to accomplish.

    To my mind, the raison d'être for metering is to provide predictable exposures in a controlled manner. I think there're a handful of ways to approach this, not just one. As you know, there are incident-light meters, reflected-light meters, spot meters, flash meters, there are gray cards, the "Sunny 16 Rule," there's the Zone System, BTZS... Any of these approaches can give you whatever exposure you intend.

    If you choose to eschew them, I think that's fine as long as you understand that you're not metering in a way that will produce predictable exposures in a controlled manner. Rather, you'll be inviting unintended results... accidents... mistakes. If that's your intention, why meter at all?
    Thanks for clearing that up for me. Your comments, to me, sounded somewhat extreme. My take on things were - 'okay - here's this guy and he just wants to learn how to use his light meter so he can go out and make a few exposures - and develop film' - then suddenly we get a barrage of talk about properly using the zone system and btzs, etc... when the guy clearly stated he thought reading 'the negative' was a bit much for him. At any rate, I was QUITE successful at developing my first few rolls - and hell, yeah, I got some underexposures. I'm proud of it. I didn't like the results - so I was extra careful next time and did some reading up on the subject.

    Anyway - I've been photographing since the late 70s. I bought the BTZS book when it first came out (83??). I went through my zone system stuff and gleaned quite a lot from that. But now I don't even bother with any of it. I think it's really good background info to know. If you understand how film reacts physically and chemically to all sorts of conditions, the better. But after awhile, one CAN take casual shots that aren't even metered and still be within half a stop and STILL get an exquisite neg. I'm just saying that I think that process, while important, isn't as important as vision. And light. As long as you're in the ballpark - you can still make stunning art. And that's what I'D like to concentrate on. In your initial response, I had the impression that you were saying that you can't possibly make a legitimate negative unless you use BTZS or some other ZS derivative. Anyway - that's that. Just my 2 cents.
    Again - I appreciate the clarification.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    415
    Sparky,

    Again... sorry for the confusion. Sounds like we're saying the same things.

    I also make off-the-cuff estimates frequently. And night photography is pure guesswork for me. Even when I do spot metering with my 4x5, I usually end up in the Sunny-16 ballpark anyway -- unless it's a very high contrast scene. The ZS is in the back of my head, but I try not to let it get in the way of my photography.

    I suppose it seemed like we were disagreeing because (again) I was thinking in the narrow context of the thread: someone learning how to meter. Like you, I think vision is more important than process -- once the process becomes second nature. For someone who has already developed his chops, I agree with everything you've said.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin