[pure-silver] Re: Need help with exposures-Dana--Peter-Paul& Mary

richard l. gifford wrote:
> Let's see if I got this straight.  The subject line says "need help with
> exposures".

Thus far, you seem on track.

> Near as I can figure out lately, this list is trying to tell Janet that
> she needs to get a Brownie camera and guess at exposure like a man with
> Weston's experience would do.  God forbid her "own reasons" might be to
> want to print some tone differently than it appeared in the scene, as
> she requested.  So I guess we all just get tired of the subject and let
> the old myths live on about guesses not really being guesses if you have
> enough experience to guess correctly.

Well, now you're completely off-track.  I'm the one that mentioned Brownie
cameras - as an example of how the latitude of negative film can give
good prints with un-metered exposures.  I wasn't telling Janet to get
a Brownie.  Either you're confused or you're obfuscating the facts - to
what end?

> I guess that old dude named Adams didn't really have a clue when he
> suggested it might be possible to have some control over print tones if
> you had access to the information that only a spot meter can give you. 
> Or when he said in The Negative, "Using an incident light meter omits
> entirely measurement of the actual reflected light that forms the image
> on film, and thus severely limits the opportunity to evaluate individual
> subject areas and apply controls to achieve a creative, visualized
> image."  We seem to be trying to tell Janet this doesn't sound like her
> question answered by the master himself, and telling her an incident
> meter is just the ticket.

Janet posted an image in which a *single* subject area - her mother - was
apparently under-exposed.  I suggested that an incident measurement in
front of her mother would have solved this.

Note carefully: I was not telling Janet that an incident meter would be
appropriate in all circumstances.  I was just speaking to this one example.
In this one example, an incident meter is the simplest tool for the job.
That's all I was trying to tell Janet.

None of this contradicts Adams.  Sometimes incident metering is the
simplest tool to get the job done.  Sure, incident metering isn't the
right tool for all jobs - there are some it simply can not do - but that
doesn't make it the wrong tool for all jobs.

Spot-metering does indeed offer maximum flexibility (some of which is not
practical to exploit when shooting roll-film), but it also comes at a cost
in complication.  Sure, you can spot-meter every scene, but that doesn't
make it the right tool for every job.

To recap, I agree that spot-metering offers the greatest deal of
flexibility, but I assert incident-metering is the simplest tool to
determine an exposure.

As a practical example, let's use one of Ansel's most famous prints,
"Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico".  Referring to
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001Wam:

From "Ansel Adams: Some Thoughts About Ansel And About Moonrise",
by Mary Street Alinder (Copyright 1999 Alinder Gallery):

   All was in place, but he could not find his Weston light meter. He remembered
   that the moon reflects 250 foot candles and he based his exposure upon that 
fact.
   He quickly computed a setting of 1/60 at f/8, but with the addition of the 
filter
   it became 1/20 at f/8.

Ansel exposed "Moonrise" using incident "metering" (without a meter).
Incident metering is a useful tool and doesn't require one to "not
believe" in the utility and application of spot-metering.

> I'm really sorry I took up time and electrons here trying to point out
> the obvious to the unbelieving. There's nothing wrong with ordinary
> photos if that's what you want.  Give Janet a break, she wants more than
> that.

Apparently you're calling me the "unbelieving".  I guess we go to
different photographic churches.

Cheers,
Dana


> Regards...   Dick Gifford
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kent Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> Here, here!!!
>>
>> (Sorry about the earlier mouse misfire.)
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: EJ Neilsen <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:38:30 AM
>> Subject: [pure-silver] RE: [pure-silver] Re: Need help with
>> exposures-Dana--Peter-Paul& Mary
>>
>> Finally, some simple talk without the chest thumping :)
>>
>> I stayed out of the light meter debate. How one handles the light in
>> front
>> of him is all based upon ones own reasons. The only intelligent thing
>> around
>> the camera and the film is the person making the exposure. With so many
>> choices and ways of interpreting data, any tool that you bring to the
>> party
>> that works for you is all you need.
>> EJ Neilsen 
> 
> 
> =============================================================================================================
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> 

=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: