On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, *- DORIS FANG -* wrote:
|On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, John A. Prosper wrote:
|
|> I agree with Denton here: bracketing is ridiculously wasteful of film
|> if used purely as a crutch for poor exposure judgement.
|
| Most pros that know exposure as well as anyone ever will, do bracket,
|and not only on jobs, but their personal work as well. It has nothing
|whatsoever to do with "poor exposure judgement". Oh, and when there's only
|time for a single shot, it's also in the bag. Why the moral judgement on
|bracketing ? Very strange.
What moral judgement, Doris? I specifically referred to bracketing
used to cover "poor exposure judgement," that is, non-thinking
bracketing. Are you in favor of this type of bracketing? Are you
reading more into my "poor exposure judgement" phraseology than I
meant?
|> The ideal aim
|> is to refine exposure judgement to the point where, if one is down to
|> one's last frame on one's last roll, and one has a Pulitzer Prize-
|> winning scene before them, one has enough confidence and skill to KNOW
|> they can MAKE---not just TAKE!---the proper exposure. :-)
|
| There is NO proper exposure. There's the exposure that renders the scene
|the way you see it, and you might change your mind later, another reason
|for having variants.
Perhaps I should have defined what I meant by "proper exposure." The
proper exposure is that which conveys what the photographer is trying
to express, which I take it is what you meant by rendering the scene
the way one sees it. I didn't bother going into a lengthy post
because I tend to prefer to keep my posts short and sweet nowadays.
However, the gist of my post was towards thinking photography rather
than a mindless usage of the camera. I shoot variants too, but they
are done to achieve specific effects rather than a mindless attempt to
bag a usable exposure.
I don't see why you are so testy.
|> However, even these types of bracketing, like exposure bracketing,
|> should be experimental exercises conducted to gain useful empirical
|> data to be used later on so that in future similar situations, film
|> doesn't have to be wasted.
|
| That, IMO, is a personal moral judgement, having nothing to do with
|getting the shot. It is but your personal rule. Pros do what they do
|because it works.
|
|> I understand the needs of working pros who
|> bracket because they simply HAVE TO get the photos. However, apart
|> from this occupational extreme, no serious photographer should have to
|> waste film.
|
| I totally disagree. First,
I suppose I can ask you to expound on what you are driving at, but,
quite frankly, I couldn't care less for the tenor of this silly and
childish diatribe. I did not attack working pros or YOU. It is your
business if you feel a need to defend the "honor" of working pros. I
have known pros who are consumate professionals; I have also
personally seen scamps who effectively steal money from clients due to
their clients' ignorance. So don't be surprised that I don't
genuflect at the pro photo altar.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|