Hi Steve,
I was not trying to ruffle feathers, just trying to make the point that
most photographers prints are enhanced by some means whether they use
auto mode or let the Auto printing machine develop and print for them.
A few comments below:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve
Admittedly the excellent OTF auto mode will allow for 'between stops'
exposures,
<Snip>
OK, but it will still be an average exposure of the whole scene. Unless
you use the compensation dial or spot meter and average the exposures
yourself.
........
it will not compensate for excessive contrast, it cannot allow part of
the frame to have more exposure than another part of the frame. (This
can only be achieved during the printing stage).
<Snip>
Yep, and since print film has a wide latitude (+ or - 5 stops), this can
be used by the printing machine to produce an acceptable print.
.........
Velvia, like most slide film is not very tolerant of under/over exposure
<SNIP>
Yep again, you get what you expose it at because it only has 1/2 the
latitude range that print film does (+ or - 2&1/2 stops). Miss it by
one stop with slide film and you screwed up big time. With print film
it's not a big deal. The film can handle the latitude and the printing
machine will automatically compensate it for you.
........
BUT, if you set your meter correctly in manual mode there is no reason
why the results will not be as good if not better that an auto printed
print film. The auto printer will always go for the 'average' exposure.
Who wants 'average' prints - not me.
<SNIP>
Yep Agree Again - and I think you will agree, it is easer for the
average photographer to get acceptable prints when they use auto mode
and use print film and say Help me camera figure out the correct
exposure and let the Auto printing machine decide a nice "average"
between the whites and blacks and print a nice acceptable print.
The poor sole with the manual camera and Velvia will pay for the most
minor errors. But, if he is good, he will produce much better prints
because he took total control of the exposure. He did not turn it over
to some Auto Average everything camera and printing machine.
Ansel Adams took control from the time of exposure to the final print
and did the best he could with the tools he had of that day.
So I think it is hard to criticize him for that?
I can't.
I hope I made my point a little clearer this time, sorry.
Buddy Walters
< 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 >
|