At 01:03 AM 9/5/2002, Doggre@xxxxxxx wrote:
>One other thing that is being painfully driven home to me as I post photos to
>photo.net is that I am just plain a failure at recording the technical
>details of my shots. Bad habit I have to break. One isn't inclined to put
>down the camera and scribble down aperture, shutter speed, film, lens,
>camera, filter, etc. when one is caught up in the moment (that all-too-brief,
>fleeting moment) of zuiko, "magic light".
>
>A small Olympus recorder would be great for that. Sit down after the shoot
>and transcribe the details. Even with a recorder I bet I'd still miss some
>details... the "action" just happens too fast. I'm too busy trying to meter
>and set exposure to keep up with it.
>
>Does this mean I'm leaning towards an autoexposure wunderbrick? HELL no!
>
>Rich
Rich,
Don't be so hard on yourself. Is recording the data something YOU want to do,
or something you feel other's want you to do? Some people feel it's important
and relevant. Some don't. My own feeling is that if the act of recording the
exposure data interferes with your creative process, it's a hindrance, not a
help. Will having that data help you improve your photography? Or will it
just let you fill out the html data fields that "must" be filled in just
because they are there? Follow you vision, your art, first. Some will want to
record the technicalities involved, other's won't, make your own decision.
I can't recall at the moment, it may have been John Shaw, possibly Galen
Rowell, who said that they don't record their exposure information because they
won't ever be faced with that exact same exposure situation again. (Can't
place where I read that, and am too tired to try and figure it out.) That
sounds good to me. Maybe others will think that's just a rationalization, and
maybe it is, but I seldom record exposure information. Make your own decision,
get a Oly Pearl recorder or whatever, but don't feel you're a failure in any
way if you don't record the data.
OK, I've tried to be PC, but in the end I personally don't get any information
or anything from knowing the shutter speed and aperture used to take a photo
I'm looking at. If it makes a difference, I can see from the DOF in the photo
if a wide aperture or a small aperture was used, or if a fast or slow shutter
speed was used. If I can't tell from the photo, it's not relevant enough to
matter to me. If it was a wide aperture, it doesn't matter to me if it was 2.0
or 3.5. Or if it was 1/2000 or 1/500 second shutter speed. It doesn't help my
appreciation of the photo, it doesn't help my future ability to make
photographs that are successful, to my eye or to someone elses.
Maybe I'm taking it too seriously! But I guess that's also my point, for you
to not take the act of recording marginally relevant exposure data too
seriously, and feel you're a failure in any way if you don't an*lly record what
your camera's settings for each exposure were. Make your own decision about
what you want to do. Don't worry that Photo.net readers will think less of
your photography if you don't supply the exposure data.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox. =)
I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to every contributor to this list,
I really enjoy being a list member and learning so much from so many very
knowledgeable people. Waiting on the big brown truck to bring that Panagor
macro lens to me from epay! Got frustrated last weekend, extension tubes
and/or the 50/3.5 macro just weren't enough to do what I wanted, when taking
flower photos. Decided not to wait on finding my first choice, a Kiron 105/2.8
macro. Anybody have one for sale?
Stuart
< 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 >
|