On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Denton Taylor wrote:
> Now I must say, I find the idea of bracketing to be wasteful and definitely
> not in line with the minimalist thinking approach that an OM body
> encourages.
Sounds noble, but I'd rather bag the shot, plus several variants, all
while I'm there. Plus, as I mentioned, lab disasters, large & small,
definitely happen, as do camera breakdowns. They always happen during that
once-in-a-lifetime shot.
> What's the point of having a sophisticated spot metering system
> if one resorts to the spray-and-pray style of photography? May as well get
> a Nikon or Canon auto-everything!
I use handheld meters most of the time. Bracketing has nothing to do IMO
with sloppyness or inaccurate metering.
> I feel a sense of pride when I take only one shot, as I usually do, and get
> that exposure right on the money. If I blow it, I know I have to work harder!
I feel a sense of absolute security when I bag the shot, and I have
1/3rd stop variants, plus the same subject on two different rolls.
But I understand Denton's way of thinking.
> Besides, Lee says his exposures were off as much as three stops. Would you
> bracket 1/2 stop in each direction for three stops? That's 12 exposures per
> subject!
Three stops is a long way, but if he had an E-6 2nd roll in reserve, he
could have it pushed. If photography was about economics, or pride, the
1-shot Denton approach would be best. But, if you're like Ansel Adams and
nail 12 images a year, I'd say do everything in your power to make certain
those twelve are in the bag. Even Ansel, about whose knowledge of exposure
& development we would agree, often took a 2nd and 3rd (N+/ -) variant
and held it back until he saw how the 1st one developed.
> Once in a while I find myself needing to bracket, but I do it as little as
> possible...
I don't do it for snaps, or shots that I know are mundane. But when the
rare moment presents itself, I do go all out to nail it, even if the lab,
Kodak, or I make an error. There's zero virtue in it either way, just
reducing the odds of failure.
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|