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.
> 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.
> 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,
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|