I cannot believe what I am reading.
Yes it is a bad idea to open up 1.5~2 on a reading of highlights, we can put that in the cement. By dint of the reverse, it is also absurd to stop down 1.5~2 for shadows. Where are these theories coming from? If you have shadow and highlights in your scene, tell me how both are to be enumerated and preserved. It's not impossible. But it does require craftiness.
Slide film does not allow for for a sloppy approach to metering. In my images, there is very often conflicting "information" in the scene which must all be individually balanced: shadow and highlight. I would like to know what the basis is for additional exposure over a balanced reading. In competent hands it is submitted that there is no need for any additional compensation unless there is polarisation applied (variable compensation) or a B&W filter.
I will also point out that bracketing is valuable in marginal scenes. I don't squander film, but I don't squander the opportunity to err on the safe side in difficult conditions. Of course, quite unnecessary for a lot of the time with B&W, but it is standard, common and professional practice with transparency.
With respect, I think that you have misread my post. Firstly, it was responding to the suggestion that the OP should follow the advice of Parker which I do not believe to be good advice. Secondly, by way of an example that Parker's suggestion is that it is too complicated to interpret the information that a meter gives you, I referred to the fact that my students have no problem in understanding the concept that a meter is suggesting an exposure to render something at 18% grey and that you, the photographer, need to realise that when you solely meter a shadow where you want detail the meter will suggest an exposure that is two stops more than the correct exposure. If you solely meter a highlight, the meter will suggest an exposure that is two stops too little. As students advance they learn to recognise that getting a perfectly exposed highlight or shadow is only part of the consideration in achieving an image that renders a scene how you want it.
You state that opening up 2 stops for your highlights (when you have solely metered the highlight that you wish to retain adequate detail in) is a bad idea - why?. If you want a bright highlight with detail on transparency film then this is exactly what you need to do. If other considerations for the scene are of equal importance to you then you have to judge how you want to balance the competing demands that you scene presents you with - such as increased/reduced development, employing graduated filters, waiting for a different time of day, etc.
You also state that closing down 2 stops for your shadows (when you have solely metered the shadow that you wish to retain adequate detail in) is absurd - why?. If you want a fully detailed shadow on negative film then this is exactly what you need to do. If other considerations for the scene are of equal importance to you then you have to judge how you want to balance the competing demands that you scene presents you with - such as increased/reduced development, employing graduated filters, waiting for a different time of day, etc.
You ask where these 'theories' are coming from. If you have seen any of my other posts, you may well have noted that I am not a fan of theories but rather of practical solutions. The basis for the above concepts do originate from the Zone System but are also the results of real world photography. I have been photographing for many years and, until five years ago, undertook both commercial work and my own private work. For most of my commercial career advertising, editorial and product clients demanded the images as transparencies. I am therefore well versed in the exposure demands of such films and would agree that achieving a good transparency does not allow for sloppy technique.
My personal work has always been black and white. For this I advise people to undertake tests to determine their personal Exposure Index (using practical film and darkroom based testing rather than step wedges and densitometers). Thereafter, the simple starting point for each scene is to meter the shadows where you wish to retain detail and stop down two stops. To ensure no loss of highlight details (I use a Mamiya 7 so I can't change backs to allow me to vary the development of individual rolls) I recommend using a two-bath developer (I personally use Barry Thornton's version).
For the images that I like to make, I photograph scenes that tend to have a large subject brightness range (sunny 16 rule would never work for cityscapes that have very deep shadows and white painted walls in full sunlight). By exposing to retain full shadow detail and developing in a two-bath developer I achieve 100% easily printable negatives that allow for a broad range of interpretation. Every single image on my website was made following this procedure.
Finally, bracketing is a personal matter. It does not bother me if someone brackets or not. However, when someone (such as Parker) suggests not learning to meter correctly but rather bracket every scene then I believe this to be bad advice. Many a good image can be lost this way.
I hope this clarifies my original post and the basis for my comments.
Bests,
David
www.dsallen.de
