Background: The question (below) was posed to me at lunch today, when I was in the company gym working out. The conversation began when one of my office mates asked about photography after noting my Dwayne's Kodachrome T-shirt. The conversation evolved from generalities (what interests me...what interests her, etc.) into a bit of a discussion of the differences between shooting analogue and digital. She asked if I didn't find it difficult to shoot something without really knowing for sure that I had actually captured the image I wanted. She suggested (argued?) that one of the virtues of shooting digital was that one got immediate confirmation. I had to think about the question before I responded that "I generally have a pretty good idea what I have given that I have been shooting for a long time with virtually the same materials." The conversation continued on touching on a number of other photography-related matters (where do you like to shoot, how often do you go out just to shoot, etc.
After I returned to work, I thought about the question further and began to wonder if I had been completely forthright with my response. Perhaps, I should have qualified my answer? In retrospect, I would maintain that, when shooting black and white under normal circumstances (i.e. not in those cases where "existing light" conditions make the effort a bit of a crap shoot), I am seldom surprised at the results I have obtained (this assertion is based on, as I said above, using a limited number of materials, for particular applications and processing with tight control (yes, I know, accidents do happen!!). Now where I began to doubt the veracity of my response/position is in the case of shooting colour transparency film. For a normal (i.e. metered) exposure, I have a very good idea about what I have based upon the films I am currently (for three years-plus ) using for my colour work (E100G/E100VS). Where I am less certain is when I bracket (depending upon the situation, up to +/-2/3 in 1/3 increments); I have had shots that should have turned out, but ended up being a waste of film; I have had other brackets that left me astonished with how they rendered a particular scene, often in a manner far more effective/dramatic than I would have imagined.
So, let me throw the question out there: Do you always "get" the image you saw when looking through the viewfinder? Or, when shooting, in certain circumstances, do you get something that sometimes surprises/disappoints you?
After I returned to work, I thought about the question further and began to wonder if I had been completely forthright with my response. Perhaps, I should have qualified my answer? In retrospect, I would maintain that, when shooting black and white under normal circumstances (i.e. not in those cases where "existing light" conditions make the effort a bit of a crap shoot), I am seldom surprised at the results I have obtained (this assertion is based on, as I said above, using a limited number of materials, for particular applications and processing with tight control (yes, I know, accidents do happen!!). Now where I began to doubt the veracity of my response/position is in the case of shooting colour transparency film. For a normal (i.e. metered) exposure, I have a very good idea about what I have based upon the films I am currently (for three years-plus ) using for my colour work (E100G/E100VS). Where I am less certain is when I bracket (depending upon the situation, up to +/-2/3 in 1/3 increments); I have had shots that should have turned out, but ended up being a waste of film; I have had other brackets that left me astonished with how they rendered a particular scene, often in a manner far more effective/dramatic than I would have imagined.
So, let me throw the question out there: Do you always "get" the image you saw when looking through the viewfinder? Or, when shooting, in certain circumstances, do you get something that sometimes surprises/disappoints you?
