Bracketing and how many?

[hoffy]

I think a lot of this comes from large format people who are very anal in how they shoot and take a lot of time to make the shot. They also pride themselves on not cropping (obviously for contact printing) and on a very deliberate approach.

Being a recipient of Murphys Law for a long time, I always over shoot whatever I do. Just in case....

That Murphy - He's a right royal prick, aint he!

I think this is a very valid response and this is another reason I bracket – lets say, after processing I find a fine scratch on the neg that I was targeting for…OK, I could always spot it in post, but I could also select one of the other shots from the brackets that DON’T have a scratch on them – as a matter of fact, this has happened at least once with myself. Sure the neg may not be the ‘perfect’ exposure that you may want, but I think it would be easier to deal with a one or one half stop difference then a scratch.

But that’s just me – maybe I have money to burn (not really). Maybe I have OCD (probably) – I don’t really care, its just what I do.

 

[Bill Burk]

Lootens recommended shooting (black and white) two stops over/under. Otherwise you don't get significantly different negatives.

For those who don't meter or whose cameras may not fire at the engraved speed - I think Lootens' advice is relevant today.

 

[Bill Burk]

... lets say, after processing I find a fine scratch on the neg that I was targeting for ...

This builds a strong case for taking insurance dupes - same exposure and composition but different frames.

For Large Format, you can separate the film into different cartons to send to different labs (or to be developed at different times).

I just can't bear to go out with, say 100 sheets of film and mentally tell myself "thats only 50 shots." I resolve to take one shot of each composition. Maybe two or three variations "working the subject". Still telling myself I get 100 shots.

When I find dust or a fine scratch on a neg... My best hope is that I have a similar shot but vertical instead of horizontal.

 

[Vaughn]

If I take a potential important shot on the last couple negatives on a roll, I'll change film and reshoot the last image over again on the new roll (120) -- just insurance.

The time I accidently ripped an 11x14 negative in half, it was nice finding the second neg I took of the same scene!

Vaughn

 

[polyglot]

The time I accidently ripped an 11x14 negative in half, it was nice finding the second neg I took of the same scene!

Vaughn

Now that is an impressive fit of pique!

I'm not arguing against redundancy when that is required; I will frequently shoot something on two different film stocks. I know LF shooters who will stick a chrome in one side of the holder and neg in the other and expose the latter as a "backup", sort of the ultimate bracket by taking advantage of the wider latitude of neg.

 

[hoffy]

This builds a strong case for taking insurance dupes - same exposure and composition but different frames.

For Large Format, you can separate the film into different cartons to send to different labs (or to be developed at different times).

I just can't bear to go out with, say 100 sheets of film and mentally tell myself "thats only 50 shots." I resolve to take one shot of each composition. Maybe two or three variations "working the subject". Still telling myself I get 100 shots.

When I find dust or a fine scratch on a neg... My best hope is that I have a similar shot but vertical instead of horizontal.

Ahhh, here's the clincher – I don’t shoot large format – Here’s the other thing, I would tend to bracket more with a roll of 36 exposures on 35mm then I would if say I was shooting a roll of 10 6x7’s. I am also sure that if I was shooting LF, I would bracket a lot less as well.

 

[baachitraka]

No bracketing. I used to, but like Eggleston I get confused come printing time which negative to pick, so I just shoot one frame now.
To me, it's just good practice of my skills and keeps me sharp, and it also builds trust in my ability. Since my work is personal, it's not a big deal if I lose a frame due to a problem with my technique.

If I were a professional photographer, my take on it might be different.

+1

This may be one of the reason I am thinking to buy a scanner but then I am too afraid that it may take away the fun in darkroom.

 

[Alan Klein]

One note about my post above. The one stop bracket is with color negatives or chromes. I don't shoot B/W. Another comment about negative color. While it's true that negative allow a lot of leeway even with Portra, the colors are not the same between shots even at 1 stop bracket. That doesn't make a difference to me because with landscapes, no one really can tell the difference if they're only looking at one selected result. But if you're shooting where the color have to match the originally, getting the exposure exact is important.

Have other found the same with their color shooting?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think a lot of this comes from large format people who are very anal in how they shoot and take a lot of time to make the shot. They also pride themselves on not cropping (obviously for contact printing) and on a very deliberate approach.

Being a recipient of Murphys Law for a long time, I always over shoot whatever I do. Just in case....

Yes. With 8x10 Tri-X going for six dollars per sheet, (and this doesn't include processing and printing) one tends to meter carefully, keep the shutters functioning as they should, and above all think about what one is doing. This approach trickles down to smaller formats as well. On a one month trip to Germany, not one frame of 35mm Agfachrome 100 transparency was lost. I don't bracket because I don't need to; when I was working semi-professionally I would expose insurance duplicates of complex setups.(I did a fair amont of product photography.)
Also, "careful" and "methodical" do not mean "anal".

 

[markbarendt]

Also, "careful" and "methodical" do not mean "anal".

Well defined, well practiced, well executed, industrial quality processes that can be used without doubt about the outcome are very freeing. If you aren't worried about the tools and processes working you can focus more on things like composition and content.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Well defined, well practiced, well executed, industrial quality processes that can be used without doubt about the outcome are very freeing. If you aren't worried about the tools and processes working you can focus more on things like composition and content.

Precisely. Thank you.

 

[Vaughn]

But stuff still happens -- from the moment one loads the film into the holders to when printing with the negative five years later. So I like having a back-up negative. But I also do not use much film, so doubling up is not as significant. I have lost prints to mold, ants and rain...but so far have kept my film in good condition. My sheet film is far better organized and stored than my early MF negatives. And it is time to order some more boxes for the 8x10 negatives. And figure out a long-term solution for storing 11x14 negatives.

Vaughn

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Bracketing is standard professional practice, not wastage of film by any stretch. Provided you know what you are doing, all brackets will be entirely useable, the only difference is their tone, their mood or the emotive quality they evoke. Bracketing of composition is not as common (or critical) as bracketing of the exposure, as compositional errors can be tweaked later e.g. cropping when printing etc. I have been bracketing my images for decades in 35mm, still do in 6x7 and also 6x17. It gives you the luxury of choice and a pretty good assurance of getting one or more brilliant shots done in tricky conditions (a standard bracket sequence for me is usually 5 or 6, of which 3 or 4 will be used in one way or another; brackets are less essential for negative film as opposed to transparencies because negative emulsions give so much more room to move before the exposure is on the nose.

 

[markbarendt]

But stuff still happens -- from the moment one loads the film into the holders to when printing with the negative five years later. So I like having a back-up negative. But I also do not use much film, so doubling up is not as significant. I have lost prints to mold, ants and rain...but so far have kept my film in good condition. My sheet film is far better organized and stored than my early MF negatives. And it is time to order some more boxes for the 8x10 negatives. And figure out a long-term solution for storing 11x14 negatives.

Vaughn

I'm not suggesting that we "not shoot a spare", when a shot is important.

My thought is simply that we should have a good reason every time we drop the shutter.

Film defects, dust getting on the film, gusts of wind moving the camera; this type of issue can ruin a great shot or make a lot of work for us later. These kinds of problems though are random, shooting a spare sheet or spare frame can solve real problems that are beyond our control. Insuring we get a high quality shot shows great craftsmanship/professionalism.

Bracketing is a different beast, it's normal use is to cover our tails when we don't know what exposure is going to work, when we don't trust our system/tools, or when we don't want to figure it out. The first two of these issues typically solve themselves with experience, people grow out of bracketing as their confidence grows. The third case is expensive and shows little craftsmanship/professionalism; in a commercial setting that doesn't work well.

The bigger problem I see with bracketing is that it doesn't create spares of the "right" shot, all the spares are almost by definition, wrong.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]

The bigger problem I see with bracketing is that it doesn't create spares of the "right" shot, all the spares are almost by definition, wrong.

:confused: How is that so, prey tell??

 

[markbarendt]

:confused: How is that so, prey tell??

My thought is that when we drop the shutter we normally have a some expectation of what we want from that shot.

Even though we may get something workable from a bracketed exposure, it will probably as you suggested above, be a bit different.

If we don't get the tone, mood, and emotion we planned on, is it still "right"?

 

[Diapositivo]

If you use slides and bracket +1EV and -1 EV you easily have two shots out of three which are badly exposed (the exception being a subject which has a narrow brightness range).

If you use slides and bracket +0.33 EV and -0.33 EV depending on brightness range you might have three usable shots. Bracketing for "fine tuning" in a commercial shot is certainly sensible.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]
If we don't get the tone, mood, and emotion we planned on, is it still "right"?

Individual photographers will be looking for their own specific qualities in the bracket sequence and the overall exposure will determine how they interpret and find those qualities. The qualities I mentioned are those I generally set out to bring back. There are many others. At a personal and professional level, I do look for an emotive quality to make the image. Failure to bring up that emotive quality is not failure of the image generally. I can look at one or two underexposed images that, 20 years ago I would have rejected, trashed and pulled my hair. Not now, ever. Two (brackets) are scheduled for printing for their reflection of character (as distinct from emotive or tonal or mood qualities). At least with film we cannot be likened to "chimping" as is customary in the alternative process: shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete;shoot, inspect, delete; shoot, inspect, delete, shoot, inspect, delete ... you get the picture...

 

[markbarendt]

I can look at one or two underexposed images that, 20 years ago I would have rejected, trashed and pulled my hair. Not now, ever. Two (brackets) are scheduled for printing for their reflection of character (as distinct from emotive or tonal or mood qualities).

Once I got comfortable with exposure and negatives bracketing at the camera became a waste of time and film for me. As long as I don't forget to do something, I simply don't miss on exposure. (When I forget, bracketing can't fix it.)

This isn't any claim to fame, gift, or special knowledge on my part either.

I shoot at box speed and use an incident meter to find exposure. I have lenses and shutters that work as they should. I develop film per the manufacturer's instructions. Anybody can do it. This is an industrial quality process and fully repeatable.

Using this process there is plenty of room to create variations in print character.

What I can't control here is the occasional pin hole in the emulsion or the subject blinking.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I just need to say this...

Some folks are getting as belligerent as I've been sometimes lately... and overly defensive to boot. I guess some "artists" are just that way. I'm definitely no artist but have an equally good excuse. I'm brain-damaged...



--------------------------------------------------

Back on-topic: I used to bracket by +1 stop just in case I wanted to retain more shadow detail and/or adjust development. When I finally do start taking photos for myself again I will surely bracket occasionally but not very often and for a very different work-flow. I won't use the "D-word" or the "H-word" but if I feel the need to protect dynamic range and local contrast then (shooting only Ektar 100) I'll take two shots...

1: Darkest important shadow detail at "Zone IV"
2. Brightest highlight detail at "Zone VI"

This way I can combine both exposures as needed to retail optimum local contrast.

 

[Bill Burk]

Poisson Du Jour,

It is professsional to bracket! Absolutely. I've repeatedly told stories that I don't bracket, however it is for my personal work where one of the constraints is how much film I have.

One time I did a quasi-professional shoot of Italian imports (which I bracketed every shot). I gave the customer the selects. Now I accept on the surface your argument that alternate takes may be quite usable. But all I have left of this work is several slide pages of murky and overexposed garbage.

On one point I will dissent, compositional bracketing (or exploring, working the subject), is common and I think a good use of film. Here I try to improve on what I first saw. I'll take my first impression. Then refine by moving to a different vantage point. I'll spend more time on the second shot but often will not take it (the first is often the best).

 

[Vaughn]

Seems like with 35mm slides, doubling up would give you one (#1) to project and/or throw on a light table (and one may require a little different exposure than the other use, but there could be eventual fading) and one (#2) to keep safe (for scanning or making dupes -- after scans were made of #1.) I assume making 'dupes' in-camera would be the cheapest and highest quality way to go.

 

[Ian Grant]

Something that's missed is that often in the past (pre digital) professional photographers would often take two shots of ket images (almost always LF). same exposires and process just one, only processing the second if the result needed pushing/pulling. This was very common with E6. The other trick was to shoot two quick test shots and have a clip test done from the first roll. Many also forget that back in the 70's (and earlier) professional colour films came with suggested colour filtration adjustments stamped on each box. Here in the UK many switched to Fuji films as they were far more consistent, later Kodak caught up. Ian

 

[markbarendt]

Something that's missed is that often in the past (pre digital) professional photographers would often take two shots of ket images (almost always LF). same exposires and process just one, only processing the second if the result needed pushing/pulling. This was very common with E6. The other trick was to shoot two quick test shots and have a clip test done from the first roll. Many also forget that back in the 70's (and earlier) professional colour films came with suggested colour filtration adjustments stamped on each box. Here in the UK many switched to Fuji films as they were far more consistent, later Kodak caught up. Ian

I know guys that still work that way.