f/2.8 and be there, and let the EI float.

[markbarendt]

"f/8 and be there" is advice that came as I remember from journalistic photography. In my opinion this imperative was/is meant to communicate the most important thing "get a workable photo".

My question for this thread was inspired by Ralph:

There is a well-kept secret in photography:The exposure is always 1/60s@f/8;no meter required if that doesn't work, You had the wrong ISOfilm in your camera.

For me "f/2.8 and be there" is the mantra. 1/200s or faster whenever I can. These choices define a style/look of the photos I regularly want.

For me allowing the EI to float allows me to leave the aperture wide and avoid blur and not to meter for each shot. I just need, as Ralph kinda suggests, to have a film in the camera with a wide enough range to fit the situation.

So, what compromises do you make to get the look you prefer and make shooting easier?

 

[RobC]

If your lens is good enough at F2.8 then its no compromise at all. On the contrary, it'll probably give you sharper and more 3D subject.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Three words "depth of field." Will the very shallow depth of field at f/2.8 be a problem?

 

[markbarendt]

If your lens is good enough at F2.8 then its no compromise at all. On the contrary, it'll probably give you sharper and more 3D subject.

My compromise is allowing the exposure placement float, a lot, to control DOF. The lenses I use are just fine, but my choices are not what is in question.

I'm asking what compromises "you" make to get the DOF or whatever else right for your style.

 

[RobC]

Three words "depth of field." Will the very shallow depth of field at f/2.8 be a problem?

DoF only comes into it if you are photographing quite close subjects, say less than 20 feet or so but some oof areas for those subjects is often very beneficial to isolating the subject and giving a greater 3D look.

And besides, who says DoF is the b all and end all of any photograph. People seem to think everything in an image should be sharp, WHY?

 

[David Brown]

For my style of photography I don't really have to make any compromises. ... If we had had this discussion 40+ years ago my answer would likely have been different, but at this point the materials at my disposal are good enough that not much is required in the way of compromise.

+1

 

[Ian Grant]

I work two ways and the speed EI is always what I've determined gives me the best results from practical testing.

With LF I work f22 and what ever shutter speed I need when using a tripod, and when hand held in Turkey/Greece HP5+ f22 and 1/125th maybe 1/60th.

When shooting MF and previously 35mm 1/125th and whatever aperture I need but I'll drop the speed in bad light.

Ian

 

[Gerald C Koch]

"Let the EI float" is what Henri Cartier-Bresson did. Although I doubt that he thought if it in those words. The lab workers at Magnum who developed his film and printed his negatives hated him.

By having properly exposed negatives you not only save time in the darkroom but also produce better prints. Personally I prefer to spend less time in the darkroom trying to print an unprintable negative and spend that time taking more pictures.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I can see where that may be a helpful approach. Generally I prefer to expose the way I want to see it from the instant the button is pushed. I don't always expose at the optimum anyway. And I don't get it right often enough to tempt fate.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

"f/8 and be there" is advice that came as I remember from journalistic photography. In my opinion this imperative was/is meant to communicate the most important thing "get a workable photo".

I always took this expression to mean that the most important aspect of photography is simply to be out there working and good things will happen, the f8 reference being a simplification of the technical process because, in terms of making great pictures, that's the easy part.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

DoF only comes into it if you are photographing quite close subjects, say less than 20 feet or so but some oof areas for those subjects is often very beneficial to isolating the subject and giving a greater 3D look.

And besides, who says DoF is the b all and end all of any photograph. People seem to think everything in an image should be sharp, WHY?

Since the OP does not describe his normal subjects we must also discuss DOF. If one were doing grab shots as in street photography (for which one usually presets the focus) then DOF is VERY important.

 

[markbarendt]

People seem to think everything in an image should be sharp, WHY?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is all Diana-Holga talk. But nothing is wrong with staying primitive. What ether you'll call it. Photojournalism, optimum, etc.

 

[markbarendt]

I can see where that may be a helpful approach. Generally I prefer to expose the way I want to see it from the instant the button is pushed. I don't always expose at the optimum anyway. And I don't get it right often enough to tempt fate.

That's actually part of my thought, I want what I see when I focus wide open. I want short depth of field.

So:

What is the optimum way for you?

Why don't you expose that way?

 

[markbarendt]

I always took this expression to mean that the most important aspect of photography is simply to be out there working and good things will happen,

I like that, I believe that.

the f8 reference being a simplification of the technical process because, in terms of making great pictures, that's the easy part.

I actually take this to mean "don't get fancy, just get a workable shot".

 

[markbarendt]

It is all Diana-Holga talk. But nothing is wrong with staying primitive. What ether you'll call it. Photojournalism, optimum, etc.

Yep, I've got a Holga, and like it. Doesn't do f/2.8 though.

In this particular case it's Nikon talk. (If I was talking about my RB, I would have said f/4; my 4x5 f/5.6.)

It's not primitive. It's not about not trying to get good exposure. It's about choosing to stick with my style (stay at f/2.8) even with Portra 400 on a white sand beach on a bright sunny summer day, even if the shutter can't go fast enough.

 

[markbarendt]

Since the OP does not describe his normal subjects we must also discuss DOF. If one were doing grab shots as in street photography (for which one usually presets the focus) then DOF is VERY important.

I believe your thought is at the root of the f/8 part of the saying. The verbiage you use, implies that significant DOF is needed to do street work. I see that as a compromise.

For me "the intent for the print", short DOF, trumps the use zone focusing; even if I miss more shots.

 

[BradS]

I always took this expression to mean that the most important aspect of photography is simply to be out there working and good things will happen, the f8 reference being a simplification of the technical process because, in terms of making great pictures, that's the easy part.

+1 I never thought the expression had anything to do with technical stuff. I have always understood it to mean quite the opposite...basically, he was saying, technical stuff only counts for a tiny fraction of what makes a great photo (or, Photo Journalist as the case may be). The really important part is the "be there".

 

[MartinCrabtree]

That's actually part of my thought, I want what I see when I focus wide open. I want short depth of field.

So:

What is the optimum way for you?

Why don't you expose that way?

Honestly? 'Cause even after all these years I'm still trying to figure out WTF I'm doing.

 

[Pioneer]

My optimum depends entirely on what I want to achieve. There are times when I want f/11 depth of field and there are other times when f/2 is more to my liking.

There are also times when it depends on my lens, my camera and my film. I absolutely love the look I get at f/4 with my SMC Pentax 50/2. This simple, entry-level lens gives some great results at that aperture. Just the right mix of isolation and sharp when I have TMX 100 film in the camera.

I think it is all about working with your equipment until you know what to expect.

 

[marciofs]

For shooting in the streets I just follow the Sunny 16 rule. It is easy, fast and acurate enough for me to adapt any configuration of f-stop, shutter speed and ISO acording to the situation.

When I used to shoot landscapes and nature with Pentax 6x7 it was always on tripod or monopod at f22 for a while and later on only at f8 and f16 to get sharper images.

Now I use pinhole camera most of the time and for it I use my lightmeter oriatation.

 

[ic-racer]

As long as one uses an appropriate shutter speed, you can use any aperture. F8 is popular with 35mm photography because MTF and diffraction frequently cross paths at that point.

 

[Terry Christian]

I think "workable" is the operative word regarding that "f/8 and be there" phrase. At f/8 in most photojournalistic conditions, film latitude should cover most inaccuracies in exposure, and the DOF should be deep enough to cover any inaccuracies in nailing focus. So in other words, at f/8 you'll get a decent enough shot to print if you get your other settings somewhere in the ballpark.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I can see where that may be a helpful approach. Generally I prefer to expose the way I want to see it from the instant the button is pushed. I don't always expose at the optimum anyway. And I don't get it right often enough to tempt fate.

That's a good way to put it.Ifeel like tempting fate everytime I push the button,butisn't that part of the photographic magic?

 

[removed account4]

i always thought the "be there" was the most important part of
that expression too ... this thread kind of ties in nicely with
clive's if you can't draw it don't bother thread because
photography is more about being there than it is about anything else.
everything out of focus, razor thin DOF / deep DOF
blurry image ( camera shake ) blown out highlights dense film, chemical fog
static, panning ... it all shows the person behind the camera was there ...
if they weren't there ... whats the point ? might as well be a surveillance camera.

YMMV