OP asked for suggestions, not counterproductive comments.
Last edited:
Film cameras with automatic bracketing
-
A
- Thread starter OptiKen
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
-
For Sale Beautiful Tenba Messenger Bag
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
OP asked for suggestions, not counterproductive comments.
Yeah...comments like that.
I would not discourage anybody from bracketing...especially if you are learning. If you are in doubt...bracket. That is how you learn. Even a very good photographer may choose to bracket at times...why not.?
I doubt anybody would suggest that a person shoot 3-5 different exposure of... Every Shot They Take For The Rest Of Their Lives.......
I do not think there is a need to be so definitive about stuff...Do not waste your money on a light meter, just learn to judge the light, that is what "real photographers" do.?
Yeah...comments like that.
I would not discourage anybody from bracketing...especially if you are learning. If you are in doubt...bracket. That is how you learn. Even a very good photographer may choose to bracket at times...why not.?
I doubt anybody would suggest that a person shoot 3-5 different exposure of... Every Shot They Take For The Rest Of Their Lives.......
I do not think there is a need to be so definitive about stuff...Do not waste your money on a light meter, just learn to judge the light, that is what "real photographers" do.?
+1
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
Bracketing in (for example) three shot sets can give you three different approaches to "proper" exposure. Each of those approaches will print in a different way. While sometimes the differences will be subtle, there is nothing wrong with investigating those subtleties.
If I bracket, it is almost always because I want to have choices when printing.
Except of course for the reasonably infrequent times when the lighting is incredibly difficult, and I'm just hoping to get one that works through sheer luck!
If I bracket, it is almost always because I want to have choices when printing.
Except of course for the reasonably infrequent times when the lighting is incredibly difficult, and I'm just hoping to get one that works through sheer luck!
When I got my first camera which could do automatic bracketing, I quickly discovered the +/- 0.5 or +/- 1.0 stops did not make much difference with negative film because they were so buried within the film latitude. I have not bothered to use it since. If I think that I need to deviate from the meter, I make the adjustment myself.
The Sigma SD 7 and 9 allowed for up to 3 stops + or -, as do the Minolta 800si and 9, I use auto bracketing in tricky lighting, but need to make sure and return to 0 before the next shot.
+/- 2 or +/- 3 stops were not worth doing either. The matrix metering of the Nikon N75 and F100 are good enough that I just do not need to bracket the exposure. The only time I use an external meter is if I need an incident light reading.
True, when in matrix mode, even with the Sigma's little need to bracket.
If I remember correctly auto bracketing can only be done with the camera on a tripod. The mirror locks up and the three images are taken. Not sure if there is a huge time saving over mounting your camera to a tripod, locking the mirror up and manually adjusting shutter speed or aperture to get different exposures. And since you have the camera on a tripod and are going to lock the mirror up anyway, one may as well take the time to properly meter the scene.
The only time I bracket is when shooting "sunny sixteen" or with a camera with center weighted average meter. I would not say bracketing is a waste of film. It's not like I get 36 perfectly exposed print worthy negatives off a roll. But it won't allow you to achieve the HD effect your after.
The only time I bracket is when shooting "sunny sixteen" or with a camera with center weighted average meter. I would not say bracketing is a waste of film. It's not like I get 36 perfectly exposed print worthy negatives off a roll. But it won't allow you to achieve the HD effect your after.
t
he suggestion is to learn exposing properly rather than covering your butt with bracketing.
Fair enough.
OP
OP
What the OP (me) actually asked was, "My question is what other film cameras offer automatic bracketing in that manner?"
Do we really read these posts before flying off with our 'expertise' answers that have nothing to do with what was asked but seem to be aimed at insulting the OP and trying to prove that they don't know what they are doing? My suggestion is to actually consider the OP's original post before expressing our brilliance or personal preferences. Starting a new thread discussing the virtues and vices of bracketing with film would make an interesting discussion but that is a new topic not related to 'what other film cameras offer automatic bracketing'.
I prefaced my question with what I knew about automatic bracketing based on my limited digital experience and was surprised to see it in film cameras so I wanted to see how many other analog manufacturers put this feature in their cameras since HDR is not really a darkroom option.
I am not a professional photographer - not even a decent amateur. But I enjoy the whole film process and playing with old cameras. I marvel at the clockwork mechanisms and the different ways that different companies tried to solve the same problems surrounding 'painting with light'. Automatic bracketing in a film camera involves an evolution from completely mechanical wonders to hybrid electric/mechanical cameras. Exploring where/how this came into being is one of the things that keeps me interested in my hobby. I haven't even progressed to how or why I might 'need' that. I don't shoot slides so there is no advantage there and bracketing 1/3, 1/2, or 1 stop has little effect on today's emulsions so using it as a shotgun approach to obtaining the correct exposure seems futile and a waste of film.
I appreciate all of the answers and considerations to my question and smile at the answers implying that I don't know what I'm doing. I'm learning - we all are. In this case I was trying to learn what other analog manufacturers looked at automatic bracketing. Next I will be asking frame lines in viewfinders. It will be interesting seeing the comments that gets.
I think this comment may convey that your should possibly have read some of the responses, even if they seemed intemperate.
HDR is very much a darkroom option, long before Photoshop made terrible 'HDR' photographs a thing.
The point people have been making us that B&W negative film already captures "HDR", a considerably larger dynamic range/film latitude than can be expressed in the print. This is why bracketing is broadly speaking pointless with B&W negative film.
What most digital photographers mean by "HDR" is of course "tone mapped" - the art of selectively choosing how the original image range is compressed down to the final display image. The old fashioned name for this is "dodging and burning", and it's very much a darkroom technique. (For the true digital tonemapped HDR experience your strictly speaking need "dodging and burning really badly" so you leave a halo around every contrasting element, but that's very much achievable in the darkroom too.)
OP
OP
I read every single response. Even from those who didn't read my question.
Unbelievable.....are some of our members TRYING to piss you off.? .....
The Minolta 9xi has a limited bracketing mode built in, the card expands the capability . I never used it, I couldn't memorise all the obscure and arcane button presses/dial turning combinations. Terrible interface.
The N8008 (already mentioned) and N8008s have exposure bracketing, as does the newer N70. (The N8008 with an MF-21 adds predictive AF, the N8008s has it as a salient feature)
Exposure Bracketing was probably more useful for Slide Film and Polaroid Instant 35mm film because of their limited latitude. I used those for "color printers" in the 1980s, put up computer generated imagery and photographed the IBM Professional Graphics display using a tripod and 200mm lens. I did a lot of bracketing to get the best usable slide. Later, bought a Tektronix Phaser IIsd, full-page Dye Sub for ~$3 per print and vugraph. The printer was ~10K. Made bracketing with Ektachrome and Polaroid 35mm instant look cheap.
Exposure Bracketing was probably more useful for Slide Film and Polaroid Instant 35mm film because of their limited latitude. I used those for "color printers" in the 1980s, put up computer generated imagery and photographed the IBM Professional Graphics display using a tripod and 200mm lens. I did a lot of bracketing to get the best usable slide. Later, bought a Tektronix Phaser IIsd, full-page Dye Sub for ~$3 per print and vugraph. The printer was ~10K. Made bracketing with Ektachrome and Polaroid 35mm instant look cheap.
I rarely use automatic exposure bracketing for the following reasons:
1. The majority of my cameras to not have the automatic exposure bracketing feature; therefore, I must use manual exposure bracketing.
2. The automatic exposure bracketing feature for my cameras differs so much that I must consult my manual before I use it.
3. I prefer to perform manual exposure bracketing.
The times I have really needed exposure bracketing are when I must...
1. Guarantee a usable image when shooting slide film with its very narrow exposure latitude.
2. Alter the metered reading because of film reciprocity failure.
As a side note, I have not yet used focus bracketing or white balance bracketing.
Exposure Bracketing by Narsuitus, on Flickr
1. The majority of my cameras to not have the automatic exposure bracketing feature; therefore, I must use manual exposure bracketing.
2. The automatic exposure bracketing feature for my cameras differs so much that I must consult my manual before I use it.
3. I prefer to perform manual exposure bracketing.
The times I have really needed exposure bracketing are when I must...
1. Guarantee a usable image when shooting slide film with its very narrow exposure latitude.
2. Alter the metered reading because of film reciprocity failure.
As a side note, I have not yet used focus bracketing or white balance bracketing.
Exposure Bracketing by Narsuitus, on Flickr
narsuitus, when I saw the 3 negs which are good illustrations of bracketing I was expecting to see B&W prints. Are these actually colour negs/slides? What was the bracketing range?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Thanks
pentaxuser
AEB is often the first go-to line when using an unfamiliar film, and especially with E6 narrow latitude films. It is not so much a big deal with negative films, but it is with slide films in varying light. For that reason, having 0.5, 0.3 or 1 stop incremental / autoswitching AEB is extremely valuable. As is taking notes for each exposure and referring to these when assessing the negative/transparency. It it uncommon now with MF use, but in 35mm using an EOS 1N, AEB was routinely set in for 0.5 and 0.3 steps in emergent or falling light. Whole stop bracketing of slides is uncommon, especially if the slides are destined for printing, where only slight over-exposure is required to balance out the print-loss.
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
My EOS 1-N RS can auto bracket, but I don't think I've ever used that feature, though I sometimes bracket manually. I think bracketing is valuable for slide film with natural lighting in small increments, like 1/3 or 1/2 stop, because sometimes you can have a range of "correct" exposures where the emphasis, or what some people call "emotional tone," is just different among two or three "properly exposed" versions, and you can't really know which one you'll like best until you see it on the light table. Negative film is more forgiving in that way, since it's a less contrasty medium and you have an opportunity to manipulate it at the printing stage, so I don't typically bracket negative film, but I like a slide to be a final image, where any reproduction should match the slide, and in that process I find that bracketing can be a useful tool.
What an interesting discussion. I've never really thought about bracketing (coming from the LF side of things and minutely spot-metering everything). When I DO use 35mm film though (currently experimenting with Ferrania P30), it takes me absolutely ages to get through a roll... so WHY NOT bracket? At the very least, it would be interesting to see how different negative densities for different scenes effect the final darkroom print... I'm gonna grab my EOS 1V and actually read the manual.
Marc!
Marc!
With a camera like that you should know AEB (auto or switched) off the top of your head — even blindfolded...
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |