Exposure latitude is the difference in dynamic range between film and paper.
It's true for me, too. If I want to use the entire range of whatever film I'm using, there is no latitude for error in exposure or development.
And the fact that 200 observers find a print acceptable really has nothing to do with me getting negatives or transparencies the way I like them, does it?
I can work with a less-than-ideal negative, but I'd rather get as close as possible to ideal. Sometimes you can't, for any number of reasons. But any time I can, I will. It's like shooting at targets, under one set of circumstances a 5" group might be acceptable, but the ideal is a "group" the diameter of a single bullet.
It's a difference of philosophy, or maybe sloppyosophy.
It's a difference of philosophy, or maybe sloppyosophy. You have machine-gunners who will take sixty
shots a minute and still never bag anything worth cooking, and you've got snipers who can down a duck
with a single round.
Everyone has their own personal guidelines they are most comfortable with. In my mind developing your eye by guessing exposure settings to match your lighting is a valuable skill to practice.
Yes there are a fair number of guys around here, like you and Drew, that fall in a special class of artisans within our craft that may actually intend to print 10,12, or more stops of scene luminance range and use every bit of straight line between toe and shoulder. That is quite a feat, I'm not trying to make little of that work.
Sure you guys don't have any latitude but that isn't the norm in our world. Average scene luminance range is about 7 stops, if the film is capable of 10 there are 3 stops of room, latitude, to play with. 12 gets us 5 to spare, for the average Joe or Mark shooting portraits and family and wedding stuff, that's a lot of latitude.
The reason the 200 observers comment was included, as well as citing the exact reference, was to show that the idea that "more than one exposure setting can produce excellent prints" isn't unproven conjecture on my part. It's peer reviewed science.
This is precisely what I'm attempting to do here. I've tried practicing on cameras with built-in meters, but it's just too darn easy to check the meter. Not having a meter at all is forcing me to think about the overall light conditions from time to time, but outside that, I just worry about shooting. It's nice.
The most valuable piece of gear you have is right between your ears.
The safe approach for exposure is to leave yourself some room; if you are making a negative of a scene with say 8 stops of brightness range, why not put the exposure in the middle, so you get a stop or so of insurance on each end? Making a succesful print is like going through a series of doors, each one smaller. If the errors are bigger than the doors, you eventually get stopped before you reach your goal.
As for me, my printmaking hasn't quite caught up with my negatives. But when it does, I'll have the negatives.
.
Ain't that the truth, a light meter doesn't automatically give the perfect exposure, the readings they give are a point from which to start considering how you want to depict the scene.When you have and use a meter, you still need to think about overall lighting conditions. The most valuable piece of gear you have is right between your ears.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?