This is BS...sorry....why do you think film shooters bracket? Why do you think bracketing is almost never used with digital? Yes, we film lovers do sometime guess at exposure...hence the bracketing, the extra shots at different exposures, ect...not a bad thing, by the way....just the way it is sometimes.
I love film no less then any of you, and I shoot 90% film over digital, but I'm not so insecure with my film ways as to continually bash the digital set with inaccurate reasons and outright BS to make myself feel better as a film user.
The fact is, and as much as I love and use film, waiting until development is a restriction...and being able to view the LCD and a histogram nearly real-time on a digital camera is a fantastic thing...
Lets not demonize one way over another especially with arguments that are pure BS.
You make some good points but that does not make my statement BS, pure or otherwise. I think the ability to review, check exposure, etc. is very useful, and in the right hands is a tool, not a crutch. That does not make it a necessity.
I'm not critical of it. But it's not a good substitute for knowledge. If the LCD failed, a knowledgeable photographer would continue without it and be little affected. Some folks shoot, look at the LCD. Shoot, look at the LCD. And so on. Things don't flow when they're doing that. If they're not dependent on the LCD they can be looking for the next shot, not at the last.
Immediacy is great, but when, for instance, shooting fast moving sports, there's no time to go back and see if you got the shot. And regardless of medium, there's no chance to bracket.
What I said was, it's hardly a necessity. There are many times when the "magic moment" occurs, a fleeting expression or peak action, and there is only that moment. There is no substitute for knowing your stuff. It's like AE and AF. Used with knowledge, they are tools; if simply relied on in all situations, shots will be lost, and the shooter won't know why. That is, unless the shooter analyzes why and learns from it.
I have been asked by digital shooters how I get by without the ability to review, and that's when I tell them they don't have to have it. I suggest they examine their EXIF data and learn what works best in different situations and why. Then when they have to judge they won't be guessing, and they will
know when to use their judgement.
It's about mastery. They can confidently override their meter or not in fast-changing situations, and not be having to look at their LCD instead of looking at the subject. I like to finish by saying that if they do that, I could hand them a completely manual film camera and they would be able to confidently determine exposure.
As for me, I
never guess at exposure. I make a judgement. I seldom bracket.
I bracket mostly for different effect or to experiment. In those cases I might vary toward underexposure as much as two stops, and over as much as a stop. In situations where exposure must be just right, I bracket for insurance against slight errors in judgment, errors introduced by equipment, or to give a selection of slightly different exposures from which to choose, which protects against variations in development. They also give me the chance to choose a slightly different exposure than what I wanted originally. Those brackets are as little as 1/4 stop and seldom exceed 1/2 stop.
All that is with transparency film, of course.
I'm sure many here know what it was like starting out to not be able to afford to shoot as much as desired. When payday was two days away and I had 10 shots left and was looking at something I really wanted to capture, bracketing was not something I wanted to do. So, I learned how to finely judge exposure out of economic necessity. The real benefit, though, lay in gaining the ability to expose accurately and confidently and to concentrate on getting the shot.
I don't mind waiting for results for my serious work. I agree with Q.G. that for me, it's not a restriction, in that I don't have to see the results to know the results.
I use a P&S digital for family snapshots and pet photos and such and the immediacy of results and convenience are great. In that situation it's like the Polaroid my Dad used to use.
I remember thinking long ago about how nice it would be if I could review a shot as soon as I took it, and if I could just erase the clunkers without paying for them. As I improved, my "keeper" rate went way up and my uncertainty and need to discard went way down.
Now that the ability to instantly review and discard is here, I have little need. But I understand its attraction and desirability, and how it is useful to those in the business.
There's a sort of paradox regarding many features on cameras. The more skill and knowledge we acquire, the more use we can make of them, but the less we really need them.
(just kidding)
No, I don't do it often, but when the situation calls for it I do.
