This seems to often get neglected in these discussions.Everybody knows that even if every light meter is accurate, how they are used makes as much difference as what ASA is set on the dial.
This seems to often get neglected in these discussions.
I know my metering isn't dead accurate and I consider "downrating" a measure to make sure most of the distribution of my exposures falls on the "plenty" rather than the "under" side.
I have to remind myself that people get involved in photography for many different reasons. I am an artist whose media is photography. There are those who just love playing with equipment and chemicals, others love the math and science behind photography, others just like making pretty pictures, others are trying to make a living, and many combinations of all of those.
A lot of fuss about 2/3 stop or stop, or whatever! Some folks need/want the precision/accuracy -- for some it just gets in the way of creating.
It occurs to me that if the author of that quote was identified as Santa Claus, it would work equally well."For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase.
I have a 1940 version of the same handbook, and it is really fascinating - particularly the colour Kodachrome section!The copyright is from 1946, but the book is designed to have updates inserted and replace outdate information. So there is no telling exactly how old any one piece of information is.
I have a 1940 version of the same handbook, and it is really fascinating - particularly the colour Kodachrome section!
And you are one of the ones making all the fuss about the fuss!To me it's not so much about the 2/3 stop exposure difference, as about the fuss.
And you are one of the ones making all the fuss about the fuss!
But, then am I. Here's to making photographs! Or at least have fun playing around numbers, chemicals, papers, equipment, or whatever floats one's boat!
I'm somewhat personally invested in this subject as I was the one years ago who introduced how the Zone System had a different methodology than the ISO standard causing the 2/3 stop discrepancy in EI. Before that, there was strictly conjecture and conspiracy theories. I like to think of it as sharing information. Sure it's a lot of fuss and I have to put up with ad hominem attacks, but where would we be without curiosity and a desire for the truth?
You presented a false dilemma fallacy. A person can be both interested in theory and be an artist.
That's covered in 'whatever'......You presented a false dilemma fallacy. A person can be both interested in theory and be an artist.
-Learning a little about how these things really work helped me to simplify certain aspects of the process, rather than complicate them
-I don’t think it requires a whole lot more effort on average to learn correct things than to learn incorrect things
Darn, my Kollmorgen standard light source is 2850...Here is a graph of the response of difference meter types calibrated to difference color temperatures over a range of color temperatures.
View attachment 274622
I'd actually tend to go even further with these statements - I think it actually takes less effort to learn the correct information, because then the systems work as designed, making subsequent interaction with them more coherent in terms of getting the outcomes you want.
I am a perfectionist in my artistic endeavours, including photography. It was important for me to delve to some extent into photochemistry and sensitometry, because I wanted to know if I was leaving anything on the table quality-wise. I work very hard on my pictures and prints and have tried to develop as much technique as I can, but when it comes to photography, much of the process is largely a black box unknown to the vast majority of practitioners. That’s perfectly ok for many, but not for someone like me, who would always have nagging doubts, so I had to learn. Of course it didn’t hurt that I love the sciences, but the ultimate purpose for me, in this case, was for all of the technical knowledge to “serve the art”, mostly by giving me some peace of mind.
A few things perhaps worth considering (or not):
-Learning a little about how these things really work helped me to simplify certain aspects of the process, rather than complicate them
-I don’t think it requires a whole lot more effort on average to learn correct things than to learn incorrect things
... Anyway, back to the debate...
Clearly your internal clock was set to the wrong colour.So true Lachlan,
One day during the fuel crisis of 1974 they established double daylight savings time. I don't know what I heard, but I walked to school at four in the morning that Monday... Once I realized it was so early I walked all the way home and went back to bed, even though it took me 45 minutes.
But we do not place shadows anywhere. That statement alone makes talk about 2/3 or whatever a bit silly.
There are shadows with no detail or no texture, shadows with detail, and so forth. First one has to decide what type of shadow one wants where before one can to do anything with a light meter reading.
Furthermore, in my experience, a lot of beginning photographers, who are trying to expose using hand-held meters and the Zone System, and who are developing and printing their own work, end up underexposing their film at first, for whatever reason. So, it seems pretty apparent to me that there is a systemic flaw in the hand-held-meter-Zone-System-metering method that ends up needing an exposure compensation so as not to underexpose. If so, then I still think the tool is valuable enough to simply downrate film speed to compensate for the shortcoming, being aware, of course, that by doing so, I'm simply compensating for the "system" and that the film speed is what it is, regardless.
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?