Originally posted by Nesster One way to learn what a 'stop' looks like is to look through a filter, ND if possible, or a POL... a stop isn't much at all, less than most sun glasses. A third of a stop is even less.
Another way to look at exposure: point your camera at a scene, meter as accurately as you can. Now move your camera just a little in some direction, and meter again. Are you less than a third of a stop off? Unless the scene is unusually uniform, probably you are more than 1/3 stop different.
The auto exposure camera makers and their gurus have convinced us that 'correct' exposure is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL for any sort of GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY.
I think you've confused "technical accuracy" with "good photography". Manufacturers produce *technical products* that photographers then use for *artistic ends*. A manufacturer cannot say anything meaningful about "good" exposure, only "technically accurate" exposure. In digital cameras, "technically accurate" means "the exposure recording the most information possible from the scene at hand."
Kodak films used to come with a piece of paper that explained the Sunny 16 rule, and gave 'rules of thumb' for other exposure parameters (like cloudy, open shade, etc). More importantly, it also discussed reproduction. "If you'd like this to be darker, then underexpose by 1/2 stop" and the like.
Quote: That if you are off by as much as 1/2 stop, you might as well not have bothered with the picture. Even the slide film thing doesn't require 1/3 stop fussiness, though the latitude is less.... (that quarter stop fussiness is spurious, possibly only important in a controlled studio lighting situation). The purpose of this propaganda is to CONVINCE US PHOTOGRAPHERS that we need computer controlled, multi segment, precision-readout built in metering in our cameras.
I have to disagree here, as someone who shot *thousands* of images on chromes, from 35mm to 4x5. That's not to say that you couldn't make an "aesthetically pleasing" image by intentionally underexposing or overexposing your image, but it was obviously under or over exposed. Again, you're confusing aesthetics with technical accuracy.
Quote: While nice to have, we don't need anything such. Also, there's a known fallacy about measurement readouts having too much 'precision' -- when this precision is a) non repeatable b) creates a sense dependency c) is in fact non-significant d) and does not imply 'precision' in the sense of finely and specifically sensored, but rather mathematical precision as in how many zeroes to the right of the decimal place?
In other words, how useful is it to you that the 'correct' exposure at this moment, pointing at that scene, is 1/374924... of a second at f/4.5392...? Especially as the next second it may be TOTALLY DIFFERENT as in 1/38012... second at f/4.5600!!!
But the damage is done, we are fearful of exposure 'imprecision', of losing control, of being thought of as BAD EXPOSERS, Sinning against The One True Exposure!
The thing is, we can choose what to meter; we can choose what is 'correct' in a situation; good pictures, some of the best and most iconic photos in history, have been made without a meter and without the photographer worrying about that last 1/3 stop.
We should all at least put our digital cameras on manual exposure, and purposely try the 'wrong exposure', go against what the electronic brain of the camera is telling us, and the marketeers of the industry are beating into us: free ourselves from the tyranny of MONOTHEISTIC EXPOSURE!
I know, broken record, and all that, but there *is* a *single* "technically accurate" exposure. Aesthetics may dictate a variance from that exposure for the "best" (subjectively, artistically judged) exposure, but there is still a setting that will record the most information about the scene at hand, or will most accurately reproduce the scene at hand (the only two meaningfully measurable definitions of "accurate exposure").
Ansel Adams built the zone system on the first definition here, and the zone system is *far* from dictating a single 'accurate exposure'; it's just a system for predictable tonal behavior so that the photographer can learn to accurately pre-visualize the final image, and shoot the 'right' exposure to match his/her vision.
Quote:
REALIZE THERE ARE AS MANY CORRECT EXPOSURES AS THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHERS!
"Correct" is the wrong term. "Good" is a better term. "Good" exposure isn't always the same as "technically accurate".
I'm hoping this rant is a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but I just can't resist a philosophical challenge.