[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.

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.

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! REALIZE THERE ARE AS MANY CORRECT EXPOSURES AS THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHERS!

[jstevewhite]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pacerr]

It's the nature of profit-inspired manufacturing to add (perceived) value to an item to gain market share -- to offer the "better mouse trap". Having invested the time, effort and expense in upgrading a product, it's both natural and necessary to justify the cost through advertising.

Buy into it if you wish; or resist if you can. Some folks take a perverse pleasure in continuing to do something as well as it can be done sans "improvements". I sometimes feel I'm running a plush retirement home for old MF lenses. Others find utility (or perhaps personal necessity?) in the new capabilities. On the up side, I don't feel compelled to join the unending discussions about the mostly subjective inaccuracy of auto-exposure or auto-focus.

When LORAN C and GPS navigation devices became available for air navigation I was reluctant to adopt them for fear of becoming overly dependent on technology. However, with the proper attitude toward their use, I discovered that they actually freed up my attention for more important and rewarding tasks, including paying attention to the basics of flight. In the same manner, modern metering tools can also make my 'Sunny Sixteen' SWAG's more efficient and economical as well.

Reading the box tops and advertisements contribute to the knowledge and skills I need to take advantage of advances in technology. I believe most experienced users of modern innovations are quite capable of discriminating between hype and functionality. The web has simply allowed more 'newbies' to join the open forum at a lower level of experience. (It also tends to expose the accumulated misunderstandings and bad habits of the sages as well.)

In a more practical sense, I'm not gonna teach my grand kids to hitch up a horse 'n buggy when their world's composed of Honda Civics even though they may eventually desire to explore the "good ol' ways" as a hobby.

H2

(Still dialing a touch-tone cell phone?)

[Ratmagiclady]

Cameras don't *determine* exposure, they *deliver* exposure. Meters *measure* exposure. Photographers *choose* exposure.


You want precision out of the instrument, as you can have it, you want consistency out of the meter, as you can have it, and if you must rely on automation, you want to be able to tell *that* what to do, easily, and do competent things if you must fire somewhat blindly.


It matters when it matters. Knowing the difference is the difference between a photographer and a camera operator.

(Interestingly, with this digital stuff, I was kind of expecting more of like cold, mechanical precise 'data,' but it's like clouds and clouds of different machines' readings of *data* and relating to a hundred different kinds of automation, when most of that would just happen in my *head,* really. )

[jstevewhite]

It's the nature of profit-inspired manufacturing to add (perceived) value to an item to gain market share -- to offer the "better mouse trap". Having invested the time, effort and expense in upgrading a product, it's both natural and necessary to justify the cost through advertising.

<snip>

H2

(Still dialing a touch-tone cell phone?)

Oh, absolutely. Much of the "pile on stuff" is just that - upgrade bait. If they can't tell you something is better, they can't get you to buy something new.

Some upgrades are real advances, though. K-5+TaV mode is a really stunning tool, IMO, in a way it's never been before.

[jstevewhite]

Cameras don't *determine* exposure, they *deliver* exposure. Meters *measure* exposure. Photographers *choose* exposure.


You want precision out of the instrument, as you can have it, you want consistency out of the meter, as you can have it, and if you must rely on automation, you want to be able to tell *that* what to do, easily, and do competent things if you must fire somewhat blindly.


It matters when it matters. Knowing the difference is the difference between a photographer and a camera operator.

(Interestingly, with this digital stuff, I was kind of expecting more of like cold, mechanical precise 'data,' but it's like clouds and clouds of different machines' readings of *data* and relating to a hundred different kinds of automation, when most of that would just happen in my *head,* really. )

Yeah! What RatMagicLady said!

[Ratmagiclady]

I might add, if my chosen exposure ever looks like the picture-perfect histogram, I tend to think something must have gone wrong.

[Ratmagiclady]

I challenge all of us to go outside and measure they dynamic range of any typical scene that we might be tempted to photograph.
How many stops is it?
How much wiggle room do you have compared to the DR of your camera.
I figure my K5 at ISO80 offers several stops of padding on either side of "correct".

Yeah, I dunno, Wheatfield: in the bright, the DR of my *eyes* has more to do with 'what the world looks like' to me, anyway. Your medium is your medium.

[jstevewhite]

I challenge all of us to go outside and measure they dynamic range of any typical scene that we might be tempted to photograph.
How many stops is it?
How much wiggle room do you have compared to the DR of your camera.
I figure my K5 at ISO80 offers several stops of padding on either side of "correct".

I think that we're often not tempted to photograph some scenes *because* we can't record the dynamic range our eyes can see. Noon is a 'bad time to photograph' because shadows go pitch black and highlights blow out; I don't think the K-5 has rendered that problem moot.

In addition, "HDR" exists because no current media can capture and reproduce the entire range of contrast our eyes can see. As cameras (and reproduction media) improve, I think more and more scenes will come into the pale of "tempting to photograph".

[erkie]

MONOTHEISTIC EXPOSURE! REALIZE THERE ARE AS MANY CORRECT EXPOSURES AS THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHERS![/B]

I read a book by Brian Petterson that really drove home the Idea that the creatively correct exposure is what you are after which often isn't the Technically correct exposure. Really good book but for the llife of my can't remember the title.

When LORAN C and GPS navigation devices became available for air navigation I was reluctant to adopt them for fear of becoming overly dependent on technology. However, with the proper attitude toward their use, I discovered that they actually freed up my attention for more important and rewarding tasks, including paying attention to the basics of flight. In the same manner, modern metering tools can also make my 'Sunny Sixteen' SWAG's more efficient and economical as well.



H2

(Still dialing a touch-tone cell phone?)

Yep I'll never forget having a total electrical failure in a Cherokee coming into Downtown Airport in Kansas City. Three things made life much more pleasant. Handheld GPS, Cell Phone to call the tower, And a handy little list of Rarely used so hard to remember emergency Items My Instructor laminated and I have kept on the back of my kneeboard for 25 years which just happens to have details of Light Gun signals. I'm pretty damn sure Tower had to look them up too NOTHING has ever made me so nervous as that approach into a busy airport in silence. Thank heavens for those trusty old technologically inferior Magnetos

And yes I have little laminated cards in my camera case too

Hey PACER doesn't stand for what I think it does? Does it ? Tri pacer was my FAVORITE ! I don't care if it was a flying milk stool. At least two men didn;t have to rub shoulders

Eric

[RioRico]

I've not noticed Exposure Monotheism agit-prop -- maybe I don't read the 'right' publications, or maybe I just don't pay attention to drivel. I've noticed posts expressing such, presumably by those who HAVE paid attention. It don't worry me, la la la. It's just part of the "get it right in-camera" theology, which (by the way) has been argued since at least 1860. Some say the current theology is a Kodachrome legacy -- but even chromes can be (and are) reproduced, and exposures can be (and are) adjusted then.

Every photo is a problem to be solved. Every such problem has more than one usable solution. Those solutions depend on technical factors (what ISOs / exposures / positions / lights are available?); but mainly on aesthetics, on intent (what do I want a picture to look like?); and thus on experience. We work on those solutions before, during, and after photo shoots. We near-have infinities of choices at each stage, especially in PP.

Yes, it's nice to get a shot, its position and exposure and lighting etc, as 'right' as possible (or where we want it) whilst we hold the camera in our grubby fists, or mounted atop our trusty tripods. But even then, our digital sensors supply us with more data than we normally use. That data is there to be exploited. I may generate 30 versions of any particular shot, each with different tweakings of settings, each just as valid and 'correct' as any other Version.

[Nesster]

Obviously I was in 'rant mode' here and thus over-stating and being provocative on purpose.

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."

There are two issues with this, the second being worse than the first:
1) "technical" accuracy is arbitrary and variable - take a normal wide range lit scene, even if 'someone' agrees that 18% grey average of the scene is 'technically' correct, different averaging-weighting and matrix metering systems will read that differently. Heck, even Gossen and Sekonic don't agree fully.
2) Yes, we're supposed to apply our own artistry to the tools made available. However, really, how many of us actually do this when such easy automation is on offer? That seduction by automation - and artificial 'accuracy' - is what my rant is about.

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.

So you are saying that +/- 1/3 stop from a 'technical' correct exposure is under or over exposure? I'm not talking about stops off, I'm talking about the kinds of chromes we all were able to take using 'primitive' metering Again, the rant is more a lament that new photographers - and older ones, myself included - will get hung up on concerns that *while helpful and conducive to reliability of result* don't really matter, not always anyhow

"Correct" is the wrong term. "Good" is a better term. "Good" exposure isn't always the same as "technically accurate".

OK, "Good" is a good term

Reading the box tops and advertisements contribute to the knowledge and skills I need to take advantage of advances in technology. I believe most experienced users of modern innovations are quite capable of discriminating between hype and functionality. The web has simply allowed more 'newbies' to join the open forum at a lower level of experience. (It also tends to expose the accumulated misunderstandings and bad habits of the sages as well.)

In a more practical sense, I'm not gonna teach my grand kids to hitch up a horse 'n buggy when their world's composed of Honda Civics even though they may eventually desire to explore the "good ol' ways" as a hobby.

Hear Hear! I also believe there's a benefit to misusing tools and techniques - if the misuse isn't destructive of the thing itself - to learn and to discover. But maybe that's just my approach in general - I like to divide people into those who must follow cookbooks and those who are unable to - both paths have their pitfalls and both paths meet at mastery...

I read a book by Brian Petterson that really drove home the Idea that the creatively correct exposure is what you are after which often isn't the Technically correct exposure. Really good book but for the llife of my can't remember the title.

This book really should be at least browsed by everybody: UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE is the name. And yes, I had this book in mind whilst ranting

[jstevewhite]

Obviously I was in 'rant mode' here and thus over-stating and being provocative on purpose.


There are two issues with this, the second being worse than the first:
1) "technical" accuracy is arbitrary and variable - take a normal wide range lit scene, even if 'someone' agrees that 18% grey average of the scene is 'technically' correct, different averaging-weighting and matrix metering systems will read that differently. Heck, even Gossen and Sekonic don't agree fully.
2) Yes, we're supposed to apply our own artistry to the tools made available. However, really, how many of us actually do this when such easy automation is on offer? That seduction by automation - and artificial 'accuracy' - is what my rant is about.

I think that 'technically accurate exposure' is, like the idea of an f-stop, a defined condition. I'm not talking about what a given meter says; if the meters give a different result than the exposure that records the most information from the scene, they're varying from technically accurate exposure.

I use the meter in my k-5 and the histogram as a reference, swinging the exposure compensation to get that "most information recorded" exposure. It's much easier to make the 'best technical exposure' into 'art' by driving it away from center than it is to push an 'artistic' exposure to another 'artistic' extreme.

So you are saying that +/- 1/3 stop from a 'technical' correct exposure is under or over exposure? I'm not talking about stops off, I'm talking about the kinds of chromes we all were able to take using 'primitive' metering Again, the rant is more a lament that new photographers - and older ones, myself included - will get hung up on concerns that *while helpful and conducive to reliability of result* don't really matter, not always anyhow

I'm saying with slide film, if you "miss" by 1/3 or more stop, the slide looks "dark", or "light", and when you get it right, it's "dead on". Slides you expose for the highlights and let the shadows take care of themselves (mostly), because blown highlights are so distracting in transilluminated media. Aesthetics may dictate variance from this, but someone looking at it will go "Oh, look, he underexposed/overexposed it to get this effect."

OK, "Good" is a good term

Hear Hear! I also believe there's a benefit to misusing tools and techniques - if the misuse isn't destructive of the thing itself - to learn and to discover. But maybe that's just my approach in general - I like to divide people into those who must follow cookbooks and those who are unable to - both paths have their pitfalls and both paths meet at mastery...

This book really should be at least browsed by everybody: UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE is the name. And yes, I had this book in mind whilst ranting

I think that mastery of one's tools offers one more control, a more direct line from vision to realization. So I can see an image in my head and then "get" it. It's not important what exposure you think is "correct"; it matters that you can reproduce it. The industry agreed on a range of gray to facilitate that. If you can't repeat your exposure, you can't express a vision, or create an image; you can only "discover" images from your shooting.

[erkie]

This book really should be at least browsed by everybody: UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE is the name. And yes, I had this book in mind whilst ranting

I agree wholeheartedly that anyone can benefit from reading this. Actually he has a couple of books I've found quite helpful.

I'm saying with slide film, if you "miss" by 1/3 or more stop, the slide looks "dark", or "light", and when you get it right, it's "dead on". Slides you expose for the highlights and let the shadows take care of themselves (mostly), because blown highlights are so distracting in transilluminated media. Aesthetics may dictate variance from this, but someone looking at it will go "Oh, look, he underexposed/overexposed it to get this effect."



.

Did you shoot Velvia when you shot slides ? I always found that if I exposed at Iso 50 I got very saturated colors perfect for some things but if i over exposed by 1/3 it tamed the saturation down to a rather normal level. It made a very noticable change and yet if there were people in the shot it was far more flattering to skin tones. Not "Technically correct exposure" But certainly necessary for something pleasing. And it didn't scream overexposed by any means. And when I shoot B&W film I almost NEVER shoot at box speed. Niether did ADAMS by the way. He Exposed for the shadows and Developed for the Highlights. Certainly didn't just meter off a grey card and shoot at box speed for the published correct exposure.

To be honest I'm still kinda new to digital so you may be quite correct about this in digital But film was and is a different story in my experience anyway. I didn't shoot slides other than Velvia so all the rest are alien to me and you're probably right about them as well.

Eric

Eric

[pacerr]

So you are saying that +/- 1/3 stop from a 'technical' correct exposure is under or over exposure?

If you're going to deviate plus-or-minus anything, you must deviate from some point of reference -- and an accepted standard is a great convenience for analyzing the results, especially if you wish to involve others. That standard doesn't have to be perfect, nor even necessarily good. It just has to be an agreed upon and useful reference point.

Automated exposure is a convenient, but not necessarily universal, standard defined by the manufacturer to optimize sales to a large group of people -- most of whom aren't on this forum. Selectable ISO, EV adjustments and even such things as optical filters, accessory lighting and post processing are your opportunity to customize that nominal standard to suit your own needs.

To complain about the nominal standard not being "technically correct" for your own purposes rather than taking advantage of the controls designed to personalize your equipment -- to deviate from "the standard" -- is to admit to some degree of either ignorance or sloth or both.

(Oh, yeah! Sloth. I've been waiting years to use that one in a sentence! Heck, this post may have just been a subconscious effort to finally end the suspense. )

H2

(OK, a show of hands now -- who among us has ever actually calibrated an exposure meter for use with specific equipment or a lab standard resource? Extra points if you logged the results and can produce 'em.)