[Leica] re: Exposure and Development

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Robert Meier asked:
Subject: Re: [Leica] re: Exposure and Development


> Thanks very much.   You are a fount of wisdom.   Did you find any 
> difference when you switched from using incident readings with the white 
> ball to using reflected readings with the R cameras?<<<<<<<<<<,

I never thought of anything like that as the camera was set and what came 
out looked OK. Therefore no need to have a concern nor problem.

> And, by the way, when Kodak eliminated the 'safety factor' and doubled the 
> published ratings for Tri-X (and other films) in the early 60's , did you 
> start giving your pictures one stop less exposure?<<<<<<,

Honestly I didn't know they'd done that until you just told me. See things 
like this, if I didn't see a major difference in how negatives or slides 
looked when changes were made, it never concerned me.

Sure I read camera magazine articles, but in most cases I never took any of 
it seriously. I might read something where a point was made, load a camera 
bang off a roll and look see. If I didn't see any significant change..... 
end of article concern. Next assignment was waiting to be done.

Yes I know very well I've been very lucky over the years when "advances" 
happened and other photographers made changes accordingly. But I was far 
more interested in every thought and action devoted to "shooting 
assignments." I gave very little thought to the technical items you've asked 
about.

Obviously I must have made changes without realizing I was doing them as 
film, paper and developers were modified, but I stand by what I say. My 
interest in the technical aspects during all the film years, now the digi, 
is "minimum is best and shooting is better!" Obviously as long as I achieve 
results I'm pleased and surprised with and the client is happy to pay for 
it's not likely at this stage am I going to get techie. The least I can get 
a way with the better! :-)

If we consider much of what we read today and are involved with the 
technical side, it's because of the internet. It means there's far more 
information instantly available compared to 40-50 years ago where what you 
learned was in a .50 cent photo magazine.

An example of today. A question comes up about a lens......... and 50 people 
respond instantly with more details than one can absorb! What's more 
confusing is, many of the posts almost contradict each other, this is due to 
the experiences of the users or the type of photography they do.

In the old days one might read an article about a 50mm lens, that was it! 
Maybe a month later you'd see a question or two in the "letter's to the 
editor" column. Which were answered by some "expert" paid by the magazine to 
say the right things not to offend the lens manufacture being discussed! ;-)

I think in the olden days it was far more "we learned by doing," than 
reading a screen and asking questions for an instant answer.

ted