RE: [Leica] continuously variable M shutter?

[Buzz Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

	You are of course right about accurate exposures, Eric, the closer
you get the better your highlights, shadows, et cetera.  However, I do
believe, at least in my experience, that it is easier to adjust the
diaphragm than to set an intermediate shutter speed, except when shooting
wide open.

	As to the "myth" of latitude, this may also be true, but in my
experience (and by experience alone) I find that certain negative emulsions
are more forgiving than others (HP, FP, the dreaded Tri-X) when I am
shooting fast and not metering.  True, I may be conceding something in the
highlights, but I am getting the composed image I want and I can often make
up the exposure problems when printing.

	This exchange risks starting a thread on "what is the ideal
exposure."  However, I will say now that I believe this to be as much art as
science and they we may each approach "the ideal exposure" differently and,
except for chromes, have a different idea of what's right.  We all have
different tastes in contrast, negative density, et alii, but I believe it is
all about getting a print that represents the photographer's vision.

		Buzz Hausner


> As for wide exposure latitude, that's a myth propounded by the photo
> press. 
> There is no such thing. There are good exposures, and close exposures, and
> 
> off exposures. The closer you get to the ideal exposure, the better your 
> highlights, shadows and overall exposures are going to be. Negative film
> is 
> no answer for bad technique. And getting good exposure isn't something
> that 
> takes great artistic skill or anything, just practice and some 
> self-criticism. That's why I think I was fortunate to learn on slide film.
> 
> I learned early on how to do good, accurate exposures.
> 
> Eric Welch
> St. Joseph, MO
> http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
> 
>     The strength and power of despotism
>      consists wholly in the fear of resistance.
>                -- Thomas Paine