[Leica] Exposure & Sharpness Are Overrated In the Photographic Process

[Buzz Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

Please note that everything I'm about to say applies to black and white
negative film only.  I don't shoot transparencies but I realize that all the
rules and opinions change for chromes.

I am afraid that in my mind there is no substitute for experience, spending
a lot of time shooting a lot of film under every lighting condition and then
analyzing the results.  Only in this way will one gain the confidence to
shoot without a meter.  However, another aid to meter-less shooting is to
use a forgiving film which can give you a one or two stop latitude which can
be easily corrected in printing...XP-2, HP5, Tri-X.  Also, stock your
dark-room with either a good multi-contrast paper or seek out graded papers.
Finally, recognize that the image that counts for more than its technical
characteristics and assess your pictures based upon the story they tell or
their emotional impact.

More than one member of thy LUG has heard me say that exposure and sharpness
are vastly over-rated in the photographic process.

	Buzz Hausner

- -----Original Message-----
From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de
[mailto:Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 2:45 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Guestimating exposure?


Hello, 

I always admired those guys who are confident in reliably estimating
exposure 
without using a meter, at least with negative film. Moreover, I consider
this 
ability as a precondition to actually enjoy using a M2, M3 or M4. Of course
I 
looked at the little tables that come with most films or that are shown in
older 
books on photography, but looking up tables is more annoying than using a 
handheld meter. Also, a have my fair share of experience in using the M6's 
coupled meter. As a result I am now quite confident in guestimating exposure

indoor under artificial light and under the open sky. 

Apparently the architects of public buildings, department stores, offices, 
underground stations etc. follow certain engineering standards in lighting
which 
usually result to something like a 1/60, f=1/2 with 400 ASA. Smaller offices

with lower ceiling and bright lights. are rather in the 1/60, F=1/4 range. A

living room or a pub may go down to 1/30 or 1/15 with f=1/1,4.

Under open sky conditions I apply the "sunny 16" rule (1/500" with f=1/11,
ASA 
400). Depending on the clouds I may open the aperture by up to 4 stops. 1 or
2 
hours after sunrise or until sunset, an additional correction by minus 1 or
2 
stops seems to be necessary.

But I have problems to estimate exposure in narrow, shady streets and for 
shadows in general. For a time I thought that a correction by minus 2 stops,
in 
addition to the above, of course, would be the right approach, but to often
this 
resulted in underexposure. Apparently, the indirect light depends to much on

facade colour, height of buildings.

I would therefore appreciate if I could share the experience of other
LUGgers, 
particularly if there is someone who has a more systematic approach.

Hans-Peter