Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]dan - sorry for the pick apart response... >Manual setting of exposure does not lead to missing pictures but sometimes >to poorly exposed ones. If you pan your M6 from zero degrees say from your >right to 180 degrees to your left, you will find that the meter will show >that the whole scene does not have the same exposure. So if you were to >snap say 4 shots while panning from right to left, some of the shots will >be overexposed and some will be underexposed. if you are panning over areas in varying degrees of sunlight and/or shade, yes, some of the shots would be poorly exposed. however, if the light is the same across the area you're panning over, the exposure would be the same for all of the shots and you wouldn't need to check/recheck/set/reset exposure. when i'm in a situation where the lighting is stable, i set exposure once and don't worry about it. if lighting varies slightly, i'll average readings of the bright and dim aspects of the scene. if the lighting varies drastically, i go with one or the other, depending on what i'm after. >For B&W work, I am able to >compensate for this difference manually in my darkroom but it will slow >down my speed in which my prints can be processed. If I were to use my G2, >every exposure can be spot on and I find 4 printable negs which I hardly >have to vary the exposure time with in my darkroom. To me, this is important. even properly exposed shots occasionally need to be dodged, burned or manipulated in some way, and that takes extra time. but for me that's what working in the darkroom is all about: crafting to get the best prints possible, and that frequently means working the same image over and over again until i feel i've got it right. in the description you give above, you make it sound like the objective is to print the most negs in the briefest amount of time, avoiding any darkroom manipulation since that slows down the printing process. is that really what you mean? >>about: composition, and i don't think that is true either. > >I disagree. Good composition with an interesting subject always attracts >the viewer. i didn't say that good composition is not to be sought after, but that, imo, composition alone does not make a successful image. the frequently made claim that electronics allow the user concentrate on composing the shot implies that *composition* is what is creative in photography, and exposure is a purely technical issue best left to the camera's microprocessor. i disagree with that view. to select a given exposure (which may or may not be the 'correct,' meter indicated one) for a given shot is also to exercize creative control over the image. to my mind that is every bit as important (in some cases, more important) than composition per se. >>i'd say that 95% of my shots are correctly exposed, because i take a moment >>to consider the image i'm after, meter the scene and set exposure >>accordingly. > >I think we are working with different subjects. This can be difficult to >compare. Many of my subjects are fleeting, just there to be captured in a >moment and then gone forever. i agree, which is why i wrote: >>if i'm roaming the streets, i'll have the camera preset for >>the lighting in question, and the lens set to the hyperfocal distance so i >>can react quickly should i see some fleeting something i want to capture on >>film. to which you responded: >That is the same trick that I would use if I only have a camera with manual >focus and manual exposure. I'd get most of my focus right and many of my >exposures too. In my experience, my G2 captures MORE printable images when >I'm doing street photography. then you're clearly more adept at using an electronic camera than a manual one, which is fine. the opposite is true for me. >>i have never felt that i missed a shot 'cause i was 'fiddling with >>camera,' though i've missed plenty because the camera was still in my bag/i >>wasn't paying enough attention/i was lazy/etc. when i'm prepared and awake, >>i don't think i could react any quicker with an ae/af camera than i can >>with a leica. > >When I am in the same situation, my G2 is slung around my neck and I am >walking and snapping away. Nobody knows I am taking their picture because >my camera is still at waist level. This gives me tons of spontaneous >expressions never achievable compared with if I have to bring my camera to >eye level. So I don't have to focus, don't have to adjust exposure, but >just keep that G2 horizontal and just snap away. For street photographic >nirvana, this cannot be beaten. Then there's those CZ lens quality..... > >Dan K. presetting exposure controls on the camera and setting the lens to the hyperfocal distance will allow you to shoot from the hip every bit as easily, and get shots that are both well exposed and in focus - you don't need an electronic camera for that. ironically, *that's* something you can't do with the g2, since the cz lenses - however good they may be - have no dof markings. guy