Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] re: Exposure and Development
From: robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)
Date: Fri Mar 2 19:13:03 2007
References: <90CBCC46-CC16-4554-A8DE-F9D3E71DA77D@mac.com><004401c75d08$ccabc840$a302a8c0@ted><0c7a01c75d3d$d3f97e00$0300a8c0@robertbxucevjs> <9b678e0703021903xd109c3fx11ce54d7338c4738@mail.gmail.com>

Don,

I have no trouble believing that.   I was just a bit surprised.   I know 
photographers who don't meter at all, but know how to set the exposure 
accurately because they know the light and the film they are using very, 
very well.

Robert


> Robert,
> What you don't see is that Ted is the master of his craft.  Meaning, take 
> a
> meter reading from what?  I have watched Ted shoot casually in Cape Cod 
> and
> he is truly a master of choosing what to meter from even with an M7.  I am
> not even sure that he is conscious of what he is doing.  Truly, light, 
> eyes,
> action, shoot.
>
> Don
> don.dory@gmail.com
>
> On 3/2/07, Robert Meier <robertmeier@usjet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>> So what you are saying is that you shot at the film maker's recommended
>> exposure index (except when pushing the film), and developed it at the
>> developer maker's recommended time and temperature, for your whole 
>> career,
>> and never saw any need to vary either one?   And you always used an
>> average
>> exposure reading without taking specific shadow or highlight readings?
>>
>> That is certainly keeping it simple.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> > Many have offered great details and how one should "do it" on this
>> > subject.
>> > Subject: [Leica] re: Exposure and Development
>> >
>> > However. :-)
>> > As many of you know I'm no more techie with film, "expose for shadows
>> soup
>> > for whatever" than I am with digital... my gosh far worse with digital.
>> > Shooting slide film? In that case I expose for the highlight and
>> > everything else ended up wherever it ended up. Always seemed to work.
>> :-)
>> >
>> > B&W film was very nearly always rated at the manufacturers ASA and
>> souped
>> > for their specs. Unless I pushed a stop or two, but then the times were
>> > those recommended by the maker of the film. Usually.
>> >
>> > And it always seemed to work OK. The quality of the negatives never
>> > deterred us from making lots of 35mm 16X20 exhibition prints out of our
>> > darkroom trays over the years. Certainly doing as I always
>> have..........
>> > "KISS!"
>> >
>> > If the film how to soup instruction was 6 mins. @ 70 degrees, agitation
>> > every 30 secs, that was fine and that's what was done. Close anyway. 
>> > ;-)
>> > But they always seemed to look OK and print just fine.
>> >
>> > George Lottermoser said:
>> >
>> >
>> >> The point I wished to make in starting this thread:
>> >> Fine photographic technique requires that the photographer
>> 'know'  where
>> >> s/he wants shadows and highlights fall on the negative,  transparency
>> >> and/or chip. This requires knowledge of how to control  the shadows 
>> >> and
>> >> highlights through the use of exposure and  development of the
>> material,
>> >> whether chemical or digital.<<<<
>> >
>> > Maybe I do this unconsciously just from years of exposing and souping 
>> > my
>> > film. But I can honestly say I've never consciously related to exposing
>> > for shadows and souping for highlights or vice versa or whichever it's
>> > supposed to be. Maybe the tooth fairy has always looked after me in the
>> > darkroom. Or maybe I just hate complications and live life with a KISS
>> > attitude. If it works? "Cool" as the young folks say today! :-) If I
>> > screw-up? Well the standard expression fits......... "Oh S.....t!"
>> >
>> > My gut feelings about this expose develop routine comes down to major
>> > simple this way............. it really doesn't matter how the heck 
>> > other
>> > soul's do their film! It's far more important ..... "HOW YOU DO YOURS! 
>> > "
>> > You know why?
>> >
>> > Each person turns the can upside down differently, they agitate with
>> > various actions, the temperature isn't on the mark in everyone's tank,
>> nor
>> > are the times absolutely to the second identical! It's really, to each
>> his
>> > own and never mind doing as others do, but use their technique as a
>> > guideline. Gradually you'll find it works for you or it doesn't!
>> > Eventually you'll achieve the results "YOU" like!  But we each and
>> > everyone, never soup nor expose absolutely identical!
>> >
>> > KISS folks that's what it's all about for each shooter. Oh and souper!
>> ;-)
>> >
>> > ted
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Leica Users Group.
>> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 



Replies: Reply from bd at bdcolenphoto.com (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] re: Exposure and Development)
In reply to: Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] re: Exposure and Development)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] re: Exposure and Development)
Message from robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier) ([Leica] re: Exposure and Development)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] re: Exposure and Development)