Caveman wrote:
> You're hitting the nail on the head. What Paal disperately avoided was > to admit that "perfect exposure" might be defined as "the exposure > giving the most visually pleasing interpretation and rendition of a > scene". Which no meter can give. I did say that the correct exposure was whatever you wanted it to be. This obviously includes "the exposure giving the most visually pleasing interpretation and rendition of a scene". It may also include an unpleasant rendition of the scene if thats the effect you want. Rigid definition has nothing to do with it. The point is to be able to nail the exposure how you want it regardless, accurately without guessing. For Velvia it means 1/3 of a stop because it makes a difference. If the photographer has any idea about "the exposure giving the most visually pleasing interpretation and rendition of a scene", and I do, he wants to nail it within on 1/3 of stop on Velvia because thats make a differnce. The most weird thing in this discussion is that you yourself made af uzz about those who expose Velvia at 40ISO instead of 50. Why? It surely cannot make a difference? Pål
