So, in 10 words or less, how would you define "perfect exposure"?
Depends on the purpose you're taking the photos.
I already mentioned the arteestec one: "the exposure that gives the most pleasing interpretation and visual rendition of a scene". (which is very interesting especially since for certains scenes you might find 2 different exposures producing equally pleasing results; and Paal obviously didn't want this one, since camera meters are not calibrated in arteestec units)
We can have a technical one: "the exposure that renders a certain surface in the scene with a pre-established target density on the film" (this seems to be what Paal is talking now about, and mentioning 1/3 stop accuracy, and I submit that if he never checked his results with a microdensitometer he is not qualified to make such statements).
We can have the definition that you gave "the exposure that retains maximum details in both highlights and shadows", and I noted that you probably are using negative, and doing the interpretation at printing stage. Which IMHO is a fine method BTW.
And we can have a definition depending on the exact purpose that one may have for his shots. Like
"best shadows detail rendition when using scanner model X", or
"bright yet saturated image when slide is projected with projector brand Y" or
"most accurate color rendition in the printing chain of the Times magazine" etc.
Since we could have so many definitions, there's no point in debating exposure unless we establish against which exact definition we should judge it.
cheers, caveman
