Caveman wrote:
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. REPLY: Aaaarghhh. You just defined exposure exactly they way I did: whatever the photographer wants. You haven't given any definition about exposure above but saying perfect exposure is what the photographer wants, which I have been saying all along. You have made a lot of fuss for nothing. You fail, however, to tell us how the photographer can achieve whatever definition of exposure above with precision consistently every time, except for the hit and miss approach. To use your own examples: Can you nail exposure for brand Y projector within 1/3s consistently? Can you nail exposure for scanner X consistently within 1/3s? This is what this discussion is all about and you avoid the issue completely. You say it is impossible to nail exposure within 1/3s but I don't know any serious photographer who doesn't want to achieve it (and they do). You previously stated that exposing Velvia after 50 or 40 ISO is an issue, which is a 1/3 stop difference, but nailing exposure with Velvia within 1/3 stop, which of course is the same thing as 40 vs 50ISO, is not an issue as differences are rendered meaningless in film/processing variations. Why don't make up your mind? You logic is so full of holes so large that they are among the few manmade concepts that can be seen from space. Pål
