But slide film is of no use unless you process it, thereby introducing other variables. A RAW file on a calibrated monitor is probably the best gauge of exposure one could find.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I agree that a print isn't a good gauge of exposure accuracy, but a digital > file is a quite accurate measure. A RAW file is, in fact, untouched exposure > data. > > Paul > > But is absolutely no use unless you print it or put it on a monitor, > thereby introducing another level of variables. Slide film is the > _only_ single process image producer in common use. > > > > > > > > >>>From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Date: 2005/05/20 Fri PM 02:04:29 GMT > >>>To: <[email protected]> > >>>Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >>> > >>>What do you mean, William? Isn't this what I've been saying all along? > >>>Or are you saying that if you wepose badly, you'll very likely become a > >>>great printer :-) > >>>But being a skilled printer, doesn't mean you shouln't expose properly, > >>>does > >>>it? Prints still can't produce deatails lost due to inproper exposure. > >>>Burned out highlights is a good example IMO. > >>> > >>>What Bob said. That proper/inproper exposure is exclusivly the printers > >>>Toncern/problem. Not the photographers. > >>>This is where I disagree. And I will continue to do so. Even when shooting > >>>RAW I get bad exposures from time to time if I rely on the cvamera metering > >>>suggestions. > >> > >>No. My interpretation of what Bob said is that "if you use prints to > >>evaluate > >>your exposure quality/process, you have to take into account the vagaries > >>of > the > >>printing process. To eliminate that, you have to use a first generation > >>image > >>producer - currently the only one is slide film" I find it hard to believe > that > >>you don't grasp the difference for this purpose between using positive film > and > >>making prints from either a negative or digital file. > >> > >>mike > >> > >> > >>>Jens Bladt > >>>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > >>> > >>> > >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > >>>Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sendt: 20. maj 2005 15:29 > >>>Til: [email protected] > >>>Emne: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Jens Bladt" > >>>Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>I don't agree. It has nothing to do with printing. We are talking about > >>>>exposure here - not about how to resque faulty exposures. > >>> > >>>Jens, get a grip. > >>>If you don't learn how to make good exposures, then you are going to be > >>>spending a lot of time fixing buggered up pictures. > >>>This will involve some screwed up exposures. > >>> > >>>I became a much better darkroom worker by doing printing for photographers > >>>who didn't produce good negatives. > >>> > >>>William Robb > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>----------------------------------------- > >>Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > >>virus-checked by McAfee > >>visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >
