No, accurate expose is that which captures the scene in the manner that photographer wishes to portray it. If one captures the entire range of a scene (assuming that it can be done, as some scenes, as you noted, are of a contrast range that is outside the range of the film or the sensor that's being used), the use of creative exposure, which may better be able to express the story of the image, may be negated. Maybe you want to lose shadow detail, or reduce highlights from bright to mid grey, or let 'em blow out for a particular look. Exposure isn't just using matrix metering to get all the information in a scene. Exposure is about using the camera settings to enable the photographer to better tell his or her story. It's a creative technique, just as good printing can be done creatively, or manipulation in Photoshop or camera raw.
And let's not forget scenes that are flat, and may need some extra contrast to give them life. Here again we want our exposure to be creative, not just what the meter tells us it should be. In such a situation not only must the exposure be chosen carefully, but the choice of film or the method of post processing by digital or chemical means must be considered as well. What makes this discussion even more interesting is the number of participants who see the situation only through digital eyes and camera raw and Photoshop adjustments. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 5/23/2005 8:47:53 AM > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure > /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as > "capturing the entire range of the scene". > > Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is > entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If > I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a > couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in > the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer > shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the > other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the > pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having > more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this > doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or > that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the > sensor. > > That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm > wrong.
