Bracketing:

[ken_wayne1]

<p>David, I must agree and admit that "correct exposure" isn't always the photo I like the best.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Remember that the "correct exporure" is the one you want, and that you use a meter to get that exposure.<br>So if the exposure you get isn't the one you want, isn't the correct one, but rather the one the meter 'produces', you (the meter does nothing buy itself) are not using the meter properly and much can be gained by learning how to do that.<br>When you can use your meter effectively (not that hard), there is no need for bracketing.<br><br>Bracketing is an insurance policy, the risk it guards against depends (almost) entirely on your skill. You can make use of the safety it provides to allow yourself some slack in how you treat the light metering aspect of photography. And there's nothing wrong in that, just a choice. But, given a basic level in metering skills, necessary it is not.

[david_smith35]

<p>Even the best meter (and metering skills) in the world cannot always predict the outcome on slide film and what you think may be the ideal exposure sometimes isn't, and bracketing is essential in some circumstances. It's also good to have a back up transparency sometimes - and even though it's half a stop off the "correct" exposure, it may still be acceptable.<br>

Film is a relatively inexpensive material and it's hardly worth scrimping on it's use to save a few pennies.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>little point with negs, after all most film has a 10 stop latitude</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jonathan, are you mixing up latitude with dynamic range? No film has such high exposure latitude. Especially not on the underexposure side. A latitude of around +3 stops to -1.5 stops is about the tolerable limit in my experience.</p>

<p>With digital, it flips around: the latitude for underexposure tends to be much greater than with film, and there's very little latitude for overexposure. This does mean that the digital capture is of much higher S/N however.</p>

<p>Back to the OP. I tried using the auto-bracketing on my Mamiya 645AFD + digital back for a while, thinking that it would free me from "chimping" the LCD, but I turned it off as I found it unnecessary: the built-in matrix or spot metering was accurate enough. In some scenarios, experience tells me that I should dial in a fixed amount of exposure compensation, and let the metering do the rest.</p>

 

[kparratt]

<p>It's just common sense to bracket with slide film, for the reasons summarised by Dave Smith, but also cited by many others in the thread, not least myself. Quite often I would be uncertain about which exposure the printers would rather use for their job, and they were glad of the selection. And the story of the nature photographer bracketing like crazy? His results are his livelihood, his reputation and continued work with National Geographic. I call that professional enough, and I would follow his example, rather than accept an armchair critic suggesting that my metering skills weren't good enough, because I chose to be thorough and guarantee results.<br>

So, as Dave says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film is a relatively inexpensive material and it's hardly worth scrimping on it's use to save a few pennies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So go for it.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Aside from the fact that the OP appears to use bw print film and so there's an irrelevant (to him) debate going on about whether it's necessary to bracket with slide film----</p>

<p>When I was using Fuji slide film for all my colour work I shot on average 5 000 frames a year. If I'd bracketed every frame then that would have increased my usage to 14500 frames approx- don't worry about the maths, I did bracket occasionally. Which means an extra 9500 frames. At the prices I'd now pay - with my pro discount- for film and processing a frame cost me about 82p. In other words a decision to habitually bracket would cost me nearly £8 000 in film and processing costs, or about US $12 000. Now maybe all you guys on Photo.net are richer than me, but I don't think $12 000 p.a. is a trivial amount of money. And I think that a "film is cheap" one liner - stated in this thread and repeated enthusiatically just above- is glib and misleading. The prize from learning an exposure process you can rely on is measured in thousand of pounds a year, not pennies. </p>

<p>And how much has not bracketing cost me?</p>

<p>- well I've not been aware of it costing me anything. I've never had to reshoot because I've not turned up with photographs that the client considered incorrectly exposed. I don't have photographs that would have made great prints if only I'd exposed it a half stop more or less. </p>

<p>So whilst Mr Parratt can bracket all he wants I'll opt for a bit of learning and $12 000 saved every year, starting from soon as my metering skills and process allows, and saving the very occasional bracket for tough or particularly crucial scenes. </p>

[leighb]

<p>David,</p>

<p>You might consider my comment in post #3 in this thread, thus:<br>

"If your subjects are 'ordinary', I would expect the metered exposure to be correct most of the time.<br>

If there is some specific aspect of the subject that sits at either end of the brightness range, you might want to bracket in the appropriate direction."</p>

<p>That's the rule I follow, and it works well most of the time.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>Leigh. I had seen your post, have no debate with it , and yours was not one of the posts I referred to. I choose the frames to bracket in some ways similarly, in some ways a little differently. If I have an opportunity to make a photograph that may make a print (I have printed under 1% of the photographs I make) or that is crucial to a particular task then I'll probably bracket and additionally I may take several frames at my selected central exposure. If I have something where the light conditions are changing rapidly- such as when the sun passes through a variably dense cloud- I'm likely to bracket. Finally there are the cases where for whatever reason I feel uncomfortable that my exposure process may not be giving me the right answer , I'll bracket. That may well include your scenario of having a large or intrusive part of the picture right at the point where blowing highlight or failing with shadow detail are a real risk. It would also include situations where I'm operating right at the limit of the available dynamic range and can't use grads to bring scene brightness range down. </p>

<p>Taking all this together though I'd estimate that in my final years of slide film usage I bracketed no more than 5% of my exposures. </p>

[kparratt]

<p>D. Henderson says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and so there's an irrelevant (to him) debate going on</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no mention of B&W film in the original question. For others to note distinctions between their approach to negative and transparency film is entirely valid and informative, even if you feel you know everything. So is the mention of the working method of a National Geographic nature photographer, or even my own humble projects, images that were published in art magazines around Australia, with magazine art directors and printers alike, all grateful for bracketed strips. Perhaps it was my success with them, that had me inundated with requests from artists to photograph their works.<br /> Whilst Henderson says he'll:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>opt for a bit of learning</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be fun to meet for a light reading shoot-out. More often than not, I'm out with Leica M3 or Hasselblad 500C and no meter. I capture one-off scenes in street photography with near spot-on exposures most of the time. Occasionally, when I do have a meter, I may check, just to confirm my own reckoning, then put it away. That's for my private work, all with negative films, all speeds, with filters etc. from dawn to dusk. But for repro work on transparency? No. I don't take risks. If tungsten lighting, it's grey card and a bracket of 3 in 1/2 stop increments. For paintings with studio flash, polarising filters and foils (to control reflections), my "bit of learning" included "never be stingy with film".<br /> I am content with the years of shared experience with colleagues in the real world, most of them professionals, who not only bracket with film, but also used to go through a good deal of Polaroid on all manner of assignments. Perhaps they should have been told to opt for a bit of learning.<br /> Perhaps Hasselblad and other manufacturers of Polaroid backs should have told everyone to save the money and 'opt for a bit of learning'.<br /> And the same with Contax, Canon, Nikon high-end 35mm film cameras .. why did they waste the time and money developing state of the art bracketing modes.<br /> Each to their own. Good luck to you.</p>

 

[denniswms]

<p>Hi Gus,<br>

Do what you need to do to get the job done- be it 7 frames or 14. I rarely bracket unless the lighting is fluctuating which technically is not even bracketing...so no bracketing. If the exposure it is right it is right. Same applies for both B&W negatives and transparencies.</p>

<p>Some clients like to see lots of images and if it is on their dime then take that into consideration. As you gain credibility coverage will be less of an issue. You'll know when you have the shot you need and you can move on- you won't need to prove it to anyone else. </p>

<p>As for some other issues that have been raised, I have no interest in alternative lighting or mucking with an image with automated programs be they HDR specific or a Portrait Professional (time for a Dr Moreau flick with that product). No cartoon CGI overlays ever and any post work that <em> is </em>required after scanning is executed manually in Photoshop. Your needs and personal taste may vary.</p>

<p> </p>