Determing correct exposure

[Chuck P.]

Are you sure you're not laboring under the tyranny of illusory precision (with apologies to Freudenberg)? Are you sure using a spot meter doesn't just feel more precise? In the end, we all arrive at a single exposure, however we calculate any number of meter readings. Do you think you would arrive at a different exposure by using a spot meter than you would by using an incident meter?

"Laboring under the tyranny of illusionary precision"? I don't even know how to respond to that, except to say..............well, best not to say it.......

"Exposure" is just a set of numbers, an aperture and a shutter speed; it's meaningless without context, IMO. I never care that someone's camera settings are, say,1/125 sec at f/8, big deal.

What matters is what the exposure is based upon and why. So, to me the system used (or the route taken) to arrive at IT and the subsequent negative development scheme is what gives the exposure context, it's what makes the exposure an interesting "thing" to discuss among other like-minded analogers. It is more relevant to say that I would arrive at a different outcome, based on my visualization-------for me at this point, there is no labor involved with determining my exposure settings; the ZS makes for quite a fluid thinking process. Hell, I labor more over focusing the dam camera and other such taxing artistic decisions.

[Jay DeFehr]

Ok Chuck, I think I understand. No offense intended.

[Chuck P.]

Oh, no real offense........just that first sentence was quite the head scratcher, a WTF moment.........

[Jay DeFehr]

Chuck,

Illusory precision is an interesting subject, if you're interested in that kind of thing. The nuts and bolts are that the allure of precision is seductive, but not always illuminating, or even appropriate, and the tyranny of illusory precision is one that oppresses meaning under the weight of quantification. Precision can be a siren song for scientists and policy makers, and maybe for photographers, too. I'm just trying to tie myself to the mast.

[Leigh]

The nuts and bolts are that the allure of precision is seductive, but not always illuminating, or even appropriate...

Ain't that the truth.

- Leigh

[Kirk Gittings]

Precision can be an end in itself to the detriment of aesthetics and creativity. I remember in the late 80's being so enthused at the control I could exert with the ZS that I produced bushels of these perfectly exposed and developed negatives that would print perfectly on a grade 2 paper.......perfectly boring images that printed perfectly on a grade two paper that is. The control became the goal. While it was useful to have gone through all the tests and practice to achieve precise predictability, I ultimately had to let go in favor of simplicity so I could respond in a "ballpark" kind of way in rapidly changing light etc.-the kind of conditions and imagery that you respond to emotionally rather than mechanically.

[BrianShaw]

Precision can be a siren song for scientists and policy makers...

Ha ha ha, ain't that right. I work in an environment where we are "allowed" to achieve "80% solutions" but in the end we are expected to be 100% our about our conclusions 100% of the time.

[Mark Barendt]

Precision can be an end in itself to the detriment of aesthetics and creativity. I remember in the late 80's being so enthused at the control I could exert with the ZS that I produced bushels of these perfectly exposed and developed negatives that would print perfectly on a grade 2 paper.......perfectly boring images that printed perfectly on a grade two paper that is. The control became the goal. While it was useful to have gone through all the tests and practice to achieve precise predictability, I ultimately had to let go in favor of simplicity so I could respond in a "ballpark" kind of way in rapidly changing light etc.-the kind of conditions and imagery that you respond to emotionally rather than mechanically.

I've gone through those same phases.

I run a roll through my Holga every now-and-then just to put things back in perspective.

[Chuck P.]

Chuck,

Illusory precision is an interesting subject, if you're interested in that kind of thing. The nuts and bolts are that the allure of precision is seductive, but not always illuminating, or even appropriate, and the tyranny of illusory precision is one that oppresses meaning under the weight of quantification. Precision can be a siren song for scientists and policy makers, and maybe for photographers, too. I'm just trying to tie myself to the mast.

I hear ya, but, I'm sorry the only word that comes to mind is....bunk. I simply honor my film and development testing by using my spot meter as intelligently as I can, that's how it works for me. The time spent quantifying through my testing is so minimal and the rewards so fruitful that any "meaning" derived is only verified, substantiated, and illuminated-------not oppresed.

I do believe, however, that many use your exact sentiment to fall back on because they don't understand the ZS. At least in the the years that I have been scanning these and other forums that words to the similar have many times been used by those who clearly don't get it. That's not a put-down, only an observation.

[Jay DeFehr]

Chuck,

I wouldn't be so quick to assume those who work differently than you do, do so out of some failure in their ability to understand the way you work. That you enjoy your methodology is its own reward. Enjoy!