Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 495783" data-attributes="member: 12496">It is called experience I guess.&nbsp;&nbsp; Should be about like last time in same situation, at least for sunlight. Sunny 16 worked well for negative film, and was easily memorized. In the days before light meters, it was all we had, other than bracketing&nbsp; (Opinion, but bracketing makes little sense today, when we can already see the result immediately).But digital is harder, and exact situations are hard to judge within a third stop for digital.&nbsp; Raw can be corrected over a range of underexposure, but overexposure of digital is a serious flaw, and JPG needs to be closer too.Negative B&amp;W film was extremely accepting of overexposure.&nbsp; Digital is not.&nbsp; For negatives, we said &quot;expose for the shadows&quot;, meaning give it plenty of exposure, intentional overexposure of the highlights is of less concern.&nbsp; Until 1960 (semiconductor meters becoming popular, even beginning to be built into cameras), Kodak intentionally published their B&amp;W negative ASA speed ratings divided by 2 to help insure this happened (greater safety factor for shadows).&nbsp;&nbsp; Negatives have wide latitude, easily corrected in the the darkroom.&nbsp; But digital is a different story, does not and is not. Digital has to expose for the highlights.&nbsp;&nbsp; A light meter is a pretty handy tool.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 495783, member: 12496"] It is called experience I guess. Should be about like last time in same situation, at least for sunlight. Sunny 16 worked well for negative film, and was easily memorized. In the days before light meters, it was all we had, other than bracketing (Opinion, but bracketing makes little sense today, when we can already see the result immediately). But digital is harder, and exact situations are hard to judge within a third stop for digital. Raw can be corrected over a range of underexposure, but overexposure of digital is a serious flaw, and JPG needs to be closer too. Negative B&W film was extremely accepting of overexposure. Digital is not. For negatives, we said "expose for the shadows", meaning give it plenty of exposure, intentional overexposure of the highlights is of less concern. Until 1960 (semiconductor meters becoming popular, even beginning to be built into cameras), Kodak intentionally published their B&W negative ASA speed ratings divided by 2 to help insure this happened (greater safety factor for shadows). Negatives have wide latitude, easily corrected in the the darkroom. But digital is a different story, does not and is not. Digital has to expose for the highlights. A light meter is a pretty handy tool. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification