Digital BW, The Print

C J Morgan wrote:

>
> Digital shooting, in that regard, much more 
>reminds me of what it was like to work with transparency film 
>than when I used negative film (when I use to shoot neg film,
>for example, quite normal that I use to over-expose by
>2/3 f/stop).
>
>  
>
Yup, that's why the transition to digital for me has been easy..  It is 
like shooting transparency/slide film...  In two related  senses:

1)   Very narrow latitude

2)    Expose for the highlights.


This does point out key differences from negatives (especially B&W ones)..

With good B&W film (or even color negative).. You expose for the 
shadows, i.e. overexpose by 2/3 a stop in your case.

As for whether this will have one over-riding the matrix meter much it 
depends on the camera..  It also depends on things like whether or not 
you are using flash, and how contrasty the lighting you are dealing with 
is..

As one quick example..  In basketball I shoot transparency film tack on 
to my incident meter reading, whether I'm using strobes or ambient..  
BUT, for football, it depends.. In strong sunlight, I'll purposely 
over-expose by 2/3 a stop, while in flat lighting I shoot tack on 
again... Why?  In football I have people wearing helmets.. If I don't 
overexpose in contrasty lighting I get NO detail at all inside the 
helmet...  Similar rules end up applying to digital..

This also makes clear why a good B&W (or even color) film shot of the 
same image as a good digital shot, should almost always have more usable 
information... It's simply inherent in the broader latitude.. Especially 
with PhotoShop and a a scanner that's info you can put on a print..

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"