The Outdated Fuss About Exposure

Ozzie_Traveller wrote: Not everyone goes in for -or is capable of- extensive PP and the associated rendition of an image

Phil, I love my work because it is simple, easy and done
in a jiffy. Sure, I sometimes have to satisfy the require-
meant of some publisher but I like to keep simple: to get
quickly to a natural rendition of all the features of an ima-
ge. 

I can skip many of the tweaks many will take the time to
consider as I never apply extra saturation, sharpness, or
even the very popular vibrance (that doesn't exist in CO!).

Why be concise....



As a publishing photographer working mainly in the E6 spheres,
there was nothing else than exposure, it made it or it killed it.

Nothing else than exposure because after that it was either the
bin or the publisher's desk. This was the right time to make all
that fuss about exposure.

Today, exposure is only getting it in the ball park: the histogram.
— things are really getting interesting once up in the converter's
window. From the strict readout of the recorded data with trans-
lated dynamics to the most sophisticated PP, everything is possi-
ble IF the recorded quality is comfortably within the histogram.

Yeah, but is a sum of all parts. I've had perfectly exposed photos rendered useless by bad framing, out of focus subject, photo bombers and a host of other issues no less important than nailing exposure. Everyone here knows how it works.

???

I was purposely limiting this thread to exposure vs rendition
because before and after SR many things may happen and,
though we all know they are there, the introduction of other
issues you may have is not really appropriate or beneficial.

Yes, we knew that, but
"there was nothing else than exposure, it made it or it killed it.", could have been confusing.

Nikon Shooter wrote: It was serious business, not a fuss. in film times but it is now!

With digital recording technologies, dynamic range latitudes
are so great that as long as you consider the histogram and
the EV button on your camera as your best friends at capture,
exposure is NO MORE the ultimate criteria but rendition is.

It hurts me painfully when ever I hear/read: "good" exposure",
"well exposed" etc. How can they know how it was exposed?

I say that it is not with the exposure that the mastery lies but
with the rendition of a capture.

What do you say?

Different times, same language, different meanings.
personally, I get pissed at any reference to the technical aspects of photographs. I understand that is what people desire to make their pictures look better but it does remove any responsibility for clarity in the content and context (the concept that drove the photographer to take the image).

It also limits the viewers comments to a few simple and relatively inconsequential words. 

So, of course someone will say ‘good exposure’ or ‘good rendition’ because that about all they can think of.  
The only thing ‘taught’ or talked about in such places as this is technical aspects of the image and the nature of the equipment.

perhaps it’s time for someone to step up to the mark and talk about the ideas behind photography and how they can be improved.

Tom-Dinning wrote:

Nikon Shooter wrote: It was serious business, not a fuss. in film times but it is now!

With digital recording technologies, dynamic range latitudes
are so great that as long as you consider the histogram and
the EV button on your camera as your best friends at capture,
exposure is NO MORE the ultimate criteria but rendition is.

It hurts me painfully when ever I hear/read: "good" exposure",
"well exposed" etc. How can they know how it was exposed?

I say that it is not with the exposure that the mastery lies but
with the rendition of a capture.

What do you say?

Different times, same language, different meanings.
personally, I get pissed at any reference to the technical aspects of photographs. I understand that is what people desire to make their pictures look better but it does remove any responsibility for clarity in the content and context (the concept that drove the photographer to take the image).

It also limits the viewers comments to a few simple and relatively inconsequential words. 

So, of course someone will say ‘good exposure’ or ‘good rendition’ because that about all they can think of.  
The only thing ‘taught’ or talked about in such places as this is technical aspects of the image and the nature of the equipment.

perhaps it’s time for someone to step up to the mark and talk about the ideas behind photography and how they can be improved.

+1