how to rmember picture data

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

there is one thing which irritates me for years. in photo magazines (especially amateur ones) you very often find the exposure data noted. how can people ever remember that? or do they tak a small notebook with them and list the data for every exposure they make? and what is it for?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 17, 2001

Answers

One possibility is that they're using a camera with a databack or that imprints data on the leader. It's more likely they do what I do: make an informed guess or approximation about the data based on looking at the photo/film and the lighting conditions in the photo. It's not hard to make a reasonable estimate of the focal length and aperture just from viewing the photo. The film type is usually evident from looking at the grain/tonality/color palette of the image or looking at the film itself.

Image below was about 1/50 at f2.8 on Delta 3200 with a DR Summicron:



-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 17, 2001.


mike, very nice picture. but why is the frame so close to the registration wholes? i presume it is not the newest leica model. do older leicas expose more negative area?

i remember that famous capa shot of alied troups landing in france. the registration wholes are within the frame. i don't know what kind of camera he used, probably a leica III.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 17, 2001.


I think the registration holes were added in Photoshop.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 17, 2001.

Ahem, I've always conjectured that in most cases, people simply make the numbers up for submission to photo magazines, or perhaps its the picture editors who do.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 17, 2001.

One way is to carry a small tape recorder. It will get old quick, though.

OT: For some reason I really like seeing the image frame impose into the sproket holes. I have no idea why. One of those perfect little flaws, I guess.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 17, 2001.



If you shoot a standard film, and generally use a favorite f/stop, it isn't hard to remember the variables, like film speed. I expect the notation became entrenched back in the days when you actually had to look at the lens and the shutter speed dial to set such things. To me, shutter speed and f/stop are useful information, but like labels in museums, they shouldn't distract from the image.

-- Joe Brugger (joebrugger@news.oregonian.com), December 17, 2001.

so next time i should see a lion, i will remember frans lanting used a 1/250 f4,0 and then i will get famous!

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 17, 2001.

The camera was a '55 M3, and yes, the older M3s do expose a larger area than my other, more-recent 35mm Canons and Minolta.

And, no, it's not a PhotoShop addition. Good, old-fashioned full-frame printing. If one of my photos has a rough black border, it's a scan of a darkroom print.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 17, 2001.


Other people's exposure data, except for focal length and film really isn't helpful to anyone else, with the possible exception of bokeh fanatics who has to know what something looks like at max aperture!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 17, 2001.

I understand that if you use the 135mm adapter on the Mamiya 7 the entire surface of the film will be exposed including everything surrounding the sprockets. You got something akin to a superslide with holes!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 17, 2001.


Since I always have a Palm OS handheld w/me, I use a shareware program called FotoLog (see www.101palmations.com) to record my exposure information. As an amateur, I find it very helpful to know what I did right or wrong from an exposure point of view (it's also 1 of the reasons why I always have contact sheets made when I get film developed). Plus I sometimes need help remembering who or what I was photographing!

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 17, 2001.

Stefan:

FYI, the cameras Robert Capa used on D-Day were a Contax II & a Rolleiflex (since the shot you saw had sprocket holes, I assume it was 1 taken w/the Contax). Although Capa used various Leicas during the Spanish Civil War, he had switched to Contax, the preferred 35mm camera of war photographers back then, by the time he went to cover the Sino-Japanese in 1938.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 18, 2001.


Using all-manual and unmetered M4-x bodies has made it very easy for me to remember exposure info, because:

1) I am much more aware of the settings since I have to calculate and set them myself.

2) To save time when shooting, I tend to keep exposure operations simple.

I shoot a lot wide open if the light is less than ideal and/or if I'm looking for subject/background separation.

And in sunlight I'm using the "Sunny f/16" rule, adjusted to a constant shutter speed of 1/250 for slower films (Velvia - Pan F).

So my exposure settings are pretty easy to remember: f/2 or 2.8 at whatever - or f/5.6 or f/8 at 1/250-500-125. A quick glance at the negs/slides to see film type, density, depth-of-field, motion blur (if any) and the roundness of the OOF circles narrows it down pretty fast if I need to know what settings I used later.

If I'm trying to stop action I go right to 1/1000 at whatever aperture is appropriate (also easy to calculate/recall using the "f/16" rule).

With flash it's always 1/50th for studio or flash-only exposures, and 1/8th or 1 second if I'm including available light - depending on how much light there is and how much blur I want. With my films, autoflash always requires f/2 or f/4 - usually f/2 is my choice if its dark enough to need flash.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 18, 2001.


Very few photographers write down the exposure data when they are taking pictures. They simply guess or make up the data when asked by photography magazines. Sometimes this is easy to spot. A few months ago, in a photograph (published in a popular magazine) with very shallow depth of field, the photographer reported using an aperture of f8. This was obviously not true. Professionals do this all the time since they never have time to write down the f stop or shutter speed of a picture! :-).................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), December 18, 2001.

I don't bother remembering this stuff, I can remember the camera and lens (easy I mostly use a 50) and the film is imprinted with it's name so beyond that it's a waste of my time UNLESS I'm testing something and need some form of empirical data to quantify something or another. I can usually remember settings if I shoot a lot in a particular area or room, but does it matter to the reader/viewer - not really.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), December 18, 2001.


1: Mike Dixon, that is the mosst hauntingly beautiful picture of a woman's face that I have ever seen. Thank you. The eyes are to die for. Please post a photo on every thread!

2. When younger and more compulsive, I did actually write stuff down. I don't do it much anymore, especially not with 35mm. It has a lot to do with not being so organized anymore. Like, where did I leave the notebook . . .

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 18, 2001.


As an aside.......while exposure details don't matter much, it is very important to record the details - dodging, burning, filter grade, etc., during printing so you can repeat it!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 19, 2001.

Re Bob Capa: From what I remember, someone made a complete pigs' ear of developing Capa's shots from D-Day. Much too hot, if I recall. The result was the emulsion actually slipped across the celluloid and, in some cases, over the sprocket holes. This is also what led to that peculiar blurred quality they have. I many ways a very happy accid

-- Paul Hardy Carter (carter@airtel.net), December 20, 2001.

Paul:

Re: Capa's D-Day shots, what happened was that a rushed darkroom worker @ Time Inc.'s London office turned up the heat too high in the drying cabinet & the negs were melted (only 11 escaped damage)--when they were published in "Life" magazine, someone put in a caption stating that Capa had blurred the pictures in his excitement.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 21, 2001.


I knew it was something to do with heat! Of course the dryer story makes much more sense

-- Paul Hardy Carter (carter@airtel.net), December 22, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ