Kennedy McEwen (
[email protected]) wrote in (e-mail address removed):
I have never found the need to use the latitude of the film
to deliberately underexpose sections of a roll, and I don't believe I
would be happy to do so either.
I'm never happy to do so either - but it's simply a matter of getting a
shot at all or not. Here's a real example (one of the worst situations
though):
Late afternoon, you find the street back where you wanted to go take
some pictures - and it's pouring with rain, under a very heavily cloded
sky; teh street is narrow, lined with multi-story buildings and some
trees. There's a film in the camera, nowhere near full. I'm not planning
to shoot a whole roll of film in that one street anyway. No tripod or
even monopod. And by tomorrow I'll be hundreds of kilometers away.
What would you do?
If the light had been perfect I might have shot half a roll of film (the
rest of what I had in the camera or so). Even in perfect light a whole
roll would have been extremely unlikely.
What I did was underexpose 2 stops, use the widest aperture and shoot
anyway at 1/15s or 1/20s. And I took 2 or three shots. Hoping there
would be *something* at least on those negatives to remind myself why I
hope I may be able to return there once in my life, and be lucky enough
to get better weather. It's not going to be this year, that much I know.
Something worries me that you are consciously doing this instead of
just spooling back the current roll and loading up a faster film - or
just buying another body.
I did that *once*. Carried two bodies (actually two sets, both with two
lenses), and extra, faster film loaded in the other body. And indeed it
did enable me to take some pictures I would not otherwise have been able
to take.
But I said: no more. If you're traveling around for a whole month, with
limitations on the amount of weight that can be carried on international
flights and even stricter limits on what can be carried on internal
flights, and with extra rolls of film since you don't know beforehand
which speed you're going to need, or how much of it, all wrapped in
heavy lead-lined bags because X-ray machines on big international
airports may be trusted these days but those on small internal ones in
third-world countries may not ... that's a LOT of extra weight to carry
around. And I must be able to carry it all by myself, and I do mean
*carry*, maybe walking a few kilometers to teh nearest bus station.
I don't take these trips *just* to take photographs. I travel mainly to
visit other cultures and enjoy nature. And it's nice to be able to take
pictures of that. But I *need* to be able to travel light. I know
perfectly well that means I cannot always take the perfect shots I could
*theoretically* take - but it really becomes 'just theory' in such
circumstances. Reality is different.
Everything is a compromise - I just try to get the best compromise I can
carry. ;-) That is *not* two camera sets, or even tow camera bodies. And
a flash. And a tripod. And twice as much film as I already take. What it
is (for now) is a single body, a single zoom (28-300, and I do wish I
could afford a better one), the camera's built-in flash, and a monopod
that doubles as a walking stick. I am thinking of carry a few extra
rolls of faster film - but often it's just not practical to spool back
the film, take 15 shots on a faster film, spool back that film, and put
in a new regular one again. People may be waiting for me. We may need to
catch a train, or be off the road before dark, because it's too
dangerous to drive on after dark. (I used to carry a small compact
camera to serve as a possible backup, but my camera phone has taken over
that function.)
You will get better results with a film shot at its rated speed than
you could ever achieve by fixing under-exposure at the
printing/scanning stage, especially as you have little control over
the process on colour films.
Sure. I know that. That's the theory.
I have, at times, operated 5 camera bodies each with different films
in them for this very reason
And *carried* all of that gear, plus luggage for 1 - 2 month's worth
travelling in wildly different temperatures, for up to a few kilometers?
(Forget wheels - they may work on some roads and then they're a big help
but not on all terrains - sometimes you really have to *carry*, period.
So your luggage has to be light enough to make that possible.)
Somehow I don't think so...
)