Re: Reciprocity nightmare

B2MYOUNG@aol.com wrote:

> Guy,
>
> Thank you.
> This piece is very funny, nice light hearted touch.
>
> Perhaps Eric Renner would like to see it...perhaps for the Pinhole Journal.
>
> leezy
>

Hi leezy,

I'd be happy to contribute this piece to the Pinhole Journal but I would'nt
know how to contact Eric. Is he a member of the list? I don't recal having
seen him write here, but maybe I missed it. Perhaps you can direct me to his
email address.

This text was written last night in the middle of one of my frequent insomnia
periods. I was still ruminating on the numerous threads relating to
reciprocity failure and how I had been bedazzeled by all the mathematics, etc.
I tend to shoot from the hip, and guesstimate my exposure based on my eye's
reading of the light. Of course, I always have surprises (sometimes good,
sometimes bad) when I look at my contact sheets after processing.

One teacher at Ryerson University when I took courses there a few years ago was
saying the in the 60's-70's there was a teacher who required his students to
shoot all the assignments for the whole course at f-8 without ever using a
lightmeter. They just had to figure out what whas the correct exposure!
Theses guys, by the end of the course, could really handle anything int terms
of reading light with their eyes, as opposed to a meter. So I do this a lot
and, somehow, I also try to factor in an adjustment for reciprocity failure. I
try to re-adjust each time I look at a new contact sheet. But, as I said, some
are good, some are bad...

The point is that I just refuse to become a hostage to the complexity of RF!

Best,

Guy
Received on Wed Jan 10 15:16:48 2001