1/60 sec at F11 on ISO 50 Velvia

1/60 sec at F11 on ISO 50 Velvia
Mike Busselle


	I photographed this scene in the Forest of Iraty in the French Pyrenees in mid November when all of the leaves had fallen leaving the bare silver trunks and branches to create a bold contrast with the forest floor. I chose a frame from the bracket which was about half a stop darker than would be considered correct.'

Many publishers of photographic books and magazine consider this piece of information to be vital and their readers badly let down without it.

I suppose that from a psychological point of view it might have some value, rather in the same way that some people like to record the numbers of locomotives but as an aid to taking photographs, I very much doubt it.

This is closer to the truth if you must have this sort of information.

1/3 sec at f14 on a Canon EOS 1V with a 24-85mm zoom. Film was Fuji Velvia - Batch No. 836541 - Purchased in January 2002 and freezer stored until four weeks before exposure on the 6th of August 2002: Processed by Photocare of Tonbridge at 2.00 PM on the 8th of September 2002 at 1/3 of a stop push: Filters used were Hitech 81B, Helioplan circular polariser and Hitech 0.9 hard-edged neutral graduate placed over the top third of the lens.


The exposure for this image was about two thirds of a stop less than that which the exposure meter indicated as I wanted to record rich tones and colours in the lighter areas of the image and was happy for the piece of rusted metal to become very dark.

Oh, and by the way, it's very unlikely that the image you're looking at has been reproduced at exactly the same density and contrast as the original transparency.

A bit pedantic?

No, I don't think so because:

With electronically controlled shutter speeds and apertures together with the use of programme mode and bracketing means that it's rarely as simple as 1/60 sec @ f11.

Shutter speeds and apertures can vary from one camera body to another of the same model, let alone different types of camera.

Film speed can vary according to the batch, age and the way it's been stored as well as the period of time which lapses between exposure and processing.

Image density can vary a little even from day to day in the same processing lab, let alone from week to week or from lab to lab.
Different lenses and makes of filters vary in their ability to transmit light.


	The Maldive Islands provided the location for this shot and I gave about half a stop more exposure than the meter indicated to allow for the very bright white clouds and sail. I used a polariser and a warm up filter.

Scanning and reproduction processes can alter the density and contrast of the image considerably. I've seen results which have varied a good half stop both darker and lighter in different publications from the same tranny.

Admittedly, aperture information can be useful in relation to depth of field and shutter speeds when freezing movement is concerned but only if the image is reproduced large enough for such details to be seen clearly. Someone asked recently what aperture I used for a wide-angle shot on my web site and when I said f 2.8 they commented how good the depth of field was. But they were looking at an image about six inches across on a monitor and had they seen a 16 x12 print they would have been able to see that the depth of field was not that great..


This was one of a series of portraits taken of my young grandson Sebastian. In the past I would have had a clip test processed and shot a whole roll of film at the same setting to ensure the image had the quality I wanted but I shot this on my digital camera and was able to check the exposure level instantly and make final adjustments in Photoshop.

It's funny how the issue of exposure remains one of the main preoccupations with many photographers when you consider how much more advanced the mean of calculating it and controlling it have become, not to mention how much more forgiving the latest films are now. I remember when I first started, the Weston Master exposure meter was the latest and very desirable piece of equipment offering the means of measuring either reflected or incident light. But although it was pretty crude compared to the metering systems available today I don't recall that I had any real problems with exposure back then.

Ultimately, an exposure meter can only measure the brightness of a scene, or part of a scene, and make certain assumptions when indicating an exposure. The Weston master simply measured the overall level of brightness from the whole area it's aimed towards. The advent of TTL metering made centre-weighted metering possible, from just the area within the viewfinder, with the assumption that the middle of the area being photographed was likely to be the most important.


	This is the Rock of Solutre in Burgundy. I used a graduated filter to make sure the sky recorded as richly as it appeared visually. I took my exposure reading before fitting the filter as otherwise the image would have been lighter than I wanted.

Matrix metering uses a computer to interpret the reading making assumptions from data keyed into it. For example it assumes that a bright area at the top of the frame is likely to be sky and therefore not so important. Spot metering enables you to measure the brightness of a specific detail and leaves you to interpret the reading. That's fine if you can predict exactly how you want that particular part of the image to record on the film and can identify with certainty that the tone being measure needs to be a mid tone on the film, for instance. The key to success on a regular basis is to always use the same method and get to know its idiosyncrasies and how to interpret the reading which is indicated.


I used a neutral graduated filter for this image too as I wanted to emphasise the dark moody atmosphere and make the bright yellow blooms stand out as boldly as possible. This exposure was about one third of a stop less than the meter suggested.

Unless you're addicted to shooting snow-covered landscapes or black cats in coal cellars even quite inexpensive cameras will now give you an acceptable result most of the time on programme mode, especially if you're loaded with colour print film. Transparency film is a bit more demanding because the exposure determines the image density and this will have a significant effect on the quality and mood of an image. In a way, making an exposure on transparency film is a bit like going into the darkroom with a negative and giving a set exposure for the print without making a test or having the opportunity to vary the exposure.

For very many years now I've taken most of my photographs on transparency film and I've always been very concerned with getting exactly the right exposure. Now I deliberately didn't say correct exposure because I'm not sure what it would be and I don't know if I'd like it. I expose film with the hope that I'll get the result which I've visualised at the time of shooting and that's not necessarily the same thing as a technically correct exposure, whatever that might be.


	I watched this lovely sunset evolve over the sea at Mazagon on the Andalucian Atlantic coast. This image shows the effect of giving two thirds of a stop more and two thirds of a stop less exposure.

Getting exactly the right exposure is not difficult - it's hit and miss. This doesn't matter too much if you're shooting on colour print film as the final image density can be determined when the print is made. But when you want a transparency to look exactly the way you visualised the scene at the time the exposure is made the hit or miss element becomes a major problem. I couldn't begin to predict exactly what a given exposure will produce in terms of image density and colour quality so I bracket.

With some subjects I'm happy to shoot just three at either 1/3 or 1/2 of a stop each side of the indicated setting but other subjects, such as landscapes where a subtle variation in density can be crucial, I will shoot five or seven frames. When using my Mamiya, when I have to bracket using the aperture ring, I will try to get quarter stop variations. This probably seems like overkill to many of you and an indecent waste of film but before you condemn me as one of those who blaze away hoping to get something usable I'll give you my reasons.


This image had nearly one stop less exposure than the meter indicated, I also used a neutral graduated filter to make the sky darker.

From a bracket of seven exposures I can guarantee three acceptable transparencies, two more will cover any miscalculations and probably still be usable at a push, and two more will accommodate any really horrendous boobs. When you've travelled several hundred miles, spent lots of money on hotel bills, petrol and so on and you've got the first really good shot that day lined up in your viewfinder it's seems plain silly to economise on a few frames of film.

But bracketing is not very helpful when shooting subjects which move or change rapidly, such as a portrait. In these cases Sod's law often dictates that the best exposure will not coincide with the best shot and then it's best to make clip tests. This involves shooting an entire roll of film at the same exposure setting and then asking the processing lab to clip off two or three frames at the end to process first. Any adjustments can then be made to the remainder of the film by altering the processing time, known as pushing to reduce the density and pulling to increase it.


	In normal circumstances shooting into the light usually needs an increase in exposure to avoid a transparency being underexposed and muddy but in this case I wanted the back lit sail to have a good range of tones and plenty of detail so I made no adjustment to the exposure reading.

Within the film's latitude the question of image density is largely a question of personal taste. As a rule, mine is for quite rich, punchy images and when looking at other people's transparencies I often think they're a bit overexposed. I also find that my transparencies are often reproduced a little lighter than I would like. When your work is published you are ultimately in the hands of the repro house and the publisher's preference.

The use to which a transparency will be put is another consideration. I sometimes give slide shows and when I'm showing in a small room I will choose quite dense transparencies but significantly lighter ones if they're to be projected on a very large screen. On the occasions when I have a transparency duped I will choose a relatively light original.


Taken on a hazy summer evening in East Sussex, I was attracted by the rather odd colour quality of the scene as the sun began to go down. I took my exposure reading with the camera angled to the left of the scene to ensure that it was not influenced by the very bright highlights on the wet sand.

Although I still shoot with the aim of providing a transparency for repro purposes it's beginning to change. More and more I'm shooting with scanning in mind and I've also started to shoot on a digital camera. This means that my obsession with getting exactly the right exposure within a third of stop is being cured. With the digital camera I can check right away if I need to give a bit more or less and with the film camera I'll still bracket a little maybe half a stop each side but with the knowledge that, using Photoshop, I can fine tune the image to my heart's content.