OK - I'm on some sort of roll (could be this Mich I'm sucking down - which could explain the typos) - BUT, I'm curious as to everyone's opinion of bracketing (this evidently doesn't apply to people shooting digitally).

Me: I will bracket ONLY when I'm not dead-sure what the exposure is - and I do extensive testing on my film, cameras, etc. before going on a shoot. I take a meter reading on a medium tone (tests on particular films let me know what to expose "medium" for - definition of "medium" may vary from shooter to shooter) and from there I know exactly where I need to be to expose correctly for shadows, highlights (from my tests with Velvia film, about seven stops between blocked-up shadows to washed-out highlights - 3 1/2 stops each way from "medium") Soooo...even if I'm shooting a white flower on a black rock, I know if I want to maintain details in my flower, I open up 3 stops (or less) from a medium reading (about 1 stop open from a palm-of-my-hand reading) and I know I've got an exposure that will show as much detail of the white flower without washing it out. Of course, I could bracket - and turn a 36 exposure, $14 per roll of Velvia into a 12 exposure roll (doesn't sound financially sound to me)

OK - I know this sounds arrogant (maybe that's to get a conversation going?) - but, if you're still shooting with film (which is NOT cheap) - why cut your investment by 1/3? If you take the time to know your film-of-choice's characteristics, is there any REAL reason to bracket?

My god Marc you are on a roll here. Sorry no pun intended. I now only bracket when I am copying from digital prints to film stock, from slide to slide film. But I now have a wizz camera which not only has spot metering, has centre weighted and matrix metering, Boy! does that make the difference no more trying to asses the scene, just switch to the appropriate one and shot all very lazy and automated, but I spent loads of years doing it the hard way. :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

(Playing Devil's advocate) Your spot meter is fine - but it is calibrated to correctly expose for a "medium" tone (18% grey) - if you were to meter a pure white page and shoot it at the recommended meter reading, and shoot a pitch-black page and shoot it at the recommended meter reading - both shots would come out the same - medium-tone grey.

I have a tendancy to get in - really close - which pretty much eliminates an "average" meter reading, regardless of the metering pattern (sample posted) - so I have to make an adjustment to the exposure (in this case, opened up 1 1/2 stops)

I guess I haven't let go of "the old ways" - I look at this scene and automatically know I need to open up a bit - maybe I could learn to operate an "up to date" system - just seems that a lot of the control (and fun) is being lost.

(PS: not trying to get into a shooting match (no pun intended....well, OK...a little pun intended) - I'm really enjoying this! Thanks for your response!)

Even a grey card and a hand held meter aren't always usefull. When I'm shooting stuff for work I always bracket exposures, always. Ofcourse the experience you have with your film and your camera (considering that it always produces stable results, or at least the same errors in the same situations) you'd use that as your starting point. For normal situations I always shoot in Aperture-priority mode, cause the shutter speeds are of no interest to me, I use spot metering, pick my grey tones from the scene and not from a card, simply because light is never consistent outside (and in large areas) and I lock the exposure and start bracketing. But when I'm shooting for fun I just shoot once, with Velvia usually keeping it at -0.3 EV, unless the situation requires me to do otherwise. But slight underexposure gives me far better results on Velvia, instead of using matrix metering and let the camera figure it all out. And for low light situations there is no reason not to use bracketing (read tutorial ;) Take care....great question btw!

Excellent question. [Answer: It depends.] In your original comment you have outlined what is very similar to the "Zone System," pioneered by Ansel Adams, and still very useful reading for every photographer. It ammounts to basically being able to visualize the scene, and how to set the camera to correctly record that scene. I applaud your craftsmanship. I'm usually lazy: with 35mm and strange lighting its cheap insurance to bracket. But for most conditions I do not. Color negative materials are pretty forgiving, (different story entirely with transparencies). Bracketing IS an issue with digitals; its just they can re-take immediately if the results aren't correct. Some of the digitals (as do some analogs) have "automatic" bracketing capability. I'd like to see the delay between exposures reduced by quite a lot before this was really useful. [Like 30mS?] I keep thinking about getting a cheap (1Mpix) digital just to use as a light meter for my analog camera. But I can't quite figure out how to properly translate the exposure settings. It'd be REAL slick if it could synchronize to an external flash...

What can I say here? That old white/black sheet of paper thing of course presented with this sort of situation you must make the appropriate call. I have to agree that understanding your film stock and your camera are the two key things to not bracketing and for a majority of my shots I have fond my camera and its metering systems are more than capable of sorting it. My god! I cant believe I am defending the automated camera here, LOL. Not to long ago I wouldnt have been seen dead with one and as for auto focus well who needs that? Bloody fantastic, how the hell did I live without it? And Marc when I want that sheet of white paper shot I will lob it under the scanner LOL :o)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

"how to properly translate the exposure settings" I'm afraid you can't :( Normal light meters are sort of neutral, while camera's all their own deviation in their own metering system. Basically a light meter is per defenition more accurate than any internal system (mostly cause internal metering depends on the lenses as well, which might fool the system). Besides, don't forget that your camera's also calculate their own personaly exposure (depending on the structure of the lens) in combination with the film speed. Very trick stuff. Might as well get yourself an old light meter at ebay or something for a $10 or so :)

The calibration is a problem, which has prevented me from going out and getting a cheap digital for just this purpose. I have quite a nice handheld meter for incident readings (a fair amount more than $10 BTW). Not very easy when using a macro setting on the camera lens for exactly the reasons Rork brings up; still need to do arithmetic in my head. But folks DO use poloroid backs for this... Maybe does need to be built into the camera? Good points, Rork.

But Alpha, what do you think of grey cards when you for instance shoot a very large landscape. Wouldn't the place where you hold the grey card (a short distance from the lens) have a different light situation than the overal landscape ? Any ideas to what the limitations are of grey card - from your own experience ?

Grey cards are great - but I would recommend choosing one and sticking with it. I have several ranging from basic cardboard made by who-knows to plastic, all weather ones made by dunno-that-either... the kicker is - even though they're "supposed" to be calibrated for 18% - I get a 1-1/2 stop difference between the four cards I have taken readings with the same meter in the same lighting (these are not old and faded cards either)

I smell a FEATURE ARTICLE. Heh heh heh...