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?