One of our members, Steve R, posited that technique has disappeared. He was referring to the discussions involving technique. It seems that the technique has been replaced with which camera and software will provide one with the satisfaction of creating a notable photograph. I've observed that trend myself but not really given much thought to that occurrence. Most notably, I've been opposed to Luminar's claim to fame of replacing skies, etc.

Up until recently, I was completely opposed to substituting incredible skies into a landscape photograph, etc. I prefer to capture what's there. If what I want isn't there, I'm not disingenuous to 'fake' it. I liken it to say one is going fishing and upon not catching anything, going to a fresh fish store, and purchasing a large fish to return home and announce oneself as a great fisherman to have brought this wonderful dinner home.

Well, I've had a change of heart. I can see where there is a good cause for substituting skies, or any other background, in a photograph. This change was due to viewing a commercial photographer's work. The subject was shot in a studio and then an incredible and related background was placed in the photograph.

In this photographer's case, these are commercial photographs. They are done for pay, a sizable payment to say the least, and done with a time limit. They would be impossible to accomplish with the deadline given, people's schedules, etc. To say nothing of having nature cooperate with the ideal weather for a backdrop. So, in these cases, it is quite acceptable to produce a product photograph as quickly as possible.

Now, to the average person who wants to be a photographer. There is the knowledge that is needed to produce a successful and pleasing photograph. Today's cameras and associated software remove a great deal of the burden of photographic knowledge and simply reduce a good many to being merely camera operators. Ask yourself, if you didn't take that path, or continue to look for that path. It comes down to whether you wish to be a photographer or a mere button pusher. The choice is yours.

You can't purchase talent. You can, anyone can develop talent if they are willing to invest in learning the necessary skills as a foundation and then continuing to build on those skills. The results will be far more satisfying than just mastering which button to push. Kodak used to have an advertising expression, "You push the button. We do the rest". If photography and photographic art were that simple, why didn't the notable photographers resort to letting Kodak do the rest?

So, it comes down to whether you want to be a photographer or just a button pusher? One will produce photographs. The other will be entangled in a constant search for the "next best thing" that will propel them to the heights of photographic accomplishments they couldn't achieve on their own.
--Bob

Discussing Techniques for shooting "chromes" is kinda moot nowadays, since not too many folks are still doing that, especially in the professional and commercial sectors of the industry- it's just about all digital.

The 6 large file cabinet file drawers, packed with large format transparencies and colour negatives attest to the fact that at one time, for about 25 years, I shot 8x10 and 4x5 transparencies just about every day. A lot of the technical details of producing high-quality transparencies relate well to current digital methods but REALLY- chromes posed more difficulties and challenges. There was no such ONE rule of thumb such as "always underexpose" etc., you had to know your films, their charities, and factor in the final usage of the transparencies. Most of these images were for lithographic reproduction and you need to the factor in what would be best for colour separations and the final print process.

An exposure meter or even a camera's internal metering system are just tools, and like any other tool you need to learn exactly how to use it- where to sample light and haw to interpret the meter readings.

In large format transparency work, there were many variables. The film was packaged with basic filter pack instructions (as a starting point) because each emulsion batch was not uniform in colour rendition. Some close-up work requires bellows extension. Filter packs and bellows extensions "eat light" and require more or extended exposure. Sometimes extended exposure introduced reciprocity law failure that might require even more filtration and extended exposure. Sometimes with all of this factored in I was working with an ISO 100 film at an effective exposure index of ISO 6 or 10. To attain enough depth of field for certain shots (smaller apertures) we had to open the shutter in a darkened room and do 10 pops with a 2400-watt.secondflash system. To bracket, I had to shot 5, 10 and 20 pops.

Meters get us in the ballpark but there were still fine adjustments. and Polaroid tests. The Polaroid film did not necessarily track with the transparency film and even if the density was correct, we had to wait for the process to verify the colour.

Bracketing was always applied. Sometimes it only took a few minutes to actually SHOOT the job but it took all day to set up the product, style the food, prep the models, build a set- whatever- and you'd have to be nuts not to bracket and shoot a few extra sheets before breaking down the set. What if there was a lab accident? Sometimes we would duplicate all the shots and do 2 separate processing batches. Sounds crazy but it's less costly than rebuilding the set, re-hiring the models and/or the food stylist, dragging the art director back, and heaven forbid, missing a deadline!

If colour prints or Duratrans display transparencies were called for, we also shot the colour negative film on the same job. Negatives made for better prints and Duratrans without the need for internegatives or kinda "too contrasty" Ciba prints.

There was NO post-processing to correct major mistakes. We didn't have green-screen, front projection or dropping in backgrounds, so more-or-less it had to be straight out of the camera. There was transparency retouching, stripping and some computerized effects available at the lithographic stage but they were costly and kinda frowned upon budget-wise. If you wanted a product to float in mid-air- you had to find a way to do that right on the set.

We were not wasting time or film- all these costs were factored into the charges and fees.

Nowadays, most of this aggravation has been precluded. If you shoot tethered, you can see the finished product on the screen right there and then- you can make whatever adjustments are required and go on to the next shoot.

This does not mean that in digital, you can or should shoot "sloppy". If you know your camera operation and fully understand the workings of you metering system or you handheld meter, know hao to stay within the dynamic range of your camera system and do a bit of bracketing when possible, you will have cleaner, better files with maximized potential without radical corrective measure in post-processing.

Portraiture- Well, for me that was/is a different kinda cat. I used mostly colo
r negative film and I knew my lighting and ratio control both in the studio and on location with flash and/or natural light. If transparency required, I would do a bit of bracketing but mostly I could shoot quickly and concentrate on aesthetics, pose and expression.

Nowadays, it's so much easier. I shot a few preliminary test shots, varify (chimp once or twnice, and just shoot for pose and expression.

Here's a quote. In case you missed it I'll post it again: "...with slide film it was best to under expose up to a stop."

In my over 40 years working as a professional in the photo industry I shot my share of transparency film. Doing studio product work I shot mostly Kodak Ektachrome. We bought the pro-grade film that came EI tested from Kodak -- you know the red stamp on the film insert -- and we tested it again (ran our own E6 line in house) because getting the exposure right with transparency film matters. Most of the work of course was done shooting strobes and we used Minolta flash meters to set the exposure but also tested with Polaroid film as a secondary verification. If any of us every said something so incredibly sloppy as just underexpose by up to a stop and your *ss is covered they'd be looking for work the next morning.

Why did you even ask your original question?

Given the kind of effort involved in setting up a shot like this, you don't just underexpose by up to a stop with transparency film. You get it right.