Last winter I went shooting lighthouses in the ice with a guy who was
packing a Nikon F-5. We're talking black steel catwalk, red lighthouse,
gray sky, white snow and ice. I shot the Pz-1p in centerweighted mode with
+0.7 stops of exposure compensation, based on a couple of spot meter
reading a guess about how much of the frame was what.
My companion trusted the meter in the F-5.
My slides were exposed pretty well. His had blown out highlights.
Matrixed metering reads the highs and lows of a scene an applies some
simple rules to determine the correct exposure. Good matrixed metering
systems may have thousands of scenarios in their databases that are drawn
upon in determining the exposure.
I'm a relative newcomer to photography, having bought my first SLR in the
summer of 1997. I figure I have averaged about 150 shots a week in that
time (considering the times where I _really_ shoot.) I bracket a lot and
look at my results. My database is in my brain. I figure it holds over
30,000 scenarios, is capable of predictive and deductive reasoning, and has
virtually unlimited capacity to store additional information. Simply put,
my brain, as with any standard issue brain, is superior to the sliver of
silicon in the F-5.
Last month I shot waterfalls using an LX. White water on black rocks. I
had never done this before, and figured that I would want to over expose
slightly to compensate for the white water. Fortunately, I bracketed, and
discovered that the opposite was true - underexposing resulted in the right
exposure. Thinking about it, I understand why. Learning takes place. I
probably could have used the Mz-S or F-5 in matrixed mode, and they may
have exposed the scene OK. But now I know what to do in the future. I'll
still bracket next time I shoot waterfalls, but ultimately I won't need to.
So to answer your questions:
1. There is not much point in bracketing with matrixed metering. In
theory, the auto-metering function should already be over or under exposing
the subject as needed. If you are going to bracket, shoot center weighted,
analyze the results, and learn.
2. In regards to trusting matrixed metering: matrixed metering is better
than just blindly using centerweighted, so if you have only one shot and
don't have a feel for what compensation is needed, use it. Otherwise,
trust your experience, and if you don't have experience in a situation,
bracket, study the results, and learn.
Just my two cents.
- MCC
At 11:23 AM 7/27/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I just read this at Boris's site
>(http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/extras/K-mount/Kaf.html):
>
>Speaking about multi-segment metering: "(...) since algorithm is rather
>complex, it is very difficult to judge when it will fail and in which
>"direction." Hence, it is not advisable to use exposure compensation
>together with multi-segment metering."
>
>So, would you use exposure compensation only in spot meter mode? What do you
>think? How much do you trust multi-segment metering?
>
>Hernan Mouro.
>
>
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
