Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >On Jun 26, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > >>>Sorry, but I also occasionally do work which requires very long >>>exposure times. Metering in such circumstances is a nearly total >>>waste of time. Experience and bracketing are more useful. >>> >>> >>Except with OTF metering. Then metering for such work actually does >>what >>it's supposed to do. Not perfect, but far more reliable, especially >>when >>you combine the LX and Acros 100, which has no reciprocity failure >>until >>120 seconds. Of course OTF ambient metering is unique to the LX and a >>couple of OM models (2 and 4 IIRC). I'm going to be doing some of this >>with Acros as soon as I get the chance. >> >> > >I disagree. OTF metering does absolutely nothing to mitigate the >issues of photographing under such extreme lighting, which are the >influence of specular highlights against deep shadow details. >Experience and bracketing count for much more. My favorite "meter" >for such conditions is a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide and its Available >Light calculator table. That produces estimates that are much closer >to right on than metering. > > > I see your point. I don't entirely agree.
>>Can't do that in the field for static subjects (Which is where I shoot >>all of mine). High Mag finders are useless for moving subjects, but >>quite useful for static shubjects in the field. >> >> > >Use a laptop instead of a 23" monitor, transferring your storage card >to the computer to read it. Do it combined with focus bracketing. > > Yep, take 6lbs of gear instead of a few ounces. Not practical for most people, especially since you're already carrying a good tripod for this sort of work. >Listen: I do appreciate the use of a high rez finder head for >precision work on film. I had one for my Nikon F2 and F3 bodies, it >was a joy. On film, you cannot tell what you have until long after >the moment of exposure ... even with Polaroid 35mm instant process >film. Getting the focus right on the money with your precious film >captures is essential. > >It's almost completely unnecessary for digital capture work, however, >because you can check what you got immediately and re-do as required. >You can focus bracket then delete all the exposures that didn't do >what you wanted ... with a DS and a 2G card, I have room to play with >almost 200 RAW captures. Surely I can focus well enough that >bracketing by a tiny bit should get the results I want in 4-5 shots >at most. I do this with tabletop product work all the time .. makes >it much easier to get what I wanted when all I want is the shot done >in the minimum time. This is not art, this is photographic >recording ... exploit the advantages of digital to get more done in >less time. A 2x finder magnification gives enough focusing accuracy >that you should be able to get what you want in one shot anyway. > > That's essentiall how I do things with my D50, although I use a 1.17x magnifier (DK-21M eyepiece, works on Pentax DSLR's too). Note some of us are doing art with their macro work though, even if you aren't. Personally I find the angle finders awkward, mostly due to the mechanical connections, an issue that doesn't exist with the LX or F3 high magnification finders. >Different technology, different ways of working. What is a huge >advantage for one is not necessarily of much value for the other. > > Won't disagree there. >Godfrey > > > -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
