Pal, you are quite mistaken. Leaving the camera on automatic can cause
exposure problems. Here's one example taken from a commentary by Kirk
Tuck, in which he describes metering a scene in which the light doesn't
change:
When I meter my hand it meters the light falling on it and
that light doesn't change during the shoot. When I shoot
with the Leica I leave the exposure alone and since there
is no option for auto-exposure I don't have the temptation
to use it. When I used the F5 I was always lured by the siren
call of advertising onto the rocks of "multi-matrix super
integrated" automation. When I pointed the camera at the
doctor's white coat the camera tried to compensate, kinda.
When the camera pointed at the dark sweater of a patient
the camera tried to compensate, kinda. According to my lab,
this "kinda" automatic compensation means that most rolls of
pro film are all over the map compared with film received
ten years ago.
Further, getting LX specific, the LX meter is bottom center weighted
(http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/lx/lx_pat.html) which
means that, if you turn the camera from horizontal to vertical to shoot
the same scene in the same lighting, the camera may change the exposure
due to the different relationship of dark to light elements in the
scene.
If one relies solely on automation for metering, rather than
interpreting the scene and using one's brain to set the final exposure,
there is a very good chance that the exposure will be off by some
degree. JCO is right. Without involvement by the photographer a meter
can be a pretty stupid thing, and staunch reliance on meter readings -
regardless of what meter or what type of meter - is sometimes a very
foolish approach.
Tell me something - if the LX meter is so perfect, why do people
continue to bracket their exposures?
P�l Audun Jensen wrote:
>
> JCO wrote:
>
> >In camera meters are very stupid to the point that a simple "guess"
> >can easily be more accurate than even an LX with certain subjects.
>
> Certainly not. The LX meter and any other correctly calibrated meter is
> right 100% of the time.
>
> >Very true to the point that in order to compensate for the
> >in cameras meter's "dumbness" you end up guessing anyway.
> >Thats why I use sunny f16 or an incident meter and manual
> >exposure. It yeilds more consistant results than an in camera
> >meter does.
>
> Whatever meter you use, consistent results are dependent whether or not the
> photographer knows what he wants and know how to use the meter. All meters
> are equal in this regard independent on whether the meter is physically
> located in a camera body or not.
> The advantage of meters like in the LX is that you can set exposure more
> accurate than 1/3 of a stop something that's impossible to do consistently
> with any hand-held meter.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
-
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 .
