Thank you, David, for putting that so succinctly and clearly. I've been arguing that point here for quite a while. You've said it better than I ever did.
J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > Only an INCIDENCE hand held meter which > > measures light FALLING on the subject will > > give a correct reading. Incident metering > > techniques are far more accurate than > > reflectance techniques which all in camera > > meters use. And David Mann correctly countered: > The incident meter will give you the correct "overall" > midtone reading but you will still need to alter your > exposure to keep detail where you want it. Film has > a limited tonal range so if you shoot your inicident > meter reading you might find that the white car is > totally washed out, and the black car is just a big dark > blob. Your film contrast will determine the outcome, > and even if you know the film characteristics there is > no way of knowing how it will be rendered as you > don't know how much light each subject is reflecting, > relative to your 18%-grey reading. [a little snip here] > By using my spot meter I get a full tonal scale of what's in > my picture, then adjust my "midtone" (ie exposure settings) to > achieve the results I'm looking for based on the capabilities of > the film. [another snip] > No matter what kind of meter you're using you still need > to apply a little brain-power to get good results every time. > You need to know how your meter works, and what its limitations > are. Knowing your film tends to help as well, and so does a good > "feel" for what you like (or what your client likes). Some > people like to keep shadow detail at the expense of highlights, > others like their shadows black... and so on. -- 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 .
