> Bob (that's me) sez... > > Go to http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm and print it out. Add to it and > modify it for your shooting environment. When you get good at it, you won't > be using your meter much.
Interesting. I published a similar system in a British magazine years ago. Of course Kodak has provided a similar "computer" for many decades (a simplified version of which used to be found inside most film cartons). There is an extremely exhaustive version published by some scientific institution that completely relied on experiential observation of prints--I think most recently in was available from ANSI. Sorry I can't recall more than that. Of course it usually presumes the use of one film (maybe two, but more than that would get confusing quickly) and no "bellows" (or lens extension) factors. I used to practice all this by carrying around a spot meter. Whenever I had a spare moment, I'd pick an object or surface at random from my surroundings, guess its EV, "place" it as a target tone a la the ZS, translate to camera settings, and, finally, check myself with the spotmeter to see how close I had come. You do get awfully good at this relatively quickly. Interestingly, though, it's not a function of training your eyes to "meter" light--turns out that's almost impossible, according to tests done at NIMH--but rather learning what amount of reflectance is likely in certain lighting conditions. _That_ you can get good at. I set my original "key" or "base" exposure by an interesting method, too--I'd take pictures and look at the negatives. The negative that gave me the print I wanted was the exposure I used. No guesswork there. <s> --Mike P.S. I have a number of old articles posted at luminous-landscape.com. Maybe I'll post that old exposure article there, too. - 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 .
