Bruce Walker wrote: >Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense >of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ... > >You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out >of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour. >So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to >blow it to white, two on the model. > >Larry: I'l take a test shot. >Model: okay. >L: POP >L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram. >L: ... >L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that. >L: POP >L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again. >L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the right. WTF? >M: I think my lipstick is smeared. <exits left> > >Versus: > >Bruce: I'm going to meter the light. >Model: okay. >B: POP >B: f/8 >B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ...
Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios is the real advantage of an incident meter here. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
