Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'll join with Harrison and Donal and throw in yet another reason. I often shoot with three completely different systems at once. Leica M, Canon EOS and Mamiya 6. I grab the camera that has the lens I want for the shot (whoops, photograph). Forget in camera meters. I want every shot on there different systems to look the same. I shot buckets of Velvia in the last year and my exsposures were consistent from camera to camera and lens to lens because they were all metered with the same incident meter. A few times on long hikes with surprisingly good light my film supply got low (I know, really stupid, but I like to carry only what I need). At times I stopped bracketting to conserve film didn't lose a single shot for it. There is something rare and exciting about looking at a roll of 120 film and seeing every frame something different, but all of them exactly exsposed. Tom > >I must vote with Harrison. About the only time I get exposures wrong is >when I use the built in meters. The only people I know shooting (excuse >me, photographing) boats who might use an incamera meter would be news >people using negatives. I have watched meter swings through 2 stops >differences depending on how much white sail or white hull in in the >frame. It would be absolute professional suicide to use program. You >can't compensate fast enough. In these scenes I will check the incident >meter by using the incamera to meter blue sky--in essence turning the in >camera meter into an incident meter since deep blue sky equals 18%. > >If light is changing dramatically and quickly, and if I am on a >commercial job, I just have assistant handle the meter and call the >changes as we work. You get into a rhythm and I have done entire rolls >from bright sun to deep cloud and back in the space of a minute and a >half with every frame right using this method. > >In the F5 literature somewhere is a sequence supposedly demonstrating >the ability of the meter. And to my eye it demonstrates the inability >of the meter to be consistently accurate--right there in print! Several >frames are too dark. You can just see the meter in operation, see the >highlights affecting the exposure. I wish it weren't so. But wishing >won't make it so. > >In the finaly analysis, each of has to use what works for the kind of >pix we make and the way we handle light to make our images. > >donal >-- >Donal Philby >San Diego >http://www.donalphilby.com