Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Spooky church
From: raimo.m.korhonen at uusikaupunki.fi (Raimo K)
Date: Fri Mar 3 09:59:24 2006
References: <90C6A538-98BF-4833-B1F2-2010A04F2029@dodo.com.au><4cfa589b0603021832s7962dcfemd14ce6b3f2f42582@mail.gmail.com> <F4CEC6C5-B1A7-492D-AA00-FE26B9DE7EE9@dodo.com.au>

IMO the exposure is perfect. No need for external meter, if you think that 
too much sky is included in the measurement, just point the camera slightly 
down - much easier than using an external meter. And it is not forbidden to 
meter different parts of the scene.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick Dykstra" <rdcb37@dodo.com.au>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Spooky church


> Adam, the 'problem' with this image came from using the internal  metering 
> with an M6.  Clearly the lens sucks in light from all over  the place and 
> its very difficult to get an accurate reading from a  balanced part of the 
> scene.  I don't have an incident meter (should  get one I think) so these 
> days I either go by dead reckoning, or put  on a 50 or 90 and meter with 
> that.  I've even carried a second body  with a 50 Summicron just to do 
> metering for my 21.
>
> In particular, I think too much light came in from the driveway,  leading 
> to the underexposure.  But, this is one image that still has  appeal 
> despite the mistake (IMO).  One day I'll go back and get a  properly 
> exposed image.
>
> Rick.
>
> On 03/03/2006, at 1:32 PM, Adam Bridge wrote:
>
>> Rick, can you talk about this difficulty? How did you meter and how do
>> you think you should have? I've never used a really wide lens on my M
>> - I have the 35,50,90. Do you use the internal meter or do you use
>> incident metering?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On 3/2/06, Rick Dykstra <rdcb37@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>>> http://members.dodo.com.au/rdcb37/spooky_church.jpg
>>>
>>> This image reveals how tricky it can be metering with the 21/2.8
>>> Asph.  Still, the underexposure kind of works.  The slide looks
>>> darker and moodier than this scan.
>>>
>>> This church has a remote and stark look about it.  It was relocated
>>> when the town of Adaminaby was flooded during construction of the
>>> Snowy Mountains hydro scheme.
>>>
>>> Rick.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information 


In reply to: Message from rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra) ([Leica] Spooky church)
Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] Spooky church)
Message from rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra) ([Leica] Spooky church)