Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:32 PM 4/5/98 +0000, you wrote: >Please remember that for over ten years I worked actively in the >newspaper and wire service fields and I have >used used an incident meter since my internship. Harrison, I wasn't saying that it doesn't work for some people. But there is no way that working in a fast moving situation, like say a sniper shooting at me, I want to be waving a meter around in the air and then transferring the exposure data to the camera. That's sort of counter-intuitive to the reason why cameras have automatic exposure in the first place. Matrix meters were place in cameras aimed at photojournalists to be tools, not gimmicks. Each tool has its place. And I've had pictures in the big magazines too. Sports Illustrated, I suppose is the biggest for me. Almost National Geographic. But the point remains. Incident meters are slow, automatic meters are fast. The best tool for the given job. That's how I work. I have yet to find a single situation where I could get a more accurate exposure with incident meter than with selective meters in my Leicas. Experience is the best tool. Most people on this list, I suppose, are used to the slower-paced contemplative exposure techniques people talk about. Matrix meters are not the best way to go for that kind of picture making. ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch You'll get what's coming to you ... Unless mailed