Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/18

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure - what am I (a newbie) doing wrong?
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:58:57 +0200

From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 02:56
Subject: Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure - what am I (a newbie) doing
wrong?


> This bothers me a great deal.  Learn exposure YOURSELF.
> Do NOT rely on a meter.

This is like saying, "Open and close the shutter yourself--do NOT rely on a
mechanism to time it."

Meters are a fact of life.  I cannot look at something, with normal human
vision, and accurately know how much light is being reflected by the scene for
metering purposes.  I need to be able to measure the light levels.  I can
calculate the exposure if I know the light level, but I have to start somewhere.

> Learn the "sunny sixteen" rule.

The sunny-sixteen rule works when it is sunny out.  In shadows, under an
overcast, indoors, etc., it is not very useful.  Furthermore, every specific
scene is different, and I like to _know_ what the correct exposure is, and not
guess.

> I do virtually no flash work -- to the point where "fill-flash"
> is a huge mathematical exercize I'd rather avoid.

I don't like flash, either.  The real world isn't illuminated by flash, so I
prefer to avoid it.  But this obviously makes proper exposure all the more
important (and guessing all the more risky).

> But manual exposures?  They should be in the head.

They may be, but the metered light from the scene is not.

> If not, bracket, son, bracket!

I bracket for critical images, but at $1 per image, I can't afford to do it very
often.

  -- Anthony