RE: Re: [Leica] Incident Metering - resources needed

[simon@sclamb.com]

OK, I see your point.  Useful advice, thanks.

Simon

Chuck Albertson wrote;

Simon,

You still have to account for subject reflectance for some
extraordinary
situations. For example, an incident reading taken on a brightly lit
snowfield (or a beach) will end up giving you overexposure,
because it
reflect more light than a "normal" subject, so you need to stop
down a bit
more. Conversely, an incident reading taken on a black lava field
on the Big
Island will give you underexposure, because it reflects less than
a "normal"
subject, so you have to open up a bit. But as you say, for most
subjects the
incident meter does the job.

Chuck Albertson
Seattle, Wash.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Incident Metering - resources needed


> Mark
>
> Why is the real issue knowing how much light the subject is
reflecting?
The
> whole point of incident metering is you dispense with vagaries
of the
meter
> et al.  It doesn't matter how much light the subject is absorbing
as long
as
> you know how much is falling on it.  For most general situations
the
> incident meter works.  Are you saying that you still make
adjustments
after
> incident metering depending upon the reflectance of the
subject?  Given
you
> are vastly more experienced than me in matters photographic,
what type of
> adjustments for what type of subjects would you make?
>
> Simon
>
> Mark Rabiner wrote:
> snip:
>
> > Not sure i go along with all of that.
> > But it's always to know how much light you've got.
> > Despite the real issue being how much light is your subject
reflecting.
> > Just like my pappy used to tell me:
> > Rich or poor it's nice to have money.
>
>
>