Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 Jeffery Smith wrote: >I made a rather sobering discovery a few weeks ago. I was using a Nikon RF >which, of course, has no meter. So I used a Gossen digital light meter and > used ambient readings rather than reflective readings. The exposure in most >of the frames was right on the money, much better than my usual TTL >reflected light frames. This made me want to use a handheld meter and blow >off the in-camera meter. >=============================================================================== Mike Tatum of Honeywell used to give a talk on quality in exposure and development. He said the incident meter was best for exposure consistency. For part of his presentation, he showed 20 prints made from 20 frames on the same roll of 35mm film, shot under various lighting and contrast conditions, metered with an incident meter, and printed at the same enlarger settings. They all were good. I think this might be where I first heard the advice to set an incident meter to one-half the ASA rating for B&W, to get more shadow detail. I bought a Sekonic Studio Deluxe the day after attending the lecture, and never regretted it. Most of my Kodachrome shooting was metered with this, and it was so accurate that I never bracketed. All my outdoor slides were with a polarizer, too, and I found that the 3.5x exposure compensation was right on. Now, with digital, I still like using an incident meter. About 90% of the time I have the 1D or 1Ds set on manual. Alan Alan Magayne-Roshak Senior Photographer Photo Services Univ. of Wis.- Milwaukee Information & Media Technologies amr3@uwm.edu (414)229-6525 http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alan+Magayne-Roshak/