greetings all,
Since taking up SLR photography, I have shot in metered manual mode and
rarely, if ever, use the automatic capabilities of my ZX-M. I'd like to
think that this helps me understand the photographic process and better
control the result. I begin shooting by consulting the meter and, if the
scene does not appear too unusual, generally follow its suggestions. I
check the meter readings sporadically to verify that a significant shift in
lighting has not escaped my notice.
I have been asked by others who shoot exclusively in Automatic Exposure mode
why I bother to shoot in manual if I'm just going to follow the meter's
suggestion. My response is that there are lighting situations that will
"fool" the meter and, once recognized, these cases are (for me) more easily
accomodated by a manual adjustment of the aperture ring or shutter speed
dial.
Yet I have begun to wonder if I am too easily governed by what the meter
sugests (or by what the camera itself would do if set to AE mode). I
sometimes wonder if I'm deluding myself about being in control of the
process. It seems to be a question of what capabities an individual
should bring to the photographic task.
In the interest of strectching my abilities and learning what are realistic
limitations, I'd like to post the following questions to the group for
discussion:
--- Should I (or anyone interested in exercising control over this
photographic medium) be able to assess a lighting situation and determine
an appropriate aperture/shutter speed combination without benefit of any
metering device?
--- Is such a thing possible?
--- Do any of you start shooting a scene without first consulting a meter;
relying only on your familiarity with basic photographic principles (e.g.
sunny 16 rule and its variants) and your own assessment of a particular
scene?
--- If so, how did you develop the skill?
I guess the question comes down to this :
--- If a camera body, lens and meter are all photographic tools one may use
to produce a desired result, is the meter a tool of necessity or one of
converniance ?
Or to put it another way:
--- To what extent should a photographer rely on metering devices (either
built-in or external)?
I started by explaining part of my procedure and I think the results are
generally adequate. I find a degree of satisfaction with about one of
every 12 shots. Still, I feel something isn't quite hitting the mark:
the image before me isn't quite the same as the one in my head! There's so
much I have yet to learn and I thought that by breaking down the activitiy
to its component parts the task might become more manageable. So I'm
starting with these questions.
Does this matter interest anyone else? If so, thanks in advance to any
who choose to respond.
Two minor points:
If this topic interests any one, I ask that it be limited to the premise I
have offered (i.e. in terms of lighting assessment, what capabilities are
required of a photographer interested in exercising control over his
medium). I have no wish to ignite yet another battle about the relative
superiority of old or new technology, old or new methodology. These soon
grow tiresome and it is not what my inquiry is about.
Any silence on my part in this discussion should not be interpreted as
disinterest. I actually have very limited access to e-mail, but will be
avidly following any discussion upon my return.
Pondering the ineluctables in NYC,
Mike Ray
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
