On 9 Feb 2006 at 14:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <big snip> > Of the 24 mainly digital responders, 14 said no, they had not changed the way > they did exposure since switching to digital. > > HOWEVER -- this is where I am going to throw in my own conclusions :-) -- > many qualified their nos. > > How? Lots had used handheld meters of one kind or another when they shooting > film. Many mentioned they no longer used them, the in camera meter was > accurate. That they relied on it. Several mentioned matrix metering in > particular. > > Another qualification was many mentioned being aware of being more cautious > about overexposure. Paying attention to settings to not to have blown > highlights and/or using exposure compensation (one or more mentioned > referring to the > histogram). > > So, despite the fact that those 14 thought there had been no change, in > reading them over, I got the distinct impression they was more of a change > than > they may have realized. Not for everyone, of course, but for some. And maybe > not > that big a change, but a change.
Thanks for putting this together Marnie, it's quite interesting. My take on the excerpt above is that the in camera meters are now so much more revealing given the fact that it's so easy to chimp a histogram of the scene exposure is easy to get right sans guess work. When I was travelling with my DSLR and 67 I tended to use my DSLR to meter the more difficult 67 shots as my 67 only has a rudimentary spot meter even though I did also have my incident meter with me. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
