Shel, Very well put. The meter is just a tool. When understood and used properly, it can help you produce good results. When misunderstood or used poorly, it will be fooled quite often.
Bruce Friday, January 11, 2002, 9:29:10 AM, you wrote: SB> Pal, you are quite mistaken. Leaving the camera on automatic can cause SB> exposure problems. Here's one example taken from a commentary by Kirk SB> Tuck, in which he describes metering a scene in which the light doesn't SB> change: SB> When I meter my hand it meters the light falling on it and SB> that light doesn't change during the shoot. When I shoot SB> with the Leica I leave the exposure alone and since there SB> is no option for auto-exposure I don't have the temptation SB> to use it. When I used the F5 I was always lured by the siren SB> call of advertising onto the rocks of "multi-matrix super SB> integrated" automation. When I pointed the camera at the SB> doctor's white coat the camera tried to compensate, kinda. SB> When the camera pointed at the dark sweater of a patient SB> the camera tried to compensate, kinda. According to my lab, SB> this "kinda" automatic compensation means that most rolls of SB> pro film are all over the map compared with film received SB> ten years ago. SB> Further, getting LX specific, the LX meter is bottom center weighted SB> (http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/lx/lx_pat.html) which SB> means that, if you turn the camera from horizontal to vertical to shoot SB> the same scene in the same lighting, the camera may change the exposure SB> due to the different relationship of dark to light elements in the SB> scene. SB> If one relies solely on automation for metering, rather than SB> interpreting the scene and using one's brain to set the final exposure, SB> there is a very good chance that the exposure will be off by some SB> degree. JCO is right. Without involvement by the photographer a meter SB> can be a pretty stupid thing, and staunch reliance on meter readings - SB> regardless of what meter or what type of meter - is sometimes a very SB> foolish approach. SB> Tell me something - if the LX meter is so perfect, why do people SB> continue to bracket their exposures? SB> Pål Audun Jensen wrote: >> >> JCO wrote: >> >> >In camera meters are very stupid to the point that a simple "guess" >> >can easily be more accurate than even an LX with certain subjects. >> >> Certainly not. The LX meter and any other correctly calibrated meter is >> right 100% of the time. >> >> >Very true to the point that in order to compensate for the >> >in cameras meter's "dumbness" you end up guessing anyway. >> >Thats why I use sunny f16 or an incident meter and manual >> >exposure. It yeilds more consistant results than an in camera >> >meter does. >> >> Whatever meter you use, consistent results are dependent whether or not the >> photographer knows what he wants and know how to use the meter. All meters >> are equal in this regard independent on whether the meter is physically >> located in a camera body or not. >> The advantage of meters like in the LX is that you can set exposure more >> accurate than 1/3 of a stop something that's impossible to do consistently >> with any hand-held meter. - 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 .
