Oh, Jody, don't start it all again, please ;-) !
Frantisek
Friday, January 25, 2002, 2:14:12 PM, Jody wrote:
J> Sorry to reply to such an old email. I think one or
J> two people have confused the terms "accuracy" and
J> "precision". There is a difference.
[really old thread deleted]
Good light
Jim wrote:
> Correct and precise are not the same thing. Eg decimals are precise but
> frequently inaccurate, whereas fractions are both precise and accurate.
Except for irrational numbers such as pi or e, which you can't fully represent
with either a decimal or a fraction.
Cheers,
- Dave
Shel
Correct and precise are not the same thing. Eg decimals are precise but
frequently inaccurate, whereas fractions are both precise and accurate.
:)
Regards
Jim
Shel wrote:
"If all meters are correct (precise), then shouldn't all meters give the
same readings of the same scene under th
D]>
Päivä: 13. tammikuuta 2002 17:51
Aihe: Re: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
> ... and that's the kind of comment that makes me laugh out loud.
>There's no such thing as a meter that's 100% correct all of the time.
>
>Pål Audun Jensen wrot
Hi,
Pål is being rather mischievously equivocal. He knows perfectly well what
people mean when in a normal conversation they say 'the meter is wrong'.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sunday, January 13, 2002, 4:00:10 PM, you wrote:
> ... and that's the kind of comment that makes me laug
So far mine are. They do exactly what they are designed and intended to do
100% of the time. If that's not what I want, I adjust.
Regards,
Bob...
"Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity,
and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us
from the former, for the s
... and that's the kind of comment that makes me laugh out loud.
There's no such thing as a meter that's 100% correct all of the time.
Pål Audun Jensen wrote:
> And BTW I'm right; the LX meter is 100%
> correct all of the time.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink
On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 12:29 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Tell me something - if the LX meter is so perfect, why do people
> continue to bracket their exposures?
They would be bracketing if they are unsure of how they've used the
meter. I don't seem to recall any of these posts praisi
Hi Tom,
In my example, I could have used an incident meter if the shadow area was
within reach or extended to where the camera was positioned. However, a wide
range of values might have moved me to pull out a spotmeter in any case. In
general, where scenes include a wide range of highlight and sha
8:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
>
>
> "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
> > >gray scale edges.
> >
> > The incidence metering technique gives the best POSSIBLE exposure
> > with
rom: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
> > Number 3.Some claim that using an incident light meter always
> > gives th
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> >gray scale edges.
>
> The incidence metering technique gives the best POSSIBLE exposure
> with a given film. But the only way to capture what your talking about
> is to change to lower contrast film, using a spot meter or an in camera
> meter
> with the same film/devel
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
>
> Wrong! All built in camera meters are only accurate when aimed at
> a subject with 18 % reflectance. Try taking a picture of a white
> car or a black car using a built in camera meter. You will get
> two different readings BOTH of which are wrong.
Of course. But we
Hi,
Frantisek wrote:
> **: BTW, I have never had good luck with spotmetering faces of dark to
> black skinned people - what is the best zone to put the spot reading
> on?
I hesitate to get involved in this thread, but I wrote this reply
before the thread sort of spiralled down a little, so I'd
> Number 3.Some claim that using an incident light meter always
> gives the
> best exposure. Bull. Example: You are taking a photo of a bride and groom.
> The groom in wearing black with some pattern in his tux you want to
> reproduce as best as possible. The bride is wearing white with delica
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it?
(repairs,...))
> > 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
And even that's open to arguments these days. Kodak, in the
instructions included with the grey card, says to meter the card and
then open up ½-stop for a correct middle grey reading for average
scenes.
There have been numerous discussions in many venues as to whether some
meters are calibrated
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 c
Pal, you are quite mistaken. Leaving the camera on automatic can cause
exposure problems. Here's one example taken from a commentary by Kirk
Tuck, in which he describes metering a scene in which the light doesn't
change:
When I meter my hand it meters the light falling on it and
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 com
20 matches
Mail list logo
