On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Ken Norton wrote:
> I'm a bit confused here. Why is it that we are extolling the virtues of
> hand reflectance when it is such a variable thing. Granted, most of us have
> two of them that travel just about everywhere we do, but reflectance varies
> so much depending on sweat, angle, tan/sunburn, etc. I can never get the
> same measurement twice.
Do the palms of your hand tan/burn ? Sweat is easy to take care of.
the angle of the hand has to be in relation to the angle of the subject's
angle to that of the light.
John Shaw gripes about 18 0ray cards being
> inaccurate because sometimes they can be "shiny" but then praises his hands
> which are completely variable. What am I missing? Is this some new logic
> brought to us by the tiny Spacemen?
Hardly. I personally don't mess with all that, though I've done it
many times, and the technique (plus the usual awareness of light and
resulting corrections) has yielded many a beautifully exposed slide.
I simply use any of a number of hand-held meters, usually the of incident
variety. Look at John Shaw's pictures. Not bad for using the "hand jive"
method, huh ? Maybe you should talk back to the tiny Specimens...
*= Doris Fang =*
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|