Actually, I think a behind-the-lens meter would be making a direct
reading. Incident readings are taken from the position of the
subject and measure the light falling on the subject, as opposed
to direct readings, which measure the light reflected by the
subject. I have found incident readings to be generally superior
to direct readings, and that is the method I use with all my
medium format photography. Don't mean to be picky, but...
Walt Wayman
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: William Sommerwerck <williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:01:19 -0800
---SNIP---
>
>The modern arguments over camera automation started in the
early '60s with the
>introduction of SLRs with TTL metering. Thousands of
photographers screamed
>that TTL metering was an assault on "creativity" -- as if
fiddling with a
>handheld meter is going to improve the quality of your
photographs. The fact is
>that the best place for an incident-reading meter is behind the
lens, where it
>can read the same light that will expose the film.
---SNIP---
< 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 >
|