I had half-expected to have been flamed off the list for my expletive
opinion on incident metering.
On reflection, it is quite exhilerating to engage in conversation circling
around between Hong Kong, South Africa and elsewhere.
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Incident Light metering
> Dawid, I also have some reserve for "An incident light meter simply cannot
> be equalled by any other in-camera reflected-light".
>
> No matter incident light meter or in-camera meter, you need the knowledge
> to
> use it properly, both can be accurate or fail. Take an example for
> incident
> light meter:
>
> Mid-day sun, top illumination, if you use lumisphere, the face exposure
> could be wrong. A lumidisc could be a better choice with proper angle
> facing
> the light.
>
> For in-camera metering, there is a common way to simulate an incident
> meter - to meter an object with known reflective index. A simple object is
> your own hand (with +/- compensation) and a more precise one is grey card.
> You can set the grey card at a proper angle to simulate the object
> illumination.
>
> I have been shooting slides with my OM-4/4Ti for some years without using
> my
> Sekonic 328F (which dedicated for flash and my Bronica SQ-A), I wouldn't
> say
> there is no error but for any complex situation I just spot on an object
> that I believe the reflection is near mid-tone, it "always" work.
>
> IMO multi-segment-matrix is the most non-guarantee but simple and fast
> metering, it shouldn't be used as a benchmark for "accurate way of
> metering".
>
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dawid Loubser" <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> John, care to elaborate? I stated in my first post, that
>> when it comes to optimising exposure to capture the most dynamic
>> range, multi-segment matrix meters and fully-electronic cameras
>> may even have the edge.
>>
>> But when it comes to accuracy, a reflected-light meter is denied
>> the simple fact of "how much light is there, actually?". I maintain
>> that an incident light meter will always be more accurate to capture
>> the chosen subject correctly (of course, provided you can actually meter
>> the light, i.e. that it's not distant).
>>
>> I am open to discussion though :-) But you'll have to make a very strong
>> argument, as the past couple of years of experience have taught me this.
>> With any reflected-light meter, you have to become good at guessing
>> exposure
>> compensation, or taking multiple shots.
>>
>> With any of my mechanical cameras + incident meter, I am making much
>> more accurate
>> exposures than what my Canon 1-series SLR with multi-segment-matrix-
>> metering
>> ever did. Of course, it's a slower process.
>>
>> Dawid
>>
>>
>> On 13 May 2010, at 2:48 AM, John Hudson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dawid Loubser" <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> An incident light meter simply cannot be equalled by any other in-
>>>> camera reflected-light
>>>
>>> ****SHIT !!!
>>>
>>>
>>> jh
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 5113 (20100513) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5113 (20100513) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|