At 11:02 PM 1/23/1999 +0800, Sean you wrote:
>
>I too use spot metering a lot (90%??) with my OM-4Ti and EOS-3.
>And I agree it's a dream to use. However, I'm wondering if it's
>necessary. Last Wednesday I went shooting with a friend of mine
>and he asked me to take a picture of a building. I spotted the
>blue sky, the cream building walls, and dark windows. Then he
>asked me, "What the hell are you doing?? You don't have to spot
>all that!! Your evaluative metering (I was using my EOS-3) should
>be able to handle all that!!".
>
>Most likely if I had settled for the EOS-3's evaluative metering
>or my OM-4Ti's center-weighted, it would have resulted in the same
>exposure settings averaged by the spot metering. But I've gotten
>so used to & dependent on spot, that I wonder if I am using it
>incorrectly. Anyone else feels this way??
>
>Sean
>--
Hi Sean,
I probably should not comment since I don't (yet) own an OM-4T, but based
on my experience with the OM-2S and with spot meters in general I sort of
question whether it is meaningful to describe your method of using
multi-spot readings as "spot-metering" at all. This is the facet of OM-4T
metering discussions that I have not been able to understand. If I use my
spot meter to meter the sky, based on that reading I can decide whether I
want the sky to look medium blue or a lighter blue (+1 stop). Or I can
select other medium values and meter those. I can get information to help
me visualize where the darker areas will fall in relation to the medium
values (or those I choose to render as medium). Another idea is one
suggested by Warren Kato -- simply put the exposure compensation dial +2
stops and spot meter highlights and shoot. All of these methods make sense
to me because they use the spot meter to provide information about the
different values in a composition, and from this knowledge one selects the
desired exposure.
The method of multi-spot metering that I often read on list doesn't seem to
be about gathering information but about taking a hash of values and then
averaging them automatically. Is this the correct interpretation, or have
I missed something? I'm sure the method "works" and with experience one
develops the instincts to use it well and "accurately," the way one learns
to use the meter in an OM-1 to find predominantly medium values to base the
actual exposure upon. But this method seems to employ the meter more as a
kind of sophisticated averaging meter than a spot meter.
(I also don't understand why people use hand held spot meters to take a
highlight reading and a shadow reading and average them. This seems like a
Hail Mary approach to exposure.)
If I had an OM-4T I would probably use it very much like an OM-2S -- to
place medium values, or important values in relation to medium, and shoot
in manual mode. I hope the camera can be made to work this way!
Having said that, none of these remarks is meant as a specific criticism of
you or the OM-4T. I'm merely trying to understand the technology and why
people seem to use it the way they do. As for whether your multi-spot
method is really "necessary," it is probably safe to say that there are a
variety of ways to skin the exposure cat. If you are happy with your
results, and you're able to evaluate and improve on those results -- to
grow in your craft -- then more power to you. The one suggestion I would
make is always to compare your multi-spot averaged exposure against the
center- weighted reading. Try to figure out, if they are different, why.
I think that is an exercise that helps one continue to learn about light.
Cheers,
Joel
< 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 >
|