"Incident is good for slides, if all the light is the same, or you move to
each variety of lighting in the scene (brightest, every shadow variation -
different things reflect into the shadows)."
But this defeats the whole point of incident metering. You don't take
accurate spot or area readings with an incident meter, unless equipped with
a flat receptor. For most photography, you can get reasonably close to a
subject, but in many landscapes, you can meter from the camera position.
The whole point of the incident meter is to take an integrated reading of
the light falling on the subject. This eliminates the effects of different
colors reflecting differently, and in most cases automatically makes a
compensation for highlights and shadows. The assumption of 18 0rey is made
by the meter, not by you.
This is why the incident meter is king in cimematography, where consistency
is the greatest goal.
Of course, it is useless for the zone system. Incident metering is generally
more accurate for general use. You can grab an incident meter, take a quick
reading from your position, and get a reasonably well exposed shot. With a
reflected meter, every reading must be interpreted, either by you, or by
some sort of sophisticated matrix system in your camera, or you're jsut
taking a chance.
I have both, a Minolta IIIF and a Pentax digital spot. If I had to go to
that desert island, I would take the Minolta every time.
Now, Tom, I suppose you'll tell me that Karsh took a variety of readings
with an incident meter with a hemisphere. that only indicates his incredible
knowlege and experience, gained over years of daily use.
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|