>From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>I said yesterday that
>incident readings were the absolute best way to determine
>exposure, particularly when shooting color. That's still my
>story, and I'm sticking to it.
I think a few people feel threatened because they don't do much incident
metering. Surprise, neither do I when I'm shooting for fun!
There is no doubt that it can be useful to know "pi" to one hundred digits. But
no one would bother to do that to figure their tire circumference. Likewise,
when keeping track of my laps, I don't synchronize my watch with the Bureau of
Standards' atomic clock!
I think Walt and I are in agreement that there is no doubt that incident
metering is the most accurate method, but we wouldn't necessarily use it in all
-- or even many -- situations.
But just because "good enough" is a powerful concept, it doesn't mean that
superlatives are not so.
Thanks for reminding me of using multi-spot on various things that you think
are close to 18%, in the hope that their differences will average out to get
you closer to 18%. I have used this technique, but forgot to mention it. So
perhaps multi-spot is not just a "wow" feature after all!
I used multi-spot a lot in the 80's with decent results, but got out of the
habit. Perhaps I'll play with it some more.
But like Walt says, it's still not as accurate or foolproof as incident
metering. But like I say for the vast majority of shots, "Who cares?" :-)
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
: HTML email goes right in the trash! Turn off HTML if you want to email me.
< 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 >
|