AG Schnozz wrote:
>I understand, but there is a imbedded fault to this working
>method. You're leaning on the forgiveness of the film to
>compensate for your lack of attention to exposure detail.
>
Whoa, hold on there. I do believe in careful exposure setting. I agree
with you that using film to cover sloppy technique is asking for
trouble. Even if neg film may occasionally save a shot, it still gives
best results when properly exposed. I only proposed using it in
conjunction with compensated Auto TTL to solve the specific complex
macro metering problem proposed in the original post. Using auto to
adjust for overall changes in light level and adding some exposure
latitude to handle possible changes in relative brightness between a
non-centrally located (and thus not easily spot metered without complex
reframing) subject and other parts of the frame. I do this a lot and it
is quite reliable.
In most of the macro work I do outside, the subjects are small enough
and closely framed enough that, as Walt suggests, here isn't really much
problem with relative brighness changes within the frame, mostly just
overall changes.
>While this method works most of the time (90% rule probably applies), when
>you've got to nail it with just one shot, you may not be able to.
>
Well, that's one way to look at it. I prefer to think that I have more
options to 'nail it'. I have on rare occasion 'pushed' neg film by one
stop, counting on the extra stop or so of under exposure latitude, to
get a usable shutter speed. Generally works, esp. if deepest shadow
detail doesn't much matter, but I would only do it to get an otherwise
impossible shot.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|