Daniel Mitchell wrote:
>> I do the same, to a certain extent. But if I'm in a difficult
>> position, and I have the time, I don't bother guessing, and just fish
>> for the incident meter instead!
>
> Of course, that assumes that you can physically get the meter to be
> next to the thing you're taking a photo of,
Not necessarily. You just need to take a reading next to something which
is receiving the same amount of light as your subject, with the meter
pointing in the direction of your camera.
> and also that the thing you're photographing has consistent lighting
> conditions across all of it.
No more or less so than spot metering.
> Ansel Adams' "Moon and Half Dome", for
> instance, would fail on both of these counts -- and while there's
> nothing to stop you hiking back and forth taking incident readings
> in and out of shadowed areas to work out what's going on, it would
> be a heck of a lot easier to sit in one place and point a spot
> meter at different bits of scene..
I agree that in that example, spot metering is probably more suitable.
Regards,
Simon
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|