|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by Bill Burk
This also makes a lot of sense...
Without trusting the exposure, you can check all kinds of things. The lights are in the right place, no unfortunate shadows... Have a chance to catch things that you can see in the photograph that shouldn't be there, like backdrops in the wrong place. Just "see" if the picture has a chance to work at all.
Yes, exactly right.
I think what is missing here is a photographers interpretation of a particular emulsion. I don't expose any two emulsions the same way, even if they have the same box speed. If you are really going for it, you need to know your film, and accurately predict its behavior, so above all I need an impartial tool. A histogram or image from a chip with a different response than the emulsion isn't impartial, in fact it's likely to be wrong. Luckily, the film can forgive this, but you will never get back what isn't there, which is the likely case, to my thinking.
-
Why use a light meter: somebody persuade me.
I still use Polaroids for my RZ67 shoots, as said to test lights and make sure rhe look is as expected, but you're also right, the having to explain how it's not the same as the end result image can annoying if they (client) don't understand.
Side note, I just used my light master tonight to take a picture of the Christmas tree, it helped me to expose the tree as the in camera meeter might expose darker as not to overblow the tree lights and lose detail in the leaves so I used my light meeter  no digital...
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
Adv Reply
