The last thing I would do is ridicule Mr. Johnston (or anyone else, for that matter). His reputation - I remember Camera and Darkroom (in fact, sorely missed) is, in my book, impeccable.
However, I can understand the reaction from *some* here on APUG. One must consider the often seen attitude of *some* (being kind here ... ) of the d*****l persuasion who INSIST!!! that chemical/ analogue photography is dead, and do not hestitate to squeal that all who disagree are idiotic dolt - Luddists who simply do not have the capacity to understand that fact!
Reading that article was a surprise to me - truthfully, it did not "sound" like the Mike Johnston I remebered reading in C&D. That Mike Johnston was considerably more tolerant of those who approached the process 'from different angles' - but hey - we all change and some harden - over time.
Do I personally disagree with the idea that exposure meters are totally useless? Yes, I do. One great use is in conserving the amount of polaroids in the studio, along with simply saving time - not waiting for "instant" processing.
Could I replace my flash meter with a DSLR? Only by making numerous exposures, and trying to extrapolate to what an "incident" exposure would be ...
As you can see, the search for one of us here who actaully DOES use a flash meter, especially in the studio, is over.
Mr. Johnston is certainly entitled to his opinion, together with his choice of words and syntax to indicate its strength. It may take a bit of self discipine to listen to/ read it (Amaretto flavored innertube held between ones teeth may be useful) but, If we are to "test" our opinons against those of others in search of truth - we gotta do it.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
It was actually just a throw-away line somewhat in-synch. (so I thought at the time) with the OP. Mike, I'm really sorry if you took it personally - it wasn't meant to be.
Originally Posted by iandavid
"Why is there always a better way?"
I used my exposure meters (can't afford the light meters) to measure light. Not neccesarily for photography purposes.
An instructional course needed
I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who:
1) shoots digital in colour and black and white;
2) shoots black and white film (primarily negative film, but transparencies would be good too);
3) shoots colour negative film; and
4) shoots colour transparency film, and
would be able to put together an illustrated article that shows how s/he approaches a subject with a wide range of tones/colours, with an eye to communicating:
a) the strengths and weaknesses of each recording media; and
b) the different approaches to obtaining satisfactory exposures.
Is this possible?
I don't know (or care) who he is and what he has done. I made my judgment and comments based on this one article, and I feel fine about doing so. They were "exaggeratory" and a good deal humorously intended. They are obviously such, because I would not use those terms in an actual forum for academic debate, but the point behind them stands. If you are going to write such an ignorant article, you should expect a strong, and less-than-academic, response, and a hefty degree of judgment.
Originally Posted by Ross Chambers
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I use my meters a lot, for film, video, motion picture, and digital. If I'm popping about, in camera meters are fine. Many of the studio shoots I do are complex enough that I want the versatility of a hand held meter. Even though I get "instant feedback" from the D thingie, I don't care to drag my camera all over set, and the instant feedback even including the histogram, doesn't give me all the info regarding ratios, etc in specific places. 99% of my d pictures never see the inside of PS, nor would I want it that way. They get converted and color corrected, and that's it, and that is all most ever need. I'm a photographer, not a graphic artist/computer geek.
That said, picking one article out of literally thousands and crucifying Mike for it is completely out of context. I have followed Mike for years, and he has plenty of good things to say that are worth reading. I don't always agree, but I do more often than not, and even when I don't, it isn't because his reasoning is unsound, it just doesn't agree with mine. I'm happy to see him posting here, I just wish it wasn't in response to a bums rush. Mike has and does promote all kinds of photography.
I read the article in question, and I understand the point. For certain kinds of photographers it may ring true. For me and my circle, it doesn't, for a variety of reasons. I'm fine with that the way it is. I can quite happily dismiss it as not applying to me, without ridicule, and I'm at a loss to understand why that is difficult for some. IMO in-camera meters were around long before digital. I believe it has more to do with the present attitude and work flow (fast, fast, lots of shots, fix it later) That isn't good r bad, just a way of working that has caught on for the moment.
If you don't agree with someone, present some reasoning in a constructive and well thought out manner, and you may garner at least respect, despite disagreement. I find that to be the prevalent character of APUG, despite missteps like this thread.
I'm going to leave it open for discussion of the actual practicality of hand held vs in camera metering. If it degenerates, I'll send it down.
Last edited by JBrunner; 10-07-2009 at 10:46 PM. Click to view previous post history.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
I have two Sekonics. The swivel head incident meter with the white globe, man that is an awesome analog meter. Love the fact that you don't have to spend extra money on batteries. That is just way awesome. And it works fantastic. It's also like having an analog watch, it keeps your mind working, and that is part of the enjoyment of photography for me. How am I going to be able to capture this scene best? (not that I'm any good at this artform consistently haha!)
Originally Posted by mcjohnston
The other Sekonic I have is older, and it's fair to say it's a spot meter, or .. well.. as best as a spot meter could be back in the day. And it still works like a champ as well. I use both.
I love the wilderness and I love my trail cameras, all Fuji's! :) GA645, GW690 III, and the X100 which I think is the best trail camera ever invented (to date).
I use a light meter even on digital. Just because something "looks" ok on a 3" LCD, perhaps in the glaring sun, and my histogram doesn't show any spikes or gaps, doesn't mean I have made a good exposure. A histogram and a thumbnail image does not tell me the ratio of light, only that I have it. That's fine if you shoot nothing but outdoor landscapes and your only goal is not blowing out the sky, but it doesn't tell me how many stops are on one side of a portrait to another, or how much fill I need, or how under or over exposed my relevant subject is to the rest of the scene.