Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,771   Posts: 1,670,975   Online: 1035
      
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 81
  1. #41
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,964
    Images
    40
    This was nice to have occasionally (back of my old Rolleiflex);
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Rollei Guide.jpg   Rollei Guide 1.jpg  
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  2. #42
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,028
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    I evolved to where I can function without a meter. Sort of a walking incident meter. But I have never managed to reach the point where I can evaluate values within a scene as well as my spot meter, and I doubt I ever will.
    There was a point where I tried to get to this point and I can muddle through pretty nicely especially in the classic "film box directions" situations.

    I found though that the act of metering, regardless of the method, takes a significant amount workload and worry off of my brain.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #43
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,535
    [QUOTE=Poisson Du Jour;1587930]Ambivalent? Over lighting?
    I surmise that your theories may come from a lack of in-depth knowledge and experience with meter. Especially the commentary about the lack of accuracy of light meters. Where did you get that idea from? In skilled hands, exposures are what the photographer sought, first and foremost, provided he has the skills and experience to know. What's difficult about that? Meters certainly are not dumb.QUOTE]

    Poisson, there's something fishy here. First, I did not say that light meters were inaccurate. But I did say that they were dumb and that is because they do not know what the reflectance value of the photographed objects should be. That makes them dumb. A black cat in a coal mine receives quite a different level of exposure than does a white bride surrounded by her bridesmaids, even if the incident light level is the same. But...and this is the tricky part...NOT as great a difference as that light meter would indicate. The light meter would indicate that BOTH scenes should be recorded as medium grey. Of couse, this must be modified by the human brain's interpretation of the subjectivity of that subject matter. One EXPECTS to see quite a different rendidtion than what the meter assumes is 'correct'.

    The responses to my post are really overwhelmingly intelligent and well thought out. This is a topic that simply cannot be hacked to death. David Goldfarb, I am going to disagree a bit with you in that the particular situations you offer are really quite easy and redundant and lend themselves towards mastery without a light meter. But what perplexes me the MOST are those shade or dull scenes that are literally 'all over the place' and conflating that fact with the fact that the brain 'accommodates' such extremes points to a virtual necessity for a light meter in such situations. - David Lyga

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,888
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    ... than what the meter assumes is 'correct'.
    This may be the flaw in the logic. The way light meters operate are based on engineering assumptions, but it is not one of "correctness" as much as it is one of statistical normalcy. It is the operator who fails to understand how meters work and how photographic exposure works that assumes "correct".

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    [QUOTE=David Lyga;1588268]
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Ambivalent? Over lighting?
    I surmise that your theories may come from a lack of in-depth knowledge and experience with meter. Especially the commentary about the lack of accuracy of light meters. Where did you get that idea from? In skilled hands, exposures are what the photographer sought, first and foremost, provided he has the skills and experience to know. What's difficult about that? Meters certainly are not dumb.QUOTE]

    Poisson, there's something fishy here. First, I did not say that light meters were inaccurate. But I did say that they were dumb and that is because they do not know what the reflectance value of the photographed objects should be. That makes them dumb. A black cat in a coal mine receives quite a different level of exposure than does a white bride surrounded by her bridesmaids, even if the incident light level is the same. But...and this is the tricky part...NOT as great a difference as that light meter would indicate. The light meter would indicate that BOTH scenes should be recorded as medium grey. Of couse, this must be modified by the human brain's interpretation of the subjectivity of that subject matter. One EXPECTS to see quite a different rendidtion than what the meter assumes is 'correct'.

    The responses to my post are really overwhelmingly intelligent and well thought out. This is a topic that simply cannot be hacked to death. David Goldfarb, I am going to disagree a bit with you in that the particular situations you offer are really quite easy and redundant and lend themselves towards mastery without a light meter. But what perplexes me the MOST are those shade or dull scenes that are literally 'all over the place' and conflating that fact with the fact that the brain 'accommodates' such extremes points to a virtual necessity for a light meter in such situations. - David Lyga
    David. All tools are dumb, i.e. non-sentient. No tool is better than whomever wields it. The most important piece of equipment is between your ears.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 12-28-2013 at 01:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #46
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,141
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    The way light meters operate are based on engineering assumptions, but it is not one of "correctness" as much as it is one of statistical normalcy.
    A Zone System sticker quickly converts a reflective meter from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that facilitates intentional interpretation. Thus the "black cat in a coal mine" can properly be turned into that.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    A Zone System sticker quickly converts a reflective meter from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that facilitates intentional interpretation. Thus the "black cat in a coal mine" can properly be turned into that.
    Sure, but I'd phrase that just slightly differently: ... from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that MORE EASILY facilitates A PHOTOGRAPHER'S DESIRED intentional interpretation. I can do that intentional interpretation with or without a ZS sticker, for example. The meter is still "dumb" even with a ZS sticker.

  8. #48
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,141
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Sure, but I'd phrase that just slightly differently: ... from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that MORE EASILY facilitates A PHOTOGRAPHER'S DESIRED intentional interpretation. I can do that intentional interpretation with or without a ZS sticker, for example. The meter is still "dumb" even with a ZS sticker.
    I like your phrasing better, mine just sounds jargon-ey.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,767
    I have perfect pitch, but I still use a spot meter for all my photographs. Though I must admit I've never tried to determine my camera exposure without a meter, so maybe I actually can do it. An interesting experiment perhaps, but in the end I'd still never work without a meter. I don't have that kind of confidence. I sometimes test myself when focusing the enlarger and I am surprised at how accurate I am without a grain magnifier. I still always check with the grain magnifier though. Maybe we'd all be better off without our gadgets and gizmos. Who knows.

    That said, it is one thing to use a meter and another to really understand what the meter is telling you (at least with a reflective meter).

    We should also differentiate between light meters and exposure meters.

  10. #50
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,535
    Of course, Michael, one MUST understand that meter's parameters and its 'lack of sentience'. It has no feel for subject matter; that missing link has to be gotten from your brain.

    A really good exercise to adopt that wastes no film is to practice guessing at proper exposure and then meter that scene to see if you are correct. Obviously, you have to make the adjustment for the meter's 'neutral' reading (if that scene is not so 'neutral') and come up with a FINAL evaluation as to proper EV. And an aid in this regard is to start thinking in terms of EVs, not standardized shutter speeds or f-stops. This way, only one (combined) number is needed to define the exposure needed for the scene, and, importantly, that single number can offer a panoply of choices as to shutter speeds and apertures. For example, if one resolves to use '16' for a cloudy-bright day with Tri-X, that simple number offers a range of aperture and shutter EVs that allow easy interchangeability because all that is necessary is that they 'add up' to '16'. -David Lyga
    Last edited by David Lyga; 12-29-2013 at 11:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin