Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
Hey, you calling me inconsistent?

1. When I shoot color neg, since it does not well tolerate underexposure, as that causes muddy color in the shadows: So I point my hemisphere at the lens, which biases my reading to factor in shadow areas.
2. When I shoot color transparency (or digital), since that does not well tolerate overexposure, as that loses details in the highlights: So I point my hemisphere at the lens, which biases my reading to prioritize the higher areas of illumination (and the belief that the shadows will 'take care of themselves' while I try to preserve my highlight detail.

Most folks choose and use one technique and they don't really understand Why, or that there may be a better way under different circumstances...instead they think the other way is 'wrong'!


2. When I shoot color transparency (or digital), since that does not well tolerate overexposure, as that loses details in the highlights: So I point my hemisphere at the lens, which biases my reading to prioritize the higher areas of illumination (and the belief that the shadows will 'take care of themselves' while I try to preserve my highlight detail.
I'm not saying it's 'wrong'. I'm saying that it does not make sense.

I would not have any qualms using the memory function of most light meters: 1. highlight (illuminated); 2. shadow; 3. average both; 4. now adjust for high- or low-key. At the end of the day, whatever rows your boat, and experimentation and notetaking — yes, even if you waste a few 5x4 sheets.