Paul_M
newbie
Reged: 25/03/2008
Posts: 22
|
|
So, I've just received the marks for module 1 (thanks for the comments Scott, very useful) and I've started module 2.
One bit caught my eye though - the bit about reflected light metering being fatally flawed as it is affected by the colour / texture of the subject.
I assumed that as we see a scene in the same way (light reflected from the subject), then this would give the better results.
Obviously I'm wrong as otherwise nobody would use incident light meters, but I don't understand why I'm wrong.
Any thoughts?
Paul
P.s. Sorry if this appears twice, I posted it once and didn't see the first one.
--------------------
Please read the forum guidelines RE reciprocal links before adding URLs here. Thank you. Admin.
|
Matt_Hunt
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/11/2005
Posts: 2280
|
|
Hi
I could be wrong but I think the eye and brain tend to 'colour correct' scenes whereas film or sensors record purely what they see.
Crudely, we tend not see indoors light as yellow-ish, but daylight balanced film (or daylight white balance) shows it up.
Therefore an incident meter reading removes the impact of colour and texture - and the brains ability to work around mistakes.
Of course I could be spouting cobblers!
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reactivefilm/
My Blog
|
Garry McNamara
Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo
Reged: 16/08/2006
Posts: 2079
|
|
No Matt not sprouts or cob nuts - quite right!
Incident light metering simply measures the light falling on a subject rather than reflected from it. So, as you say, it is not influenced by the tone of the subject.
Apart from one example produced by Minolta quite a few years back it's not as far as I know a metering method that any consumer camera manufacturer has offered. There are attachments for your lens but they are inconvenient compared to an actual meter. Meters are not expensive, a pittance compared to what you'll spend on your next DSLR, and of course will last you a lifetime. Like that other thing you should buy a good one of, the tripod, it will not be superseded in a years time!
It's still the preferred method of pros in the studio and once you are used to it is probably the most reliable - the skill is knowing where to position the receptor.
It doesn't give you correct white balance though, a couple of people have suggested this to me recently - that is still down matching film type/filtration or white balance to the light source.
|
Paul_M
newbie
Reged: 25/03/2008
Posts: 22
|
|
Thanks guys.
I knew our eyes were good at correcting white balance, but didn't realise exposure was an issue too.
No doubt it will all become clear when I venture out and start doing the practical exercises.
Paul
--------------------
Please read the forum guidelines RE reciprocal links before adding URLs here. Thank you. Admin.
|
Azzi
member
Reged: 08/05/2006
Posts: 195
|
|
On reading the above posts I feel a bit more comfortable in "coming out" at last!
A couple of months ago I picked up an old light meter. I kept it a secret at first, only using it in private, affraid of being ridiculed by the digital community. The problem was, I`ve found it to be useful - and dare I say it.... more reliable than the cameras built in meter! I felt that I had to be wrong, but time and time again I seem to get better exposure with the meter. I`m also starting to guess the conditions more accurately - surely this can`t be healthy....
Chris
(sat looking at my pc screen, I think about 1/125 sec, f8)
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisnj2008/
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
