Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: Dr. T. gets "exposed"...


  • From: P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Dr. T. gets "exposed"...
  • Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:00:12 -0700

Dr. T. writes:

>Perfect?  Who said "perfect"?  And is there such a thing as "perfect
>results"?  Not for me...  I would just say "good results"... I believe
>that you can get good results without a light meter.

Yes, I do believe there is such a thing as "perfect" results.  I define
"perfect" results as capturing the image intended with the desired exposure.
Desired exposure, not "an acceptable" exposure you happened to get.

I don't think you'd argue that there is such a thing as "correct" exposure,
otherwise all your rules-of-thumb would be unnecessary, and you could shoot
whatever aperture you liked at whatever shutter speed.  We all know what
under- and over-exposure looks like.  So somewhere in-between these obvious
"incorrect" exposure extremes lies "correct" exposure.  Given that there is
some latitude in that area, "perfect" as defined by me means getting your
desired result.  If, say, I like my slides saturated and slightly on the
under-exposed end of "correct" exposre, then I define "perfect" results
as getting this exposure on demand in any lighting situation.  Personally,
I find that my meter enables me to do this pretty consistantly.  More
consistantly than I could ever do without it.

>I don't like
>it when you call that "disservice to beginners" because 1) I have worked
>hard all my life to get beginners interested in 3-d and 2) I have seen
>plenty of satisfied beginners get good pictures using the "sunny day
>rule ++" half page instructions that I provide.  Most beginners can
>work these rules fine.

Don't read anything more into that statement than was intended.  I'm well
aware of your crusade to help beginners get started in 3D, and I applaud
it.  I just happen to disagree with you about the usefulness of a light
meter.  I believe that one can help reduce the FUD factor ("Fear,
Uncertainty, Doubt") that any beginner tends to feel when confronted with
a fairly complex, new system like a fully-manual stereo camera.

And you helped make my point about the frailty of mental calculations when
you botched the f-number sequence in your other post.  Had you done that
in the field, you'd more than likely have lost that shot and possibly others.
My meter never makes such mistakes. :-)

>I don't think it helps to tell beginners that they can
>only take good 3-d pictures if they use a light meter... because
>many beginners do not have or cannot afford a light meter...
>right from start... They can graduate to one later...

Only?  Who said "only"? :-)  I recognize that there are situations where
a light meter is unnecessary to get a good exposure.  I even said so.
I will continue to recommend that people (beginners and not-so-beginners)
consider getting one, because they greatly enlarge the range of situations
in which one can shoot 3D pictures and get great, even "perfect", results.

And after all, isn't that what we're all interested in?  Shooting more
3D pictures?

	-Greg


------------------------------