Re: Sunny 16 versus meters

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From bobcat.etsu.edu!server Wed Oct  9 22:40:47 1996
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:39:30 -0500
> Reply-To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Originator: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sender: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Sunny 16 versus meters
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment:   The Stereoscopic Image (Photo-3D) Mailing List  
> Content-Length: 2277
> X-Lines: 49
> 
> I was quoted....
> 
> > From: P3D P3D Michael Kersenbrock  <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > This is probably true.  Under optimal conditions, "thinking-only" can 
> > > probably at best only match using a light meter.  Why?....
> > > 
> 
> Then Greg was quoted....
> 
> > From: P3D  P3D Gregory J. Wageman  <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > So how invariant are sunlight conditions around the globe?  Is a sunny
> > > smoggy noontime in L.A. really photometrically equivalent to noon in, say
> > > the Swiss Alps (and I don't mean in snow)?  What about seasonal variations,
> > > like noon on the summer solstice, vs. noon on the winter solstice at a
> > 
> > Contrary to what is quoted above, an incident light meter is actually
> > often just right for slides, which is what I take with my Realist format
> > camera, and some of the time with my Nimslo. Consider my serious photography,
> > which often involves a California native shrub with nice flowers, at far, near,
> > and closeup distances. With my Minolta Maxxum 700si, which has very fancy
> ~
> > 
> > For this sort of work, an incident light meter is really better. Furthermore,
> > the f/16 rule is not bad if you can see a sharp shadow edge and your shadow
> > is markedly shorter than you are. The reason is that in both the tropics and
> > 
> > Anyway, my point is that the f/16 rule is often adequate, and that sometimes
> > better than even a pretty good meter.
> 
> I don't understand how that which I wrote is "Contrary" to what you said.   I
> said that at best "thinking" will only match using a light meter (plus thinking).
> 
> Or are you saying that using a light meter in a think-free light meter fashion 
> instead of thinking will *always* yield a better exposure?  That'd be the only 
> way to logically be contrary to what I said.  
> 
> Note that even random camera settings are capable of sometimes giving perfect
> exposures which a light meter cannot beat!
> 
> 
> Mike K.
> 
> P.S. - My original point was that you *still* think when using a light meter.  One
>        doesn't necessarily use the sunny-16 rule because one eventually learns about
>        what setting works for a particular lighting situation.  So it's being used
>        indirectly by "table lookup" rather than by computation.  This cross-checks
>        what a light meter says and judgements are made from the results.
> 
> 


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