Re: Sunny 16 versus meters

[P3D George Gioumousis <georggms@xxxxxxxxxx>]

P3D Michael Kersenbrock wrote
> 
> 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?....
> > > 
> 
> 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).
> 
I can't argue with the virtue of thinking about what we do when we take
photographs.

I realize I was assuming you meant reflected light meter. What I should
have said was that under some conditions an incident light measurement
is better than a reflected light measurement, unless, like Ansel Adams,
you take multiple readings with a spot meter, or else can walk up to your
subject.

The f/16 rule is a good approximation to an incident light meter. I know
this because I spent several years calculating the various radiations 
from nuclear weapons, and then, when we were thinking of putting solar
collectors on our house, I spent some time writing a program to calculate
the intensity of sunlight through the year. [We did put in a solar hot
water system about 12 years ago. Does everything in Summer and helps a
little in Winter, as predicted.]

When photographing wildflowers, I do get better results with the f/16 rule
than with the very fancy reflected light meter on my Minolta Maxxum. I
can't say about the other example, I haven't photographed nudes with 
either of the two Maxxums I've owned.

-- 
George Gioumousis           /---\        |       /---\ 
                             o o         |       o o  
georggms@xxxxxxxxxx           |          |         |   
(415) 494-6276              \===/        |       \===/ 


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