P3D Re: Meter ?

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Obusek <markaren@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, December 14, 1997 11:25 AM
Subject: P3D Re: Meter ?


>Greg Wageman expressed a concern with the "anti-meter" >sentiment of our group,
but must review the context of why it was >advised to not rely on a meter 100%
of the time

Sometimes I wonder if we're all reading the same mailing list.
What was advised in several messages was to NEVER use a
meter, and instead bracket, bracket, bracket, bracket (yes, 4
exposures per shot).  If you're concerned with cost like Dr. T., film
isn't free either.  If the meter reduces your film wastage (and poorly-
exposed shots are wastage in my book) isn't this a plus?

>However,alot of us use Realists and alike,

I've been known to use one now and then myself...

>and the use of a hand-held meter requires alittle more knowledge >than
"program" metering.

I disagree with this strongly.  First, in-camera meters are subject
to the same "problems" as hand-held meters; they too can be
fooled by the subject matter.  Usually, features such as "exposure
compensation" are added to the camera to help automate the process of correcting
for e.g. backlit subjects, etc., but the same
issues apply to both kinds of meters.  The main difference is that
with through-the-lens metering, the camera's meter has a better idea of the
subject than a hand-held meter, which may be metering much more of the scene
than you will actually be taking.  Knowlege of your camera is as essential as
knowlege of your hand-held meter.

The second reason I disagree is that handheld meters are NOT hard to use at all,
and their proper use requires less thought than sunny16 does.  The difference is
that the meter will still be of use to you in conditions where sunny16 must be
thrown out the window (for example, how does sunny16 apply to Christmas
lights?!).

>To use basic guidelines (as expressed by those of us who have
>spent the time to experiment and develop good results) is valuable >to those
who may use a meter and interpret the readings in so many >various ways and NOT
achieve desired results everytime.

Excuse me?  You aim the meter at the subject scene, you press the button to take
a reading.  Assuming you've set the film speed properly, you get back a shutter
speed/aperture combination.  Depending on the meter, you can usually then select
desired aperture and read the corresponding shutter speed.  What's to "interpret
in so many various ways"?  Sounds like grandstanding to me...

>Can we always walk 200 yards to the actual scene and meter it and >then walk
back to take the desired shot?

This is not necessary unless all you have is an incident light meter.
On the other hand, an incident meter will usually give better results,
because an incident meter reading is independent of the subject, if it is
convenient to do this.  BTW since we ARE talking stereo photography here, your
200-yards-away subject better be pretty big or it won't have very much depth.
Many common stereo scenes could easily be incident-metered.

>Can the person meter the scene from a dark vantage point
>and see the meter?

Some meters have LED displays that can be read in total darkness.
LCD screens might be harder to read under extremely low-light situations, but
what would you be photographing in total darkness, Mark?  You'd be using flash
and metering would be pretty much moot.

>What part of the scene should we recommend they meter?

I can't speak for all meters, but the reflected light head of the Minolta IV-F
meter has about a 40 degree field of view.  Given a typical stereo camera lens,
this is in fact a pretty good match if you aim the meter right at the center of
the scene.  I've adopted a practice of tilting the meter slightly off the center
while holding down the reading button, to see if the reading varies widely; if
it does, that indicates a contrasty scene and I might actually use an average
between the two extremes, or I might use one of the extremes, depending on scene
and subject.


>( Sure every scene is different right?) Is the meter reading going to
>obtain the BEST result for that persons expectations?

An accurate meter, used properly, will correctly expose most scenes most of the
time.  The exceptions will be difficult for "rules of thumb" to deal with, as
well.  The meter will likely get you closer though.

>I always use a meter as a reference only, and allow my
>experiences to use that info to determine the shot I want

Of course, and I've never said otherwise.  My main objection to the "rules of
thumb" is that they are completely subjective.  Can you be sure that the
conditions described in the rule match the conditions under which you're
shooting?  The meter gives you an *objective* reading of the actual shooting
conditions.  Can it be used incorrectly?  Of course, just like the rule-of-thumb
can be.  Should you only expose at *exactly* what the meter says, and no other?
NO!  Use your judgment, which will improve with use and results.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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