Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Summicron1 wrote: > > Metering: By now it's certainly clear to me that there is no ultimate method > of metering, as if I didn't already know that. I sent that list of gag methods > of taking pics (ie--pros shoot lots of polaroids and bracket like hell) to my > brother the commercial photographer with more light meters and hassy lenses > than you can shake a stick at and he said that was absolutely accurate. The > ONLY way to get exact, precise, totally controlled exposures is to be anal > retentive about exposures to an impossible degree that only a $1,000 a day fee > can justify. He shoots 8 by 10 transperencies for some medical company and was > showing how he'd had to nudge the contrast up just a tad on one medical > instrument he had photographed while not changing the others in the same frame > -- a lot of work and he STILL ends up fixing things on the computer. Absolutely. Also, if a product photo doesn't have a lot of "concept" going for it, the only thing left is technical perfection. In some ways, the hardest photos I ever have done are the widget on white. Hours, sometimes, and then it looks perfectly boring, but perfect. And all the polaroid, lightmetering systems in the world can only help you predict a certain amount. If I was to do again enormous amounts of product work, I would buy into Sinar's (or Gossen's for Linhof) in the film plane metering system. My limited experience with Minolta's ground glass attachment convinced me of the method's efficacy for very accurate exposure predictions. We're talking anal, here, but the kind you need for catalogue work. Which is going more and more to the digital shooters anyway now who simply look at the screen and adjust--no predictions necessary. donal - -- Donal Philby San Diego http://www.donalphilby.com