Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]sometime around 12/22/99 3:35 AM, Frank Dernie at FrankDernie@compuserve.com was heard to write: > 1) incident measurement measures the light impinged on the subject. > Knowledge of the actual reflectance is not necessary to get a correct > exposure. First of all, this is an incorrect assumption. > one wishes typically if the scene contrast exceeds that of the film in use. Not in any accurate way without knowing how much light a surface is relecting. Not if you want an accurate exposure for the given sujbect. Incident meters give you a generic good exposure, ignoring the reflectance of the subject. > 2) Basic physical laws mean that an incident meter will give a correct > exposure Again, this is pure speculation. How can phsical law prove what you have in mind for the resulting photograph? It cannot be accounted for. > in principle not, unless either the experience of the photographer, or the > accuracy of the matrix metering algoritm intervenes. Matrix is irrelevant to this topic. But experience is required, yes. The question of accuracy, for average situations of average lighting, with an average range of tones, yes, an incident meter will do a good job. But for difficult light, in difficult sitautions a reflected meter matched with experience will always out-do an incident meter. - -- Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.neteze.com/ewelch Cynicism often masquerades for sophistication in our society, but more often than not it's merely an indicator of resentment.