Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Adam, the 'problem' with this image came from using the internal metering with an M6. Clearly the lens sucks in light from all over the place and its very difficult to get an accurate reading from a balanced part of the scene. I don't have an incident meter (should get one I think) so these days I either go by dead reckoning, or put on a 50 or 90 and meter with that. I've even carried a second body with a 50 Summicron just to do metering for my 21. In particular, I think too much light came in from the driveway, leading to the underexposure. But, this is one image that still has appeal despite the mistake (IMO). One day I'll go back and get a properly exposed image. Rick. On 03/03/2006, at 1:32 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: > Rick, can you talk about this difficulty? How did you meter and how do > you think you should have? I've never used a really wide lens on my M > - I have the 35,50,90. Do you use the internal meter or do you use > incident metering? > > Thanks > > Adam > > > On 3/2/06, Rick Dykstra <rdcb37@dodo.com.au> wrote: >> http://members.dodo.com.au/rdcb37/spooky_church.jpg >> >> This image reveals how tricky it can be metering with the 21/2.8 >> Asph. Still, the underexposure kind of works. The slide looks >> darker and moodier than this scan. >> >> This church has a remote and stark look about it. It was relocated >> when the town of Adaminaby was flooded during construction of the >> Snowy Mountains hydro scheme. >> >> Rick. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information