abc1234 wrote:
rpavich, I had only about forty years of manual metering experience and I do not miss it a bit.
I mentioned that because instead of saying what you just said, you said:
Quote:
I have read a lot about meters and except for some studio work, I believe they are useless with the dslr's and a nostalgic anachronism.
End quote.
And considering your comments I couldn't believe you'd had experience with them...that's all. I stand corrected on your experience, no insult intended.
abc1234 wrote:
Missed more shots because of fiddling with meters or got more off exposures because of them.
I guess that's where we differ...I have not.
abc1234 wrote:
Had a Luna Pro that read incident and reflective and also had a flash meter. I stand by what I wrote. I get better results in toto from digital than I did from film and with a lot less effort. I can concentrate more on the art than the science and I like that.
that's fine that you get better results...others (like me) do not. But the reason I responded was your blanket poo-pooing of hand held meters. That's a LOT different than a personal preference.
abc1234 wrote:
I will agree with you about all the wrong exposures posted here and the conflicting advice. However, I will submit that the problem is that the photographer has no idea of what a properly exposed photo looks like or how to get it. It is a matter of education, not equipment. That was certainly an advantage to traditional photography: you learned the basics.
And precisely why a meter is so valuable....you learn correctly and not from others "close enough" mistakes.
abc1234 wrote:
With a hand-held meter, you always have the problem of what to meter and incident versus reflective.
I don't. I dont' see your problem.
abc1234 wrote:
Secondly, if you are shooting sports or events, do you really have time to meter each shot and why do you think that the exposure stays the same from shot to shot?
No...and I don't intend to....but that all depends on the circumstances doesn't it?
Not only that, the CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD isn't a sporting event under uneven lighting...it's in a chapel with even lighting.
I dont' think that your comment here is relevant.
abc1234 wrote:
Bottom line: the camera does not care whether you set the exposure with the built-in meter or the hand-held one. When used properly, both give the same result. The rub is how do you know what is proper? Look at the photo, look at the histogram. And then use the method appropriate for the job.
Right..and if a person has 40 years of experience, they can get away with that...the OP doesn't...which is why I suggested what I did.
abc1234 wrote:
You and I usually agree on matters but in this case, we will agree to disagree.
We certainly do. :)