(Embedded
image moved Joel Wilcox <jowilcox @ blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
to file: 04/08/98 02:29
PIC26386.PCX)
Please respond to olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: olympus @ Zuiko.sls.bc.ca
cc: (bcc: Richard Dale/FIGROUP)
Subject: Re: [OM] Spot Meter reading vs OTF; Ease of 4T
Joel wrote:
>You can assess all the zones in a picture, then decide to go for 18 0rey
>(if there is one), or half way between the brightest and darkest areas
>(which is probably near 18 0rey), or emphasise a particular area.
>
>This is where I lose you. 1) If there is an 18 0ray, does the camera
>"know" this apart from the photographer deciding that's how s/he will
place
>it? 2) When you "assess all the zones in a picture," what are you
actually
>doing? My impression from people's description is that all these various
>readings are averaged. Would this be why Giles and Ed say they would take
>several readings from the skin and one from some other part of the scene
in
>order to emphasize the skin in the final average?
*******
Yes I mean that the photographer has to decide what is 18 0rey by
experience (eg grass, tarmac depending on reflections) or by using a card.
To assess all the zones in a picture I mean taking spot readings of each
zone. While taking
multi-spot readings the camera does automatically average them. The
readings display will
give you the range of exposure values in the scene, each spot reading and
the average are displayed on the viewfinder LED.
You can use the multi-spot readings to emphasise one particular exposure
level, as described above.
The aperture can be changed in (multi)spot mode whilst maintaining the
correct exposure (the camera changes the shutter speed).
The OM4Ti brochure, if you can get hold of it, does describe multi-spot
metering quite well (better than this!).
NB I recommend that if you decide to buy an OM4 you get a Ti, there is no
problem with battery drain (I find with Panasonic they last for ages).
********
>Richard, don't read my puzzlement as diminished appreciation of your
>careful explanation.
********
Thanks! Still the best way is to borrow one and have a play yourself, its
easier than trying to describe in words. Its like a manual for a VCR, seems
more complicated than it is until someone demonstrates it.
>I was looking at a Pop Photography from 1990 and saw a Maxxum ad that
>infuriated me. It showed a model reclined on the beach, backlit. The
>"before" photo showed the model a bit too much in the shadows with the
>background perfectly exposed. The "after" shot showed the model's skin
>lighter and much more natural, but the background was the same exposure as
>in the "before" picture! I'd love a meter than could do that! I could
>throw my split filter and fill flash away.
***********
If you do expose for a back lit subject (eg on the face), the background
may be overexposed, fill-in flash is the only answer if you wish to avoid
that (theory only never used it myself though).
Hope this helps
Richard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
? F.I.GROUP PLC
PIC26386.PCX
Description: Binary data
|