While I've never done it, I can see that multi-spot + hilite could be
useful. Say in a situation where you want a hi-key interpretation of a
relatively neutral subject with a few evs of contrast. BUT I agree it
may be confusing, especially when learning.
George
ClassicVW@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/17/99 2:06:41 AM EST, jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << I think for most multi-spot usage you're right . . .
> < snip >
> Then I realized it gives a different path to fine-tune exposure under
> certain circumstances. There have been times I've wanted all the deep
> shadow detail and didn't care about the highlights; other times I've
> wanted the reverse . . . and had to hunt around for which spot has the
> deepest shadow (or highest highlight). >>
>
> I would say anyone is asking for trouble by doing multi-spots and
> then using HILITE or SHADOW to tweak the exposure. I think you're liable
> to get unpredictable results, and I think it's an unnecessarily confusing
> path to take to get the desired exposure. If you're saying that it's
> not easy to master the multi- spot feature, I would say I agree with that,
> only to the point where you learn it and practice it enough, then suddenly
> there's a point where it becomes "easy" or familiar to you. My opinion
> is that it's MORE difficult to learn after what multi spot reading you
> should use the HILITE/SHADOW than it is to properly learn the multi-spot
> feature itself. It seems one would be adding a further confusing step to
> the mix which is redundant, to learning proper multi spot technique. After
> all, look at each multi spot reading as a form of exposure compensation in
> itself, why add another level of compensation?
>
> George S.
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|