Whoa, if incident metering is the better one, and you could do it with a
gray card in pocket, then the multispot metering of the om 4 series is not
much of a necessity for most enthusiasts like us?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Pearce" <bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: [OM] 135 lenses, incident meters
> > Can anyone tell me if the Zuiko 135/2.8 has a bad reputation?
> For every lens, there will be some who deride them, and several
enthusiastic
> supporters. In the case of the 135, it is fashion, mainly. When I was
first
> interested in photography, in college, the 135 was the second lens you
> bought. (the first was either a 50, or, in the case of the adventuresome,
> the 35) there were a lot of them, and they were cheap. I think there were
> even some three element barely coated ones. As word got out to the
provinces
> about the Nikkor 105, things began to change. After all, if (insert name
of
> big time photographer) uses a 105, why shouldn't I? Hence, the 135 became
> unfashionable. The day then arrived when we all got the 24-50-100/105
> outfit.
>
> I got a 135/2.8 about 8 years ago. Haven't used the 100 since. It fits
with
> the 85 nicely.
>
> Now, to metering.
> > I have to mildly disagree here. I would say that the most accurate
> exposure is always with incident metering.
> > Don't you interpret incident readings based on reflectivity of the
> subject/scene?
> > (1) Nothing, absolutely nothing, beats incident readings for
> > determining correct exposure, particularly when shooting color,
> > and most particularly when shooting transparencies.
> >
> > If you take the incident reading at the point the light falls on the
> subject or a similar point, you shouldn't have to do any adjustment. The
> reflected light from that subject will determine its tonality, regardless
of
> its lightness or darkness.
> >
> > I'm with Jan on this one. I use incident metering 20:1 outside of my
> camera vs. reflected metering. Spot metering is pretty >much overkill for
> most subjects unless you can't get close to the subject or you need to
> contract/expand tones on a >particularly flat or high-dynamic-range
subject
> scene.
>
> I agree with all of the above by all of the above. The incident meter
> measures the light falling on the subject. Since your reading is not based
> on the reflectance of the subject, you need make no adjustments for
> highlight and shadow, it happens "automatically." The highlight and
shadow
> readings with reflected meters, like the OM4, are to compensate for the
> failing of the meter in the situation (it is assumed that the in camera
> meter user is not using the meter for zone like meterings.) That's why
> cinematographers use incident meters, where they need every roll exposed
the
> same, for matching from scene to scene.
>
> > Let's say I'm taking a picture of a very dark subject (e.g. the side of
a
> black camera lens) to sell on eBay. If an exposure of >it yields very dark
> tones, then the buyer cannot see detail on the lens body. So instead I
want
> the object to appear in tones >of gray. Based on an incident flash reading
> at the subject, I would probably need to open up a stop or two from that.
>
> Here, you're right. In this situation, you are not trying to accurately
> record the subject. You are trying to change its appearance to highlight
> something. In this case, you would probably meter with the OM4's spotmeter
> conventionally, but not use the shadow compensation.
>
> Or, of course, you could let it go black, and look more minty.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|