I have no intention of getting drawn into a long, pedantic argument.
Your points about incident metering being inconvenient in some situations is a
good one -- indeed, it is a point I thought I made quite well.
What is "best" is obviously self-referential, since none of us ire in the same
situation from which to make judgements. I stand by my argument that, if it is
convenient, incident metering will give the most accurate results, while
conceding that if it is inconvenient, other forms of metering may perform quite
nicely.
As for the rest of your long posting, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
>From: Tris Schuler <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> >From: Tris Schuler <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> >Actually, _all_ meter readings need to be interpreted, no matter where you
>> >stand and what light you measure. Neither approach (incident or spot) is
>> >full-proof or necessarily "better" then the other...
>>
>>I have to mildly disagree here. I would say that the most accurate
>>exposure is always with incident metering.
[clip]
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
: HTML email goes right in the trash! Turn off HTML if you want to email me.
< 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 >
|