[rollei_list] Re: F16 Rule was Re: New Pics Posted....Rolleiflex and Zeiss Ikon images..
- From: "Marvin Wallace" <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:43:35 +0800
That's an interesting point James. I meter very quickly with a spot meter as
reading the scene has becomes second nature. It is then just a matter of a
mental calculation and transferring the reading to the camera. If I am in my
full shooting mode, I have the camera pre prepared with required exposure,
primed to take the photo as it appears. I like people and I like getting in
there faces, so one need to be ready with the exposure.
I suppose that I am predisposed to a particular type of photography and
accordingly have developed a style to suit.
I think western Meters were good and were the meters that most serious
photographers began with, as skills and resources increased, every serious
photographer I knew upgraded to Minolta Spot, Sekonic Spot, Gossen Lunar
e.t.c
In short Western Meters are Ok but I think the following analogy is fairly
accurate when used in conjunction with a Rollei/Western combo, its like
having a Rolls Royce and putting a 1970 Nissan Engine in it. It will do the
job well and reliably, but you have to work quite a lot harder to achieve
the same as you would with the best that is available.
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Davis
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:56 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: F16 Rule was Re: New Pics Posted....Rolleiflex
and Zeiss Ikon images..
redleica wrote:
> I can understand that western meters read inaccuratly as they are not very
accurate with a wide acceptance angle.
> One can eliminate all the guess work in metering by getting one resonably
accurate spot meter and calibrating from its readings.
> I conclude that good enough is not good enough for metering and then using
aRollei, surely this defeats the object of using this fine instument.
I have a Weston Master II meter and never had any real problems with it,
usually got exposures as good as I think I can get. The process does
involve waving the meter around a fair bit, looking and *thinking* about
the light falling on the subject and taking that into account when
looking at the reading but the numbers have successfully been translated
onto my Rolleiflex without any correction factor.
I have calibrated my meter, checking it against two others which wasn't
a particularly difficult process. Recently I've bought a Sekonic meter
as I wanted incident and spot metering functions. It's certainly better
in scenes of high contrast or where the light is below 1.6 lumen where
it was difficult to accurately read the scale on the Master II.
Just my 2p.
James
--
http://www.freecharity.org.uk/ - Free hosting for charities
http://jamesd.ukgeeks.co.uk/
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
__________ NOD32 1.1389 (20060131) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
