On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:36:24 GMT, secheese wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:24:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy"
wrote:

I think that you should point an incidental meter toward the primary
light source (not the camera), while holding it at the location of the
subject.


Nope, nada - to use an incident meter you hold it in front of the subject
and point it directly at the camera lens as the previous poster stated.


I was always told the light meter's dome should be directly lit by the
same source that's lighting the subject. Been doing it this way for
25 years... hasn't failed me yet.

IUt seems as if you are arguing the same point.


However, if you want to get anal about it grin, two readings should
be taken. One pointing at the light source, the other pointing at the
camera. The correct exposure would be halfway between these two
results. Still... I maintain that pointing at the light source is
good enough.

Ummm… If that is anal then I am too, as are legions of other pro
photographers ;o). When shooting commercial product, catalogue or
brochure, it is generally accepted to meter all sources of light
individually (directionally no less, no dome necessary and avoided at
all costs whenever stray light can cause a misreading. Not even
mentioning color metering here.) The meter is held as close to the
surface of the object (or model) and aimed directly at the light
source when each is measured. This often amounts to many more than
only two readings and neither is a reading of the camera itself
(unless mixing on camera flash into the equation). Only when averaging
more than one source does the meter rest upon the object pointed
directly at the camera lens. If only using one source this usually is
an insignificant (if not worthless) reading. How would one determine
the lighting of the dark side of any 3 dimensional object when using
that method?