digital camera as exposure meter

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Separate light meters haven't been all that popular for
nearly half a century now...

Q: What do you call a DSLR when it is used as a light meter for a medium
format camera?

A: A Separate Light Meter.

See how that works?

What works, trimming enough context that a single
phrase, out of context, appears to mean something it
doesn't when in context?

Out of an article with 130 lines of text, the only
thing you can even attempt to dispute is two lines,
a fragment of a sentence, that was never meant to
say what you dispute...

Looks like you don't have much of a leg to stand on
there, once someone does show you how that works.
What I notice though is that by yourself you never
do seem to "get" these things to begin with...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Separate light meters haven't been all that popular for
nearly half a century now...

Q: What do you call a DSLR when it is used as a light meter for a medium
format camera?

A: A Separate Light Meter.

See how that works?

We've wasted too much time with this prat already.

On Aug 15, 8:59 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Separate light meters haven't been all that popular for
nearly half a century now...

Q: What do you call a DSLR when it is used as a light meter for a medium
format camera?

A: A Separate Light Meter.

See how that works?

We've wasted too much time with this prat already.

Amen

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:


Harry Nyquist: 1924, "Certain Factors Affecting Telegraph Speed"

Ralph Hartley: 1928, "Transmission of Information"

Alan Turing: 1940, used similar ideas as part of the statistical
analysis of the breaking of the German second world war Enigma ciphers

None of them *ever* used the term "Information Theory".

"The map is not the territory."

The term is not the field.

If you weren't the one who took the eagle photos, I haven't seen any
good photos of the Arctic from you, compared to these:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...18236&hl=whale

And those were taken with a medium format film camera, not that digital
medium format cameras couldn't have done something equally as good, but
what makes a photograph memorable goes well beyond "information theory"
or the engineering used to make the camera. Getting the exposure and
focus as you want it requires thinking about the final effect, not just
putting the maximum pixels on the recording media, whatever that is.
And some of what makes art work for humans hasn't changed since the
Paleolithic when people used wax and mineral pigments to lay information
down.

Whoever took the photos of the eagles eating the young seal is a decent
photographer.

Rebecca Ore wrote:

Whoever took the photos of the eagles eating the young seal is a decent
photographer.

What photos of the eagles eating the young seal?

I realise this is a long thread already and please take account
that I don't follow it. My advise is a Kodak V570 that I have
and like very much. Yes, it is a compact!

looking for a digital camera to use as an exposure meter and histogram
display for my film camera.

Lets see it side by side!
Kodak v570 preferred features:
yes - small size
try a used one - low price
yes - accurate histogram
64 - 800 - iso range 100-1600
!23! and 40-120 - zoom range 24-200 (35mm equiv)
no and no - manual aperture & shutter speed
yes - ease of use to look at histograms

Beside histogram you can correct/change the exposure metering
easily, that is great in back lighting (and we all do allways
such pictures). And even more, you can take the photo with
V570 not only meter.

You can see some of my photos (sorry not mmf but 24x36 and digital)
http://atot.fotki.com

Regards,
Toth Andras

In article ,
Richard Polhill wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

Whoever took the photos of the eagles eating the young seal is a decent
photographer.

What photos of the eagles eating the young seal?

Someone posted a link to his photographs a couple of months ago in the
digital group.

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:



Harry Nyquist: 1924, "Certain Factors Affecting Telegraph Speed"

Ralph Hartley: 1928, "Transmission of Information"

Alan Turing: 1940, used similar ideas as part of the statistical
analysis of the breaking of the German second world war Enigma ciphers

None of them *ever* used the term "Information Theory".

Claude E. Shannon: 1944, Introduced the qualitative and quantitative
model of communication as a statistical process underlying information
theory.

Close, but that isn't it either!

And, finally:
Claude E. Shannon: 1948, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication"

Bingo. Now everyone can study "Information Theory".

See how easy it all is?

So you don't know the difference between researching
telegraph speed or transmission systems and developing
*Information Theory*.

A simple google search '"information theory" shannon'
would have explained an awful lot, if only you had
tried.

Even wikipedia gets it right! You probably should start
with this URL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Amazing. It must be really cold in Alaska to freeze your brain _and_
your nuts off. Before screaming and throwing a tantrum perhaps _you_
should read that wikipedia article -- that's where all the references I
quoted came from.

But I'm sure you would then easily find a way to weasel, change the
subject, call me names, stomp your little foot and go crying to mama
rather than admit you are a blowhard who appears to know nothing but
relishes telling everyone exactly how to use photographic equipment.
Tell me, little tantrum-boy, have you ever _seen_ a medium format
camera? Touched one? Used one? Didn't think so. Too busy wanking to
information "Theory" and whining that all of usenet is against you.


Separate light meters haven't been all that popular for
nearly half a century now...


Yup, that is the _complete_ context for that quote, the context you
whined and whined about when someone made a bull**** call on you. Such a
delicate little hothouse flower, you really expect people _not_ to
selectively quote you when all you do is vomit all you "learned" in
Wanking 101 last week all over the screen?

So, why is it that Hasselblad has been making cameras for sixty years
without meters? Have all Hasselblad users the magical ability to read
light and get good exposure without a meter at all? Yes, some models now
have meters and electronically controlled shutters. However their
primary offerings, the 500 series and the SWC series have never been
made with a meter. Since it is a modular system (which you would know if
you had ever seen one) you can add meter prisms to the 500 series. But
the SWC has been made from the beginning with no meter.

Besides, you can't stick it in your back pocket when yer not using it.

Same could be said of many things, including your
cameras; but then the irrational bit doesn't seem to
bother you.

Once again, should you have ever seen, held, or used a medium format
camera you'd know -- I'll let you in on a little secret here, even
though I know all you are going to do is pathetically try to rip me a
new one -- that with _both hands_ needed for the camera the back pocket
is a great place to temporarily hold your light meter. Oh I forgot -- no
one has used a hand held light meter since the dawn of "Disinformation
Theory".

I wonder why Gossen, Minolta, and Pentax made hand-held meters for all
those years -- oh look, Gossen and Minolta still do. I'm sure you will
be notifying their shareholders of this colossal waste of money.

Tell you what, digital-boy, why don't you stop spamming us in
rec.photo.medium-format with your lame whining about the absolute
superiority of digital cameras. For the last time, if you had ever even
heard the name Hasselblad before you might know that there has been a
selection of digital backs available for all Hasselblads for quite a
long time. We have "both-and"; you have "either-or", hence the tone of
your "arguments".

I await your feeble, closed-minded, ignorant, hate-filled,
foot-stamping, whiny little response.

--Nicco

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Separate light meters haven't been all that popular for
nearly half a century now...

Q: What do you call a DSLR when it is used as a light meter for a
medium format camera?

A: A Separate Light Meter.

See how that works?

What works, trimming enough context that a single
phrase, out of context, appears to mean something it
doesn't when in context?

Out of an article with 130 lines of text, the only
thing you can even attempt to dispute is two lines,
a fragment of a sentence, that was never meant to
say what you dispute...

Out of an article of 130 lines of text, it was the most glaring, faulty
assertion.


Looks like you don't have much of a leg to stand on
there, once someone does show you how that works.
What I notice though is that by yourself you never
do seem to "get" these things to begin with...

What 'things'? That one camera can be used as a light meter for another?
Imagine our Surprise!

Next!