Toss your meters, fools!

joe mama wrote:
Dateline, 7-6-06

Meters are useless

any photographer that shoots more than one roll of film a month (natural
light, not flash), or thirty digital "images" and still requires a meter to
gauge exposure values is not only a hack, but lazy.

i am sick of seeing article upon article...book upon book, based on the
simplest of rules.

for all of the modern conventions attributed to photography, and all of the
gadgets that can make images easier than ever, there is still no match for
knowing one's equipment, being adept at seeing full frame (whatever that
frame size is), knowing the light quality and being able to transcend that
vision to medium.

forget zones, compensation ev's, et al, just look at a perceived image, and
MAKE it. sunny 16 has worked since the dawn of photography. no new-fangled
means of trapping light have ever fooled it. in fact, it can't be fooled. it
is almost as constant as the light we surreptitiously chase!

it has never failed me, and i won't begin to tell you how many images have
been wasted by frittering with meters!

g'night,
dm

Joe Mama is obviously a troll. You guys fell for it.

Chris wrote:

Joe Mama is obviously a troll. You guys fell for it.

Fell for it? We just spent some time responding to what looked like a
regular post - ended up being a post by an ass - big deal.

"Jimbo" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:

Joe Mama is obviously a troll. You guys fell for it.

Fell for it? We just spent some time responding to what looked like a
regular post - ended up being a post by an ass - big deal.

Yeah.....Troll, schmoll....Ended up being an interesting question.....Of
course, we could always go back to arguing about which is better....Film, or
digital.......:^)

"Chris" wrote in message
ups.com...
joe mama wrote:
Dateline, 7-6-06

Meters are useless

any photographer that shoots more than one roll of film a month (natural
light, not flash), or thirty digital "images" and still requires a meter
to
gauge exposure values is not only a hack, but lazy.

i am sick of seeing article upon article...book upon book, based on the
simplest of rules.

for all of the modern conventions attributed to photography, and all of
the
gadgets that can make images easier than ever, there is still no match
for
knowing one's equipment, being adept at seeing full frame (whatever that
frame size is), knowing the light quality and being able to transcend
that
vision to medium.

forget zones, compensation ev's, et al, just look at a perceived image,
and
MAKE it. sunny 16 has worked since the dawn of photography. no
new-fangled
means of trapping light have ever fooled it. in fact, it can't be fooled.
it
is almost as constant as the light we surreptitiously chase!

it has never failed me, and i won't begin to tell you how many images
have
been wasted by frittering with meters!

g'night,
dm

Joe Mama is obviously a troll. You guys fell for it.

Whatever happened to Polaroid as exposure preview? Had it's day?

rm wrote:

Whatever happened to Polaroid as exposure preview? Had it's day?

It lost out to the LCD. Just one more advantage of digital.

I wish I'd had that advantage the first day I had my Fabulous EOS-1V
35mm.
I had just got the thing the day before the Tour Championship golf
tournament in Atlanta.
I played with all the buttons on the thing trying to figure out all the
settings.
At one point as I was shooting Tiger Woods I saw a little blinking dot
in the display which was all the way to the left of a scale. I made a
mental note to research that when I got home and paid no further notice
to it. I got to East Lake just in time to see Tiger and Sergio tee
off. I snapped a great pic of them on the tee and couldn't wait to see
the results. "Maybe I'll stop and buy some frames on the way home," I
thought.

On the next tee I figured I'd try the Fabulous EOS-1V's motor drive.
As Tiger started his backswing I mashed on the shutter button and it
sounded like machine gun fire until Tiger abruptly stopped his swing
about halfway down. I zoomed in on his face hoping that he'd give me
the famous Tiger "Go To Hell" look, but he just turned away muttering
something about sunny beaches.

Needless to say, on the next tee I chose the silent video cammy
instead.

I drove like a madman up I-75 that evening dropping off my 3 rolls of
film at the Wolf Camera there at the mall. Got there just over an hour
before they closed so I knew I could come back in 1 hour and get my
pics. When I returned, the sales guy had a grim look on his face.
"Those three rolls must've been blank." he said as he unfurled one of
the negative rolls for me which looked to be all dark. "I kinda doubt
that!" I shot back. "I have the Fabulous EOS-1V and it automatically
loads the film." (I'll bet by now you know where this is heading.)
Looking at the filmstrip it was obvious what had happened. I had
managed to slide the Exposure Compensation control all the way over to
"-3." Three full stops underexposed! Too bad I didn't know in advance
or they could've compensated in the processing.
Oh well, their prices on frames were much too high anyway.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:51:59 +1000, "rm" rm@hotmailDOTcom wrote:


"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
joe mama wrote:
Dateline, 7-6-06

Meters are useless

any photographer that shoots more than one roll of film a month (natural
light, not flash), or thirty digital "images" and still requires a meter
to
gauge exposure values is not only a hack, but lazy.

i am sick of seeing article upon article...book upon book, based on the
simplest of rules.

for all of the modern conventions attributed to photography, and all of
the
gadgets that can make images easier than ever, there is still no match
for
knowing one's equipment, being adept at seeing full frame (whatever that
frame size is), knowing the light quality and being able to transcend
that
vision to medium.

forget zones, compensation ev's, et al, just look at a perceived image,
and
MAKE it. sunny 16 has worked since the dawn of photography. no
new-fangled
means of trapping light have ever fooled it. in fact, it can't be fooled.
it
is almost as constant as the light we surreptitiously chase!

it has never failed me, and i won't begin to tell you how many images
have
been wasted by frittering with meters!

g'night,
dm

Joe Mama is obviously a troll. You guys fell for it.

Whatever happened to Polaroid as exposure preview? Had it's day?


Is it still needed?
With digital, you can see how the lighting is right away, which is
what the Polaroid was for.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:51:59 +1000, "rm" rm@hotmailDOTcom wrote:


"Chris" wrote in message
roups.com...
joe mama wrote:
Dateline, 7-6-06

Meters are useless

any photographer that shoots more than one roll of film a month
(natural
light, not flash), or thirty digital "images" and still requires a
meter
to
gauge exposure values is not only a hack, but lazy.

i am sick of seeing article upon article...book upon book, based on the
simplest of rules.

for all of the modern conventions attributed to photography, and all of
the
gadgets that can make images easier than ever, there is still no match
for
knowing one's equipment, being adept at seeing full frame (whatever
that
frame size is), knowing the light quality and being able to transcend
that
vision to medium.

forget zones, compensation ev's, et al, just look at a perceived image,
and
MAKE it. sunny 16 has worked since the dawn of photography. no
new-fangled
means of trapping light have ever fooled it. in fact, it can't be
fooled.
it
is almost as constant as the light we surreptitiously chase!

it has never failed me, and i won't begin to tell you how many images
have
been wasted by frittering with meters!

g'night,
dm

Joe Mama is obviously a troll. You guys fell for it.

Whatever happened to Polaroid as exposure preview? Had it's day?


Is it still needed?
With digital, you can see how the lighting is right away, which is
what the Polaroid was for.

Yes. That's what I've been doing lately over and against a hand held meter.

Someone said:

sunny 16 has worked since the dawn of photography. no
new-fangled
means of trapping light have ever fooled it. in fact, it can't be
fooled.
it
is almost as constant as the light we surreptitiously chase!

Unfortunately, that light is getting dimmer and dimmer...The solid
particulates in the upper atmosphere are blocking more and more of the sun's
light every year....Pretty soon, it will be a "sunny 8" rule, instead of a
"sunny 16 rule"....I'm surprised that that isn't the case now......

"William Graham" wrote:
Someone said:

sunny 16 has worked since the dawn of photography. no
new-fangled
means of trapping light have ever fooled it. in fact, it can't be
fooled.
it
is almost as constant as the light we surreptitiously chase!

Unfortunately, that light is getting dimmer and dimmer...The solid
particulates in the upper atmosphere are blocking more and more of the
sun's light every year....Pretty soon, it will be a "sunny 8" rule,
instead of a "sunny 16 rule"....I'm surprised that that isn't the case
now......

When I meter carefully, I usually get somewhere between Sunny 11 and Sunny
8...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:32:43 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"William Graham" wrote:
Someone said:

sunny 16 has worked since the dawn of photography. no
new-fangled
means of trapping light have ever fooled it. in fact, it can't be
fooled.
it
is almost as constant as the light we surreptitiously chase!

Unfortunately, that light is getting dimmer and dimmer...The solid
particulates in the upper atmosphere are blocking more and more of the
sun's light every year....Pretty soon, it will be a "sunny 8" rule,
instead of a "sunny 16 rule"....I'm surprised that that isn't the case
now......

When I meter carefully, I usually get somewhere between Sunny 11 and Sunny
8...

Sunny? What's that? :-(


--
John Bean