Re: [Leica] metereless

["\(SonC\) Sonny Carter" <sonc@sonc.com>]

Here we go to the black cat thread!   All the people who do not own black
cats are experts in BC photography.

http://www.sonc.com/paw/belinna.htm

SonC


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] metereless


> Let me give this a try - as a very non-technical guy -
> What the incident reading will give you is a very accurate 18% gray
> reading of an entire scene. That is, your negative's tonality will
> accurately reflect the overall scene, and the contrasts between the
> objects within the scene. If you take a reflected reading of the scene,
> or even of a given object/person in the scene, the reading will be
> skewed by the reflectance of the scene overall, or the object being
> metered, and the negative of the entire scene will be thrown off.
>
> So, yes, you're correct to a point - If you are taking an incident
> reading of the light falling on a room in which you are photographing a
> black cat, you may want to adjust a bit for the lack of reflectance of
> the black cat. On the other hand, the incident reading will give you a
> picture that shows you how black the cat looked in the given light.
>
> Does any of that make sense?
>
> B. D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Moore
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 11:47 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] metereless
>
>
> > Don't think so, you're measuring the light that's falling onto an
> > object, not the light reflected from it.
>
> That's exactly why I'm thinking the measurement still needs some
> compensation -- you're measuring the light falling onto it.  However,
> you're *not* measure the light that's reflected -- and after you take
> the incident reading, the film (or sensor :) onto which you're recording
> is in reflected light, not incident light.  The incident reading will
> certainly be more accurate but might still need a tweak or two.
>
> Maybe not, but it just seems logical to me.  Can anyone else comment on
> this?
>
> --Andrew
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html