Jeffery, you're missing the point of the spot meter. IMHO spot meter was never intended to be used in auto mode (at least not without exposure lock and exposure compensation).
The spot meter is there specifically so you can /know/ your highlights will not be blown. See this blog post: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/do-not-fear-the-sun.html ~nick On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Jeffery Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I was never one to bracket when shooting film, and most of my wasted images > were due to dull subject matter and poor choice of subject/angle/telephone > pole projecting from the subject's head, not exposure. My biggest hurdle with > digital is what seems to be a lack of exposure latitude that I can only > attribute to the automation of the camera making some bad choices. That said, > spray and pray is becoming more of a norm for me. After all, when my high > capacity memory card keeps telling me that I have 999 exposures left, then > what the hell. But I wish that this were not the case. If the digital camera > would give me a sweet spot ISO from which I had some confidence that exposure > over the entire frame could be salvaged no matter what the camera chose for > me, I could spend a lot more time composing and moving around, thinking more > about the subject. > > For now, I have decided never to use spot metering on a dSLR. The area being > spot measured looks great, but that doesn't mean I can salvage the blown > highlights. > > Jeffery > > > On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> For the past couple of days, I seem to keep encountering references to >> "stochastic" photography -- or "spray and pray" if you will, and it's piqued >> my interest. It's not that I'm considering actively pursuing the practice >> so much as I wonder how much my current style (method?) could actually be >> considered stochastic. Having never worked in the vicinity of another >> photographer before, my days out shooting with Ted Beilby were, as I said, >> educational. We took nearly diametrically opposed approaches. >> >> Clearly, Ted came out with better quality shots than I did. He was much >> more methodical and exacting and produce much more highly textured images >> than I did. At the same time, I came out with some images that, while not >> as polished as Ted's, did have some redeeming value -- at least I thought >> they did. I was so arrested by the sheer amount of potential subject matter >> that I felt I had to get as many different shots as I could in order to get >> a reasonable account of my experience, so I shot hand-held, almost >> exclusively. Knowing that I'd have at least several hundred shots to go >> through at the end of my trip (also, due to a relative lack of PC processing >> power and memory), I stuck to shooting single exposures in jpeg. >> >> Some subjects, I chose to take three or four different shots from different >> perspectives and focal depths, while others I shot once or twice and moved >> on. And, that's typically the way I do things. A large part of the reason >> for that is that I simply don't trust what the camera shows me on its >> display to be an accurate depiction of what I'm going to see when I load it >> onto the computer. The same goes for my perception of any given scene at >> the time. I come away with rough approximation in my mind, and when I get >> home, I'm usually "fairly"close, but never seemingly dead-on in my >> expectations. >> >> And, of course, a good bit of what I do shoot simply defies staging in any >> practical sense. I'm not going to be able to tell a butterfly how to hold >> its wings, or a bird where to position itself within my frame. So, I have >> to make snap judgments and several attempts. To the extent that I'm able to >> dictate composition, I do make a fairly diligent attempt at it. But, at the >> same time, I don't try to control every minute detail -- essentially because >> the vast majority of the subjects I shoot are in an environment that simply >> defies control. >> >> So, I was just curious as to the thoughts of the folks on the list as to how >> much my approach would be considered "spray and pray" by more seasoned >> photographers, and how much it would benefit if it were less so. >> >> Thanks for any input anyone has to offer. >> >> -- Walt >> >> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/waltergilbert >> http://waltgilbert.posterous.com/ <http://polipix.posterous.com/> >> Contact Me Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/walt.gilbert>Flickr >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/walt_gilbert/>Twitter >> <http://twitter.com/walt_gilbert> >> >> --- @ WiseStamp Signature >> <http://my.wisestamp.com/link?u=ypgdb385pypw7fhb&site=www.wisestamp.com/email-install>. >> Get it now >> <http://my.wisestamp.com/link?u=ypgdb385pypw7fhb&site=www.wisestamp.com/email-install> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- ~Nick David Wright http://www.nickdavidwright.net/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
