A spot meter only tells you "exactly what the light is doing" in respect to 18% gray. As I said, the spot meter assumes the target is 18% gray. It's a dumb meter that must be coupled to the photographer's brain. It's mainly useful for set shots. When you're going for a special moment, it's too fiddly. Today's best matrix meter make a good enough guess to get you well within the range of what can be dialed in during conversion. Of course if the light is unchanging and you shoot only in one direction, a base reading from a spot meter and gray card or an incident meter works well. Paul
On Nov 21, 2010, at 9:59 PM, Nick David Wright wrote: > Well, I would say it's a different tool. > > Matrix metering looks at the scene, guesses what you're photographing > and tries to expose accordingly. > > A spot meter simply tells you exactly what the light is doing and lets > you make the decision. > > Yes, matrix meters are generally extremely good. Yes, spot meters > require a bit of learning. > > They have different purposes. And different uses. > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:52 PM, paul stenquist <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Yes, a spot meter is a good tool, but it's only valuable if you can relate >> the spot you're metering to 18% gray and then compensate accordingly. With >> the K7 and K5, matrix metering is accurate enough that spot metering is >> rarely needed. However, I do sometimes use it when shooting something like a >> neutral colored bird against a white sky background. >> Paul >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Nick David Wright wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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.
