William Robb wrote:
It has nothing to do with his compentancy,
his tools wont allow it no matter how
competent he or anyone else is.
You seem awfully sure of yourself for someone who hasn't actually seen
what he is talking about.
And the next-door girl is a cross-dressing nun... you should belie
ean they are ALL actually that accurate.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
> He is claiming an ability oggetting a perfect exposure
> within 1/3 stop, not is his terms , but objectively.
Perfection is objective, not subjective. If his skill level and
know
He is claiming an ability oggetting a perfect exposure
within 1/3 stop, not is his terms , but objectively.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: whickersworld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Exposure (WAS
This guy is is claiming perfect exposures using a non-incident
TTL meter.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: whickersworld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
>
>
&g
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>Weve been down this road before, unless your
aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance
subject the meter will over or under expose
the subject. the only way you could be accurate
is if you manually compensated the meter reading
based on the KNOWN reflectance of t
Caveman wrote:
>
>Pål Jensen wrote:
>> A perfect exposure is what I define as a perfect
exposure.
>> I want that exposure within 1/3 of a stop so that I can
get
>> what I define as perfect exposure every time. .
Tadaa-badaa-da-daa. Twilight Zone. We're discussing a
Something that
we're not defini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
>
>
> JCO wrote:
>
>
> > Weve been down this road before, unless your
> > aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance
>
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
> First of all, you will rarely if ever get "perfect"
> exposures with any TTL metering system due to the
> way they only measure reflected light.
My OM2 did...
keith whaley
[snipped]
> I just defined above but you obviously didn't get it. Perfect
> exposure is what the prhotographer think is perfect exposure. It
> might be different things to different people. The point isn't to
> get corect exposure but the exposure the photographer wants. If I
> want a certain exposure,
Pål Jensen wrote:
I get 100% correct readout on every meter I own.
ROFL. This is quite a bold statement. Can you support it with some
facts, like the method you used to check your meters, and the results
that you got by following that method ?
No meter is designed to give correct exposure but t
a proactive method
of avoiding the exposure errors that are beyond your
control regardless of how "good" of a photographer
you are technically.
JCO
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL
JCO wrote:
> Weve been down this road before, unless your
> aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance
> subject the meter will over or under expose
> the subject. the only way you could be accurate
> is if you manually compensated the meter reading
> based on the KNOWN reflectance of th
many sources of exposure error in
the system for that to be even remotely possible.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
Caveman wrote:
> Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> > A perfect exposure is what I define as a perfect exposure. I want that exposure
> > within 1/3 of a stop so that I can get what I define as perfect exposure every
> > time. .
>
> Tadaa-badaa-da-daa. Twilight Zone. We're discussing a Something that
>
Caveman wrote:
> You're hitting the nail on the head. What Paal disperately avoided was
> to admit that "perfect exposure" might be defined as "the exposure
> giving the most visually pleasing interpretation and rendition of a
> scene". Which no meter can give.
I did say that the correct exp
Nick wrote:
> Consistency not== accuracy. Make the same mistake 100 times in a row and your
> consistent.
I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't about rigid definition of correct exposure. I
said you need consistency in order to get whatever exposure you consider correct
exposure.
Pål
JCO wrote:
> First of all, you will rarely if ever get "perfect"
> exposures with any TTL metering system due to the
> way they only measure reflected light.
Not true. I get 100% correct readout on every meter I own. No meter is designed to
give correct exposure but to assign whatever you mete
gt;
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:54 PM
Subject: RE: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
> First of all, you will rarely if ever get "perfect"
> exposures with any TTL metering system due to the
> way they only measure reflected light.
>
> Secondly, there are exposure errors th
First of all, you will rarely if ever get "perfect"
exposures with any TTL metering system due to the
way they only measure reflected light.
Secondly, there are exposure errors that occur
in shutters both from speed to speed as well
as from exposure to exposure even when set on same
speed.
Thirdl
Pål Jensen wrote:
A perfect exposure is what I define as a perfect exposure. I want that exposure within 1/3 of a stop so that I can get what I define as perfect exposure every time. .
Tadaa-badaa-da-daa. Twilight Zone. We're discussing a Something that
we're not defining what it is.
cheers,
ca
On June 9, 2003 04:23 pm, Pål Jensen wrote:
> the correct one. Neither have I with the LX. The thing is about
> consistency. Not what exactly is correct exposure. You may not want that
> precision. Thats fine by me.
Consistency not== accuracy. Make the same mistake 100 times in a row an
22 matches
Mail list logo
