whodunitinc wrote in message . ..
On 8 Dec 2003 07:32:13 -0800, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:



It's not always POSSIBLE to be sure, no matter what we try. What's the
reflectivity of Liberace's rhinestone outfits? Do you know? How does
one meter such a thing? By experience and good estimations, to be
sure.
Rhinestones would produce spectral higlights which in my opinon would
not be the the best thing in the frame to meter.

But he's standing there on stage and you're too far away to get an
incident reading, and security won't let you any closer. You HAVE to
estimate based on the reading you get.

If I were shooting
Liberace in a rhinestone suit, I'd probably start with a reading from
his face and open up a stop and half (he's pale).

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. But the face may not be suitable
either, depending on how he's oriented to you. His back may be to you,
in which cae the suit is what is available.

I am sure that many
of the rihinestone highlights would be blown out and that's pretty
much the effect you want.

Sure film can be
considered cheap but gosh if you bracket lots you'll be using minimal
3 times more than you might normally use and if you are doing
panoramas consisting of 6 frames, bracketing becomes extremely
difficult to manage in post.

Only in cases of doubt. In any event, film is cheap and your time is
not.
Film is not cheap (about $0.60 per 4X5 print and if you bracket by 1/2
stop that's $3.00 for a good print))

....and your time is worth? What is the reward for the successful
picture?

....digital imaging on the other
hand is very cheap, still I like to meter when shooting digital. Mind
you it's easy enough then to bracket and throw away the bad ones. Call
me goofy, but I get satisfaction from doing it right, from
understanding the process, from knowing the why and how . I like to
shoot, and much of the pleasure I derive from it comes from
determining not just what defines the frame but also how it is exposed
and which values go where. Photography for me is more than the
"photograph", it also is the act of photographing and a large part of
that is metering. I want to be able to meter well! I don't use the P
setting with auto bracket. Your best shots, do you remember making
them or were you pleasantly surprised when you picked up the prints?

As regard spot metering not applicable to
35mm photography,

Who said that? It has nothing to do with formats. I outlined the uses
for spot metering above.

JC actually suggested that it was more appropiate for large format,
I don't disagree but still maintain it's value in 35mm.

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with format.

In motion picture work, color negative film is used precisely because
of its greater latitude. Nonetheless, I often see erroneously exposed
film in the cinema. I can tell easily. So much for that claim.

Well , exposure is subjective and often times negs are flashed before
being shot or alternate processes maybe applied for mood, eg bleach
process and of course old prints can and often do lose their color,
particularily stuff from the 70's.

'Elf'? C'mon, man. I see bad exposure all the time. There is a trend
to use less light nowadays, and it makes the films today look cheap.
Grainy fast films are no subsitute for watts. Light the damned scene!

Prints can vary depending on who
makes them and projection lamps are not always correct.No matter, not
all DPs are created/motivated equally, some meter better than others.
In fact the truly great ones are the ones that meter well, and they
don't use every light on the truck.