whodunitinc wrote in message . ..
On 6 Dec 2003 17:24:16 -0800, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

J C wrote in message . ..
On 5 Dec 2003 14:44:25 -0800, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:


The problem is not 'what to point the meter at', but 'why do I need to
use this tool'? You're looking at the whole thing backwards. Simply by
bracketing exposures you can cover all reasonably likely exposures
anyway.


Now THAT and all that you posted below it, I fully agree with. Its a
good explanation.

Its also the reason that after a while the poster will find that using
a spot meter with a 35mm will be unnecessary. Because after a while he
will begin to understand the relationships in a scene just by
visualizing it in his mind, and bracketing to make sure.


Precisely.
Bracketing, to be sure, is sometimes an option, but it seems moke like
admitting I am not sure of whats happening, so to be safe, lets shoot
3 or 5 shots and that way I've covered all the bases.

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.

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.

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.

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.