On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:49:07 GMT, "Tom Thackrey" wrote:
>On 6-Oct-2002, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote:

>> I've always wondered why there were almost no averaging
>> incident and 30-degree direct reading meters - this
>> would appear to give a near-ideal metering much of the
>> time (both incident and direct-reading methods fail
>> easily with non-middle-tone subjects [in reverse
>> directions], but combining the reading types should
>> give a useful compromise exposure).

>Are you suggesting averaging the incident and 30 degree direct readings
>together? If that's what you want it's not too hard to make the two readings
>and set the exposure between them.

Yes, but by then, the moving subject is long gone...;-)

>I find 30 degree direct readings pretty
>useless. Even if the reading is right I would have to take spot readings to
>confirm it, so why bother.

Yes, but by then, the moving subject is long gone...;-)
Years ago, I used a Weston Master III reflected-light
70-degree selenium-cell meter, and a friend used a good
spot meter. I would wave my meter around quickly, watching
the pointer, and set the dial; my friend would take several
spot readings of the same area and eventually make his
determination. We almost always agreed on the exposure.
More recently, I used the F3's viewfinder to place a
representative selection of tones and proportions within
the large circle indicating the metering area of the camera,
and could shoot hundreds of 'chromes of architecture with
no more than one or two slight exposure errors, without
bracketing - and I could do this FAR faster than using the
Weston (let alone spot-metering, or combining reflected
and incident readings manually). Lately, I have been able
to nearly match the exposure consistency of the past with
an F100 set in Matrix-metering aperture-priority auto mode...;-)