RE: spot, averaging, or incident metering?

Gerry,

I have the spot attachment for the Luna Pro. The Luna Pro gave up the ghost
long ago. If you are interested I will sell you the spot attachment. Contact
me off list if your are interested.

Don Bryant

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Giliberti [mailto:GGILIBERTI@controlotron.com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:05 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: spot, averaging, or incident metering?

Eric,

I have the same Luna Pro but I don't have the spot attachment. Do you know
if they still make this? I'll do some checking but I thought you might have
some info on this.

Gerry G
www.ggiliberti.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Nelson [mailto:emanmb@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 4:14 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: spot, averaging, or incident metering?

I use a Luna-Pro like this one,
<<http://www.clionehourphoto.com/Nikon/Luna_Pro.jpg>>
and a spot attachment like this one,
<<http://www.ritzcam.com/catalog/images/GosSpotatt.jpg>>(I'm
not affiliated with these sites, just for
illustration)

It has served me well for many years. When shooting
w/a Blad, the Luna Pro has worked out quite well
except for those occaisions we can blame on operator
error. In the travel section of my site, the square
(Blad) images can illustrate the basic success I've
had with it.

On any given day while out shooting, I find I don't
need to meter that much really as the light stays the
same quite often. As clouds move in, shadows appear,
or the time of day changes, I will check the meter
again. I err on the side of caution with 1/2 stop
overexposure in B&W and with color film I meter more
often.
Eric
http://www.eman-photo.com

--- Shannon Stoney <sstoney@pdq.net> wrote:

> Now that we've been talking about the zone system
> and zone III in particular...
>
> Lately I've been experimenting with a little
> averaging/incident meter
> that is very small and light. I used it as an
> incident meter for a
> few weeks and just developed some of the negatives.
> A lot of them
> are either over or underexposed. I was metering in
> the shade, with
> the meter set at twice the speed I normally shoot
> the film at, as I
> was advised to do on the BTZS forum. (When I tried
> metering at my
> normal film speed, I got even worse results.) My
> tests had shown
> that metering in shade at twice the normal speed
> gave the closest
> results to my spot meter readings, which are
> generally pretty
> accurate.
>
> But since the results were rather spotty, I have
> been using the meter
> in averaging mode recently. This seems to yield
> slightly better
> results, but still not as good as the spot meter.
>
> Am I doomed to carry around my heavy spot meter
> everywhere, even when
> using small cameras? It seems that when I meter a
> scene with all
> three meters, I rarely get the same reading from
> even two out of
> three. I believe the spot meter, as I said, because
> I get very
> consistent results when I use it. But the incident
> and averaging
> meters only agree with it under rather special
> circumstances, when
> the light is perfectly even everywhere and the scene
> is not too
> contrasty. Like under overcast skies.
>
> What do other people do, when they're carrying a
> small camera that
> doesn't have a meter in it? Several of my favorite
> cameras are old
> and don't have meters. Or maybe you have an
> averaging meter in your
> small camera, and you also have spotty results. Do
> you carry around
> a spot meter? Or just make do?
>
> --shannon
>

                
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Oct 3 09:07:57 2005