I have used hand-held light meters of all types, both inside and out. Used properly, it gives a good idea of what the starting point should be.
The problem is that it has to be used properly. For example, I do a lot of night shooting; so in order to get a good reading, one has to move in close and measure the light. The same in day; move in and measure the light, either reflective , or falling on the subject.
With the event of modern metering of the newer cameras, some feel tthat the camera can handle all situations, and give an accurate exposure. But I feel that it's better to meter the subject and see what the meter says, rather then to let the camera make all the decisions.
I also believe that if you want to meter one particular area that you can not get close to, or have an area looking one special way, that a spot meter is invaluable. How can you tell what the trees are, on a snowy mountain, unless you get a reading, of what you want to show?
And at night, unless one moves in and meters the subject or gets a reading from afar, then it's very likely that the exposure will be off or completely wrong.
Now in digital, witht he event of photo software, one can make the picture look any way they choose.
But I feel that a naturalist, or someone who wants to record the light or scene or object as they find it, instead of manulipating the image, on a computer, will choose to do so in the camera; choosing to tell the camera what to do, instead of vice versa.
Just my two cents.
Walt
|
