Reveni spot meter

[Heroique]

+100

+101

The link in post #4 to Nick Carver’s assessment of the Reveni addresses the basics of his P.M.M. and explains how one ultimately tailors it to their own film tests and other personal preferences.

One feature of the Reveni’s P.M.M. mode is setting desired dynamic limits for any particular shot to help the meter suggest an exposure. He even shows what data the Reveni displays while in this mode; watch closely, and you can make many inferences about the possible usefulness of P.M.M. to your work.

I haven’t purchased his course, but from what I can tell from his excellent videos is that his P.M.M is of course derived from AA’s zone system and might be easier or more intuitive for some photographers to make exposure choices.

[GRAYnomad]

I don't know why metering has to be so complicated. For negative film you measure the darkest part of the scene and set the exposure at that - 2 stops (place it in Zone 3), then measure the lightest part of the scene. You are usually done at that point.

If the difference is < or > the range of your film you may want to pull/push the dev.

I don't see the need for "averaging" and PMM and whatever and I hate meters that display in apertures and/or shutter speeds. I just want an EV for starters because I can do the range math without having to think.

So regardless of any new meter I'll be sticking with the Pentax, it doesn't need to be turned on or off and it just does what you need and nothing more.

That said this could easily be done with a firmware option as well in the Reveni. Maybe there's a chance we can have a simple version.

[f9likethekey]

I don't know why metering has to be so complicated. For negative film you measure the darkest part of the scene and set the exposure at that - 2 stops (place it in Zone 3), then measure the lightest part of the scene. You are usually done at that point.

This is exactly why I sought out other methods of metering.

With the zone system I kept trying to keep all the detail in both highlights and shadows (that's why it was designed in the first place). PMM has helped me take exposure for how I want to print them, not just gathering information.

[GRAYnomad]

Unlike Ansel Adams (pre-visualization) I always ignored how it was going to be printed. My goal in the field was to capture every bit of information I could, once captured I can decide what to do with it at my leisure in the darkroom.

[f9likethekey]

When I shot the zone system I also tried to capture the most information and then print how I wanted it to look. I had some easy successes, but most of the time the prints I wanted took a lot longer to get right than I really wanted them to. More often than not I had to use split grade printing, which isn't nessassarily a bad thing, but if the negative had been more like my 'pre-visualization' I could've used a single grade filter (and saved myself an hour or 2 dialing in the exposure).

When it all boils down it's what works for you best. I was hesitant to spend the money on Nicks course, but I'm glad I did because I found a metering method that works for me. (It apparently works for others too if they're incorporating it into this light meter.) As long as you're happy with your prints, who I am to argue.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

I was hesitant to spend the money on Nicks course, but I'm glad I did because I found a metering method that works for me. (It apparently works for others too if they're incorporating it into this light meter.)

After studying Philosophy, focus on Philosophy of Science, Aristotelianism and Phenomenological Science of Art, I would classify your statements, loosely according to Wittgenstein, Husserl and Popper, as "without sense". Because I can't see any reference points for how your PMM method is supposed to work. You say you think PMM is the super great method, but these assertions lack sensual as well as categorical "Anschauung", intuition, because you don't explain how exactly it works. It's the same with cults who believe in something but don't know why, and who don't want to explain anything either, perhaps because they're afraid that it's actually contradictory or trivial. Experience tells me that such teachings, which one finds great, but which one cannot or does not want to explain, are usually rather trivial or banal. Especially when you have to pay for it. Please forgive me if I assume the same here. Convince me of the opposite, please.

[Tin Can]

groked

After studying Philosophy, focus on Philosophy of Science, Aristotelianism and Phenomenological Science of Art, I would classify your statements, loosely according to Wittgenstein, Husserl and Popper, as "without sense". Because I can't see any reference points for how your PMM method is supposed to work. You say you think PMM is the super great method, but these assertions lack sensual as well as categorical "Anschauung", intuition, because you don't explain how exactly it works. It's the same with cults who believe in something but don't know why, and who don't want to explain anything either, perhaps because they're afraid that it's actually contradictory or trivial. Experience tells me that such teachings, which one finds great, but which one cannot or does not want to explain, are usually rather trivial or banal. Especially when you have to pay for it. Please forgive me if I assume the same here. Convince me of the opposite, please.

[ic-racer]

Philosopher’s Photography Contest

After hours of dispute over who shows first, Archimedes presents the first photograph.

Leibinez, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Epictetus, Aristotle and Socrates meander in deep thought, pacing in front of the print.

After hours of contemplation, no other prints are shown, Archimedes is declared the winner.

In dispute, Hegel calls out that the reality of the photograph is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic aesthetics.
Kant, via the categorical imperative holds that ontologically the image exists only in the imagination.
Marks declares the image is ‘out of focus’ and discounts it entirely.

[f9likethekey]

Convince me of the opposite, please.

No thank you.

If your metering method works, then keep using it. As I said in previous posts, PMM may not be for everyone. Also, I managed to try and convey my preference without informing the world of my philosophical qualifications.

[John Layton]

...or getting too emulsional!