In camera metering Nikon f100?

[ic-racer]

And yet they worked and good exposures were made.

Just as with a spot meter, you still have to interpret the data. Some subjects you can walk up to and take precise meter readings of various reflections, while some you cannot.

Are you against Sunny 16?

Exposure tables from film information sheets?

All can be used with good results.

It doesn't JUST have to be one way and wide acceptance light meters have been built for over 60 years for a reason; they work.

I'd not put exposure tables in the same class as blind or random reflected measurements. Used properly exposure tables can solve many exposure problems. (Jones and Condit, 1948)

 

[Kino]

Your insistence that people are unable to point a light meter at a scene and determine a proper exposure is absurd in the extreme in light of years and years of empirical evidence to the contrary.

If you are speaking of YOUR inability to use a light meter, then OK, I accept that willingly.

To simply dismiss it out of hand, and in light of all the overbearing evidence of hundreds of photographic publications that teach these techniques, is irrational.

I won't debate you on this anymore; the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Ste_S]

Yes.

Don't take this the wrong way, but learning the basics with a F100 is like jumping in a Formula one racer with autopilot to learn how to drive!

If you can afford it, find a very basic, match needle 35mm SLR with a 50mm lens next and use that a bit with the hand-held meter. You'll make mistakes, but you should learn from them if you are a serious student of photography.

No. There's no need to learn the 'craft' of photography to make a good photo. Buy monographs instead.

Re Nikon metering - they nailed matrix metering and auto exposure as early as the F4

 

[AgX]

No. There's no need to learn the 'craft' of photography to make a good photo. Buy monographs instead.

A monograph tells you just the result another photographer yielded, but not the way to.
A educated photographer may be able to deduce the way and gain similar result, a newbie likely will not. He has to learn the techniques.

 

[Kino]

No. There's no need to learn the 'craft' of photography to make a good photo. Buy monographs instead.

Just as well use your phone if that's all you are interested in; taking photos without a clue as to what is going on behind the lens.

From the questions being asked and the interest the OP has shown, I just assumed since he was asking questions about the craft of photography, he might be interested in that very subject, but I must obviously be mistaken.

Re Nikon metering - they nailed matrix metering and auto exposure as early as the F4

Who said they didn't? Thanks for vigorously asserting a non-contested point.

 

[Ste_S]

Just as well use your phone if that's all you are interested in; taking photos without a clue as to what is going on behind the lens.

From the questions being asked and the interest the OP has shown, I just assumed since he was asking questions about the craft of photography, he might be interested in that very subject, but I must obviously be mistaken.


Who said they didn't? Thanks for vigorously asserting a non-contested point.

I'm not sure what you're getting at ? Exposure and focus are a non issue now for making a good photo as the phone/camera does it for you. Composition is everything hence the recommendation for buying monographs rather than learning 'craft'.

Looking at Sergio Larrain's 'Valpariso' is far more instructive than trying to learn 'craft'.