Sparky said:
"... I don't suppose you'd be a scientologist, would you...?"
LOL! No... I'm a recovering Catholic.
"... the UPSHOT of what you're rebutting is that - 'as long as you realize it is wrong - and ultimately understand that there's only one way to do photography - then it's okay...?"
No... that's not what I said at all. First, my comments were meant in the context of the thread --
metering. I wasn't speaking about
photography at all. That's a much broader topic. Not sure where that came from, but I apologize for any misunderstanding about the scope of my remarks.
Also, I never used the word
wrong except to say that there is "
nothing wrong..." I used the words "accident" (your term) and "mistake." As I use these words, the shared meaning element is "unintended" and that has nothing to do with "wrong" or "right." It has to do with whether your results have any correlation with what you set out to accomplish.
To my mind, the
raison d'être for metering is to provide predictable exposures in a controlled manner. I think there're a
handful of ways to approach this, not just one. As you know, there are incident-light meters, reflected-light meters, spot meters, flash meters, there are gray cards, the "Sunny 16 Rule," there's the Zone System, BTZS... Any of these approaches can give you whatever exposure you intend.
If you choose to eschew them, I think that's fine as long as you understand that you're
not metering in a way that will produce predictable exposures in a controlled manner. Rather, you'll be inviting unintended results... accidents... mistakes. If
that's your intention, why meter at all?