Better to underexpose or overexpose?

[Andy Graham]

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

to rely on what you see in the viewfinder is a fool's errand. the viewfinder has brightness and contrast controls that completely negate any accurate representation of the real image lighting.

The brightness and contrast levels don't make that much of a difirence, you can still tell when its blasting out, set them to where your happy and leave them there.

Far too many people on this site are so caught up in trying to sound like they know whats best for everyone else like they're better than the rest of us, while your setting up your waveform and reading your light meter i'll be three set ups ahead of you and i guarantee the exposure will look evey bit as good.

i was merely saying how i do things not what everyone else should do but you have to drag this thread through the mud and start name calling....grow up.

Dave i never said your a fool for using a light meter i just said i personally think they're pointless when shooting digital.

Andy.

[Petri Kaipiainen]

I have shot digital stills professionally 6 years now (after 20+ years of film), and never have needed a light meter since. Histograms have taken their place. Even when shooting with studio flash I just make an educated quess, shoot a test and adjust once or twice with histograms. Goodbye nasty, dirty polaroids...

Anybody want to buy a Minolta Multimeter MkIV with spot attachement?

Video: electric viewfinder itself is grossly unreliable, as it's adjustement can be way off. Zebra feature is the savior, set the zebra to 100%, let the highest highlights just touch the zebra and you are just about perfect, shadows have to look for themselves. When I shoot heads, fairly evenly lit (classic 3 point lighting), I set zebras to 80% and skin highlights just touching the 80% mark. That's it. Perfecto.