larrycooper

If it was my situation, I would get an external light meter and use it instead because of the issues rodeo_joe points out. There could be lots of reasons the meter is unreliable, not to mention you may have shutter speed and aperture inaccuracies as well. You need to get some measurements you can trust.

I did that once and she hit me on the back of my head with a purse.

You're right. It was an "off topic" post, but I think you should really consider going digital. The advantages for just what you are concerned about are real. JDMvW has your "film" answer. I totally agree with that advice for film, but ....... think about digital.

Sorry, william, but your understanding of digital is very weak. There are lots of "full frame" sensors. Constant improvement will always be the case for ALL technology. If you get a camera that does what you want, you can easily ignore the constant upgrade process until you want to get back in. The fact another camera has been introduced does nothing to negate the one you already own. There are HUGE advantages to digital beyond simply not having to buy film. The fact you are unaware of them is not a condemnation of digital, nor an argument for the superiority of film. You may have noticed that there are very few photographers, professional and amateur, who have made the switch to digital long ago, and who would never go back to film. Film has become an "artistic choice" that some still make, but I know of almost no one who doesn't think that digital is empowering and liberating for their photography. For your problem with the balloon photography, my advice is also to think digital as a real solution to the issues you are concerned about. I shot film professionally years ago, so I'm not without perspective, and I know that getting the shots I think you are after is far more likely with a good digital camera system than with film. And shooting at high ISO values (likely necessary for what you want) is many, many times better with modern digital systems than with film. Re-think your "objections" to going digital.

People....... they are ALL post processed. By either an algorithm, or an algorithm over which you have some levels of creative control, but they are all post processed by someone. I often like to do it myself for mostly self centered reasons. ;)

For people who manage to find a camera whose engineers and programmers had the same "vision" as they did, in camera processing may work very well. For people who have a different vision than the engineers and programmers (or perhaps different from everyone else) post processing is a source of freedom and enjoyment that adds to the experience of photography. There is nothing wrong with no wanting to do post processing; but there is nothing wrong with seeing post processing as part of your photographic work flow that is empowering to your particular "vision". There is no "right in camera" that is right for everyone, and there is no moral or technical superiority to believing the engineers and programmers are "righter" than someone who post processes. If you don't want to post process, then don't. But expect a long search for a camera built by people with whom you agree completely. If you want to pursue your individual vision of "right", then post processing is a lot of fun. The argument about in camera is best, or in post is best, is just silly.

It seems to me that "legal" and "ethical", although they can overlap at times, have little to do with each other. At one time it was legal to own slaves; that did not erase the ethical and moral hideousness of the behavior. It may be perfectly legal to stick a camera into the face of a mother who just lost a child to some disease, but I think the ethics of doing so have nothing to do with the legality of it. If you want to be famous or rich from your photography, it may well be necessary to act unethically (think paparazzi). But I think being unethical is unethical, and I try do avoid it in my photography and other aspects of my life.

You're starting to sound like someone with whom I was discussing the role of "luck" in sports. I suggested that about the only sport I could think of that didn't involve luck was chess. She disagreed with me because, "Lots of times, I'm looking at the board and a good move just appears to me. That's how luck works in chess." It sort of shocked her system when she realized what she could do. I think your understanding of living mindfully and mine are very different.

Some call the preparation for it "mindfulness".