View Single Post
Old August 23rd, 2008, 06:20 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054

Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr View Post
Two widely-discussed techniques for using a "measurement diffuser" on a camera to make white balance measurements are sometimes distinguished by calling them the "incident" and "reflected" techniques. These terms, borrowed from the world of exposure metering, seem intended to suggest that that in the former technique we measure (the chromaticity of) the incident light upon the subject, while the second implies we are measuring (the chromaticity of) the light reflected from the subject.
Hi Doug,

I agree that using these terms for colo(u)r balancing tends to add to confusion. Using them for light metering, in order to derive exposure setting, is fine with me.

So I urge we not use "incident light" and "reflected light" to distinguish between Technique A and Technique B. It would be much better to describe them by their actual distinguishing characteristics: "at the subject" and "at the camera position".
I'd be 100% in favor of that, but how do we convince 'the rest of the world'? I hope proposing it here, is a start.

Reply With Quote