talking out my ass... hmm. well, i think you're talking out your ass. my shutter that's probably older than you are, probably 1.5X as old, doesn't have any hard stops for shutter speed, or aperture. i'm sure it would work just fine somewhere in between for aperture values,( i doubt shutter speeds), but that's about as accurate as you'd be. somewhere in between one stop and another.
i don't shoot much velvia, but i haven't had a problem with exposure when i do. i mostly run provia and astia.
seems the meter companies played their cards very well during the transition to digital, to bad kodak and many others didn't.
anyone want to tell me i haven't watched BTS videos from true pros using all sorts of light meters all over a studio only to use a take an "instant" to see where they really are, only to find that they are way off. now days we should do this the other way around? ha!
Don Haines, thank you.
I wrote that most large format shutters don't have hard stops on the aperture and you can set an in-between stop by eye, allowing you to adjust more precisely than full stops. Your argument against that was that your large format shutter doesn't have hard stops and you set in-between stops by eye, allowing you to adjust more precisely than by the full stop? Uhh.... Wait, so I'm right but you still disagree?
Few lenses have precise markings between stops. You can easily guess by eye on the shutter accurate to about a third of a stop and you have theoretically unlimited adjustment without hard stops. So uhh... how does that make your large format shutter precise only to the stop? It has UNLIMITED adjustment between stops, limited only to how precisely you can guess placement (which is pretty precise).
So what the hell is your argument again?
Just sit back and think for a second. You're making no sense. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Also, stop talking about shooting Velvia if you've never shot it. It does have less latitude than Provia and Astia, and higher color saturation and resolution. And fwiw, yes a point and shoot is an accurate enough meter for most slide films BUT IT'S STILL A METER! In a pinch you could use a grey card and a point and shoot and have a very accurate incident meter, too, it's just slower and somewhat less precise than an external one. Still a meter.
Every set I've been on the DP has used a meter extensively and the gaffer will always carry a meter, too. For motion picture work they're almost necessary. Any Hollywood set will have a DP and a gaffer with a meter and camera ops will often carry them, too. As for stills: do you think Gursky meters? Crewdson? OF COURSE THEY DO! By claiming meters are unnecessary you're just insulting people who actually know what they're doing.
Can you get by without one? Sure, in some instances. In others you can fake it by using other gear (a point and shoot's internal meter for instance). No one is arguing against this.
Do you need an external meter if you're not lighting externally and shooting exclusively digitally? Of course not. Photojournalists have always used in-camera meters, same as digital photojournalists do today. Some will benefit from them, some won't. Can you fudge shooting large format with a point and shoot? Sure, plenty of people do. But having one gives you more precision and much more speed. Just because you're not working at the level of craft that benefits from metering doesn't mean others are. If I need a spot meter to see how hot a highlight is or an incident meter to shape a light or I'm resetting a set up after tearing it down I'm a lot better off with my Sekonic than with guessing and checking.
Please stop giving bad, ignorant advice to those who are trying to learn and improve their craft.