Spot Meters and their use

Question

So Rene,
As you were saying in thread http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b73768/27
Please do explain your preferred method of determining contrast range so we can all learn, thanks

Answer 1

Ay-up. None of my exposures is ever correct, of course. Silly me for interpreting the histogram, then. Always got blocked shadows and blown highlights. Dang but I'm stupid.
To say that a quick look at a histogram is "wasting time" compared with pointing a spot meter all over the place and figuring out the differences and therefore final exposure in your head is, well, plain silly. It's a time saver compared to that.
Best to learn to use the modern tools supplied in the camera and not pretend there's a dumb film in there that can offer no feedback..... it's a darn site quicker and more accurate to gain a properly exposed picture by checking and adjusting to the histogram.
The histogram in ACR and Photoshop bears little resemblance to the thing on the LCD of my camera at the time of shooting. What possible use is that example in this case? I'd be far more impressed with a grab from the camera's LCD. Anyway, given the preponderance of mid and dark tones in that example, that histogram qualifies perfectly for a well exposed shot, so what's the problem?
Seems to me there is too much blind repeating of what others say on this Web thingumy and not enough reporting of experience gained through actual reasoned and cognitive use. In fact the histogram gives a very good idea of the proportion of highlights to shadows, the differences in range between the two, and whether your end result will have both shadow and highlight detail - or not - at a glance.
How the thing is generated is irrelevant - like all things it's the way the thing actually works in real situations
i with user interpretation
to get properly exposed results that counts, not some theory on its inadequacies (of which I have yet to experience any).
If I left my exposures to the matrix meter alone, particularly the macro stuff and those involving dark subjects with strong backlight or bright backgrounds, I would have a bevy of underexposed photographs on my drives. Similarly, taking spot readings on a macro or moving subjects is largely impractical, if nothing else.
I cannot actually think of one bad over or underexposed shot that has happened to me using the histogram technique, and we're talking tens of thousands of shots here. So whatever the theories against, I have to say that in actual use it works, and works extremely well. I'm always happy to post samples of
i my own work
as proof, as I have done here for years now anyway. I fail to see the reasoning in light of that as to why I should be seeking to be convinced by anyone that the histogram is not something that can be accurately and reliably worked from. Nonsense. It can. I do it all the time. You may not like my photographs, but you won't fault the exposures.