Mac, it must admit, it is easier to learn about something and then spout off about it (ha ha) than actually do it! The reality is ( as others have alluded to) that in this digital age I find the light meter is slipping further and further towards the bottom of the kit bag.

I guess the main argument in favour of incident readings is that it eliminates the variables caused by surface reflective qualities - you are metering the actual same light that illiminates the subject.

This is all very good if the subject is, say, a vase of flowers 10 feet in front of you - you can place the meter to read the light. But for scenics or a wide view it is not that simple - the light falling on the far distance may be quite different to that falling onto you at the shooting position. In any case, however you meter you can only shoot at one single exposure value, and we have to use the best information we can to decide that value.

These days I am increasingly finding the best way to judge is with the histogram on the camera. With film the main priority was to ensure a correctly exposed subject, because the 'development' options were very limited (unless you had your own darkroom). Now, with the amount of control available, I find I am actually more concerned about the extremes of the exposure - I am thinking how will I be able to keep control at both ends of the histogram, and it is this consideration that weighs mostly on the exposure decisions (ie not so much the subject or midtone).

With processing I find we now have such control over the midtone (I'd say 1-2 stops without much worry), that precise metering in this zone is not so important. The critical decisions are more about the detailing priorities at the extremes - so in a way, this brings us back to spot metering, maybe picking out different spots to make an average to choose an optimum exposure for any single frame. (If thats impossible then we have HDR - but thats for another thread!)

Personally I wish the K7 matrix system was more agressive, at least in reducing the high end tones and highlights. I shoot at ISO 100 mostly when outdoors, and am constantly amazed at the good detail I can pull back up from shadows, so I don't mind a reading that 'underexposes'. I find it harder to restore attractive tones and detail where highlights are overexposed. So when in Matrix mode I am often dialing in -1/2 or -1 stop compensation.

An Incident light reading (ie from a hand held meter)in theory should give the most consistency, but involves the extra steps of placing the meter correctly, and the moving away from the camera that might involve.

The different camera metering modes we have now at our disposal at the turn of a dial add much extra flexibility, but the readings are still subject to the inconsistencies caused by the changing 'reflectivity' of different materials and colours.

Matrix mode will meter for the subject, whilst taking 'into account' the light levels surrounding the subject. Spot mode will not take 'into account' these surrounding light levels, so can lead to more extreme exposure errors.

What might look like a grey card can often turn out to have quite different reflective qualities, depending on the surface texture / direction of light for example, so I'd say is difficult to judge in the field.

If spot metering a subject (say a persons face, or animals body) then the normal 'rules' of exposure compensation still apply - ie reduce exposure for darker than 'average' / increase for lighter then 'average'. So in fact theres a lot going on then with all this, especially if you have to zoom or re-compose to get the spot reading - maybe the incident light reading is not such a chore after all?

Yes, the ACR RAW converter in PS Elements does provide the key global adjustments in an accessible and concise layout. For many shots there may be no need for much further editing once the file is converted and open in the elements editor.

The only point I would make for general consumption is that the ACR plug-in for PS elements is significantly reduced in complexity and its range of selective edits is much less than the version available in full PS. That is why I advised caution in my post above if only using Elements, as for some photographers and many shots the range of adjustments might be too limited.

Those looking to gain more control and power over their shots at the RAW stage (before rendering into an image format) may prefer more sophisticated standalone options - there are quite a few available both free and paid for, or why not give our own Pentax Digital Camera Utility a go?

I'm impressed! That is just the kind of spec list I've been waiting for to shoot my ongoing series 'Backs of Surburban Houses' in wall size enlargements.

I believe that almost universally the DNG format is the more versatile and future proof. We are actually extremely lucky as Pentax shooters to have DSLRs that capture in the DNG format directly. Using this saves a whole step in workflow as we don't need to convert to DNG. I can see no specific advantage to setting .PEF at all.

AFAIK the DNG file will store all the camera metadata, even if any particular RAW converter doesn't actually use it (eg Lightroom would probably not apply the 'fine sharpness 2 parameter' from the custom image settings, but the data is there, to be used if required by any other program in future.

You have good future proofing also with DNG - an increasing number of RAW converters can now read it, and as an archival format it is in unrivelled IMO. This is because it applies a 'firewall' between the actual sensor image data and any metadata or processed JPEG preview. This is advantagous, as you can use the file to re-process at a future date (say a new interpretation of your photo, or using a new piece of software), and the JPEG and metadata will be updated, leaving the original image sensor data intact.

If your're suggesting that those who might like to shoot at the sweet spot, use low iso's etc are somehow limiting their boundaries, then you must be misunderstanding the 'mindset' - certainly mine anyway. I strive to achieve higher 'lifelike' realism through resolution, increased DR, and push the edge to edge sharpness so that it looks like you can just walk into the shot, and achieve a print at 100 / 60 cm with no loss of all that can be seen on the computer screen. With each shot that I might be able to achieve ever higher results along these lines I feel the boundaries as receding.

As technology improves then I would be excited to embrace it to enhance these aims - in the same way as you would embrace it to reduce the compromises inherent in sharp-shooting in low light.

Conversely, someone who had no knowledge, didn't ever think about it, but happened to produce an interesting shot that was 'artistic' just by waving the camera at the hip and pushing the button, leaving the camera to cope (hopefully) with the conditions - well, they would not be a serious photographer by my definition.

I don't think the 'mindsets' are really that different at all. There is surely a common bank of knowledge to draw on for each of us in order to achieve our desired intentions. We are actually drawing attention to some of that common knowledge and sharing stuff. The fact remains, that if either of us wanted to reproduce a shot that was the equal of the others, in terms of settings we would both have to 'shoehorn' our processes into something else. And for that we are both constrained by the technical limitations of the gear.

Banter aside I was asked if I would not consider someone (say you) a serious photographer for not being concerned about 'noise'. As I said, by my own definition, from what I can gather, you would be serious, for the single reason that you are aware of the ...(here's the deep breath...) technical limitations, priorities, compromises, intended output etc etc - and having weighed it all up and decided it was worth it to shoot away. My point about the mind was to say that when you go out and shoot that all of these considerations are ingrained and probably applied sub-consciously.

You do yourself a disservice. The human mind is an extraordinary thing - there can be an amazing amount of things going on inside there that you're not even aware of.

This is not the case.