Could someone give me a pointer on metering, please?

This is the first time I've had to meter with a hand-held meter (now using my

Bronica SQ-Ai.)<BR>

The last roll I got back, my exposures were all over the place...from way over

exposed to just about right, (3 frames were dead on and gorgeous). I'm using

an old Minolta meter that just has incident metering, and I'm trying to

practice both landscape and portrait shots with my MF gear now.<BR><BR>

Are there any tips on how to do this properly, or do I just need to shoot a

bunch with it, and I'll eventually get the hang of it? Before I always just

used my 35mm built-in camera metering system...<BR>

Thanks for your time,<BR>

Jed

Are you shooting negs or chromes? If negs, take the reading from where you want shadow detail and use the exposure shown. If chromes, put your meter in the light (ie where you want highlight detail) and use the exposure shown. Make sure your meter is using the same ISO setting as your film. Also make sure the meter is pointing to your camera.

Hi Jed, not sure how you'd use an incident meter for landscapes.....

Although it should work fine for portraits.

 

Cheers.

Jedidiah,

 

As you probably know, an incident light meter is designed to be held near the subject and pointed toward the camera. That way the light on the subject, including the direction of the light, is taken into account. The exposure is rendered for a subject of average reflectivity, which is 13% (statistical) or 18% (traditional), depending on the meter. You don't point the meter toward the light source (e.g., the sun) because you want the shadow(s) on the meter dome to emulate those on the subject.

 

Incident metering is very useful for portraits and macro work. It is a little difficult to be AT the subject in landscapes, however. You must hold the meter in the same light as the subject, pointed toward the camera. If you can't duplicate the light, then you need to offset the reading based on your estimate of the actual light and/or reflectivity of the subject. This comes with experience (i.e., learning from your mistakes).

 

In short, you need to develop "rules" for using a light meter. If you know what you did, and more important, why you did it that way, you will learn much more quickly than by writing down the f/stop and shutter speed.

 

You might find "The Camera" and "The Negative" by Ansel Adams helpful in this regard.

Most people prefer a spot meter for landscapes. I didn't emphasize this because you wanted to use the meter you already have. Spot meters are harder to use because you must take several readings and do the adjustments or averaging yourself, and learn to estimate the reflectivity of various subjects.

There are advantages to both reflective and incident metering methods. Although I use both, I generally prefer incident readings for consistency, since the exposure isn't influenced by the reflectivity of an object. I second reading Adams' The Negative to gain a better appreciation of exposure. When using your incident meter for portrait work, you should measure both on the strong light side of your subject and the shadow (or weak light) side to determine the proper exposure.

The short answer is:

 

Read Adams' The Negative to understand the "theory" behind the Zone System.

 

Realize you are photographing "reflected light" from the subject NOT the light falling on

the subject. Thus incident readings don't consider the actual difference between the

shadows and highlights as reflected back from the scene. A flat brightness range--a fog

bank over ocean waves lapping rocks on the beach--will be exposed the same as a white

fishing boat with red sails against a bright blue sky when using an incident meter.

 

A single reflected meter reading is useless for the most part when shooting chromes.

That's why Nikon and other advanced built-in systems use "matrix metering" which is a

calculated result from hundreds of small sections of the scene.

 

Use a spot meter to learn how to select 3 or 4 of the most significant values in your scene

and calculate your exposure from there.

 

For an inexpensive but very useful "complete course" on metering for color, look up

"Chromazone Exposure System" on Google and buy the CD (with laminated example

guidelines) for about $40. It's the best condensed version of the Ansel Adams zone

system as applied to color photography that I have come across and I've been

recommending it to students and amateurs lately. It's worth every penny and you'll never

have to worry about exposure again if you can comprehend and apply the principles on

this disc.

 

Oh, here's the website: http://www.charlescampbell.com/chromazone/intro.html

 

Good luck.

Edward,<br><br><i>Incident metering is very useful for [...] macro work.</i><br><br>Not my experience. On the contrary. ;-)<br>In macro work, you're moving in a microcosmos of not only small subjects, but also of short distances, and micro lighting set ups. It's very, very difficult to use an incident light meter then.,br>I use a spotmeter - with diopters so i can still see what i'm metering.<br><br><i>It is a little difficult to be AT the subject in landscapes</i><br><br>Hmm... You're ususally right in the middle of your subject. ;-)<br>Incident metering is the easiest and most accurate way to meter landscapes. Far better than spot meters, i find.<br>Think of it: you're using one light source only, which is tat far away that it really doesn't matter at all where you are relative to the subject - the light is still going to be the same. And shadows while you're in the sun? Lift your hand and there's instant shadow.<br><br>Shooting transparencies, you point the dome towards the sun, and you'll know that as long as the sun is out, you're exposures will be right. Without having to meter each and every shot. Shooting negative film, you point the dome at 90 degrees to the sun, and that's it again. Meter once, and you get perfect results, as long as the light doesn't change.<br>Try doing that with a spot meter.. ;-)

 

 

, however. You must hold the meter in the same light as the subject, pointed toward the camera

Oops!<br><br>The part below should not have remained in my previous post! So lacking a way to edit, please do delete this in your minds. ;-) Thank you!<br><br>

<i>, however. You must hold the meter in the same light as the subject, pointed toward the camera</i>

CPeter,<br><br><i>Realize you are photographing "reflected light" from the subject NOT the light falling on the subject. Thus incident readings don't consider the actual difference between the shadows and highlights as reflected back from the scene. A flat brightness range--a fog bank over ocean waves lapping rocks on the beach--will be exposed the same as a white fishing boat with red sails against a bright blue sky when using an incident meter.</i><br><br>That is exactly why incident light metering is so very, very good.<br>You do not need to worry, at length usually, about the reflective properties of bits of your scene, and try to figure out how to bias exposures suggested by reflected light metering (spot) meters, to end up with the same results (if all that figuring is done properly) the incident light meter produces without effort.<br><br>All those crafty considerations may make you think figuring exposure is an high art, yes. But it isn't. All you're doing is trying to figure out how to compensate for the inadequacies of a particular metering method.<br>A tedious task, best left to people with SLR cameras with built-in meter.

It's hard to use incident metering on landscapes - often times you're faced with high-contrast scenes where the skies are brighter than the foreground, goodluck using incident readings when you have to use graduated ND grads and are shooting slides. I use incident metering when the light is even accross the field, when the sun is behind you and your subject is also illuminated by the sun. Otherwise, I use spot-metering. You have to train your eye to detect different shades of gray because that's how your meter sees. This comes with experience - If I where you, I'd go out with only my meter and a 18% Reflectant gray card and match different objects/subjects in the scene and figure out which matches the gray (green grass, tree trunk, etc.,). I also recommend reading "Perfect Exposure" by Jim Zuckerman and as already suggested "The Negative" by Ansel Adams - more technical and really more useful for Negative sheet film and Zone system (you don't have control of development when using roll film and slide film, but you can at least apply some of the concept).

I use a spot meter for all MF shooting. (They're not that expensive.) I've found that deep blue

sky or sunny green grass are close to Zone V. Most tree bark has refelectance close to Z V.

Otherwise, use the highlight and shadows approach, or spot and average the readings in your

head.

De Bakker,

 

All you say is true, but you are oversimplifying just as I did. Learning "rules" fills out that last 15% of situations which don't correspond to the elusive "average" scene, and often fool the most sophisticated SLR.

 

My macro photography tends to have high contrast, such as flowers against dark foliage. Sometimes the metering in my camera works, other times not. On the whole, I find incident metering is more accurate (and consistent). This is even more evident in shots of reflective surfaces, such as metal, cars or water. If possible, I consult the histogram on my LCD. That doesn't work so well with film - hence rules and experience.

 

Landscapes between 10a and 3p, with a bright sun over your shoulder are a problem? You could use the film data sheet in lieu of a light meter. A mountain stream in shadow and backlight is a little more challenging.<div></div>

Edward,<br><br>Oversimplifying?<br>If so, only a little bit. But i don't think i am, frankly.<br><br>Anyway, i think i must point out i'm not talking about "learning rules" or "average scenes". Nor even about sophisticated SLRs. I'm talking about metering. Incident light metering.<br>You meter the scene, and know that as long as the light doesn't change, there is no reason to meter again.<br><br>Trying to find an average of metered values, which you must do when using a spot meter, is no more than trying to guess what the incident light meter would have said. CPeter was right that darker thingies reflect less than lighter thingies. But the suggestion that that would be a problem, or even a reason to not use incident light metering is absurd. Things reflecting different amounts of light, CPeter, is why they appear as lighter and darker things. Meter the light that is illuminating these thingies, and the darker things still appear darker, the lighter still lighter, as by magic...<br>Now take a spot meter, and you'll find that the darker bit reflects less than the lighter bit. Now there's a surprise... And it took at least two readings to come to that shocking conclusion. And you still have to figure out what 'average' to use to get a decent exposure. What joy, using a spot meter... Just do not do so (nor use a wider reflect light meter), unless you absolutely have to.<br>For instance not in landscape photography, Adonis. It's a doddle getting perfect results using an incident light meter. Yes, even, no... especially (!), in 'difficult' high contrast situations.<br>Filters, by the way, do not complicate metering at all. They - another 'by the way' - should not be metered through. Especially not the graduated type, or polarizers. They have a simple filter factor. Use that.<br><br>You still manage to use an incident light meter in macro scenes, Edward? Good!<br>I suppose i had another type of macro photography in mind.<br>But yes, use an incident light meter whenever, and for as long as, it is possible.

De Bakker said, "Now take a spot meter, and you'll find that the darker bit reflects less than the lighter bit. Now there's a surprise... And it took at least two readings to come to that shocking conclusion."

 

I think you know more than you are letting on, and are perfectly competent to use a light meter. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm simply trying to pass something on that Jed can use.

 

The reflected/spot reading is the sum of light or shadow and reflectivity. An object with in the shade, and/or having reflectivity less than neutral (e.g., tree foliage = -1) should appear darker in the print. If using the direct reading would cause highlights to blow or shadows to block ... well, that's where the Zone System begins.

 

In the picture above, I used a 1 degree spot meter, and set the shadows in the snow to Zone 4. The highlights in the background were zone 8, which is manageable with Reala. I am standing in the shade with no practical way to "incident" meter the sun through the trees, as though that would help. My meter, a Sekonic L-508, reads in f/stops and seconds, by the way.

I love incident light metering and have no issues in using it for landscapes or anything else most of the time and you don't have to be 'at the subject'. All you have to do is make sure that the kind of light falling on your metering dome and it's angle is the same as your subject or landscape. For dark subjects try the meter reading +1. For bright subjects, it's meter reading -1. These compensations are the opposite of what you would do with a reflected light meter when dealing with dark or light subjects. Also make sure that you meter is giving correct readings by comparing it to another one of known accuracy.

Edward,<br><br>I do not know why you think i'm holding back, or anything. Yes, i do know very well how to meter. Yes, i do mean what i say. No, there is no catch.<br><br>You're reference to the Zone system is confusing: reflected light readings do indeed lead to dark objects appearing too light, light object appearing too dark. That's one reason why incident light metering is better.<br>We agree that that's not "where the Zone System begins". But your explanation of how you metered the scene is not "where the Zone System begins" either. You simply measured the contrast range, and used the term "Zone" to describe it. That is, however, completely out of context. Not "Zone System".<br>The "Zone System begins" where you tune exposure and processing such that tonal ranges expand or compress. Not something you can do with Reala.<br><br>So what did you do. You metered the shadows, and decided they should be 1 stop underexposed. Then you metered the highlights, and decided they should be 3 stops overexposed.<br>Does that make sense? Well, somewhat. We're left guessing what under- and overexposed means. Compared to what exactly? Using a spot meter/reflected light, the reflective values of the items metered as well as the amounts of light in shadow and highlights play a role. If you metered the snow in both highlight and shadow, you would indeed have a fixed reference, and you'd know more or less what the metered values are. You would still have to figure how the reflective properties of the metered bits (assuming only snow) differ from what the meter is calibrated to. So you're still guessing. (I know, people get better by practicing guessing. Some pride themselves at how good they are, call it a craft, or even art. But still...)<br>Could you solve this using incident light metering? Why, yes! Hold the dome in the sunlight, and you'd know the highlights will come out right. Hold it in the shade too, and you will know how to get the shadows exposed correctly. Now you know (!) two things, producing a third bit of knowledge: (lighting) contrast range. If that range happens to be too much, you decide what you want to do with it. Note: not guess, but decide.<br><br>You said you could not meter the sunlight directly. And i'll believe you (though we see how the light is reaching you ;-))<br>If that's the case, yes, then we might have an instance of an "unless you absolutely have to"-situation.

Thanks for all the replies, it was quite informative. I will read The Negative when I have time, and try to get to the meat and potatoes of it. I actually have the book, but I am in the middle of a huge re-model project at work, and it might be a couple weeks until I get to it.<BR><BR>

What I'm wondering is if I didn't have the angle to the sun right on my incident metering? I'm thinking specifically of a tree with large pine-cones that I tried to shoot, and it turned out way over exposed. The sun was behind the camera, directed at the tree. I remember metering toward the camera, but here's where my knowledge falls flat.<BR>

The dome of the incident meter - where do you point it in a situation like this? I think I pointed it at the lens of the camera, but should I have pointed it at the sun instead? I'm thinking this might be where I messed up.<BR>

Jed

Hold the meter with the dome towards the camera so that the meter and dome are like the tree with the light falling on it. If it's a big tree with sunlight falling on it and you are in the tree's shade underneath taking the reading, then the light is not falling on your meter as it is on the tree above you which can cause the overexposure. In this case I would move out to a clearing where the light can fall on the meter like it is on the tree and take my reading. Then move back under the tree to take your shot. Hope this helps.

De Bakker,

 

By the relative length of the narratives, it is quite clear how spot metering compares with incident metering in my example. The Zone system consists of two parts - exposure (which is valid for any film) and development (which is used to compress the response of B&W film). You can do one or both and still conform to the basic principles.

 

I think I misjudged you. If you don't have a copy of Adam's book, perhaps there is a library nearby.

Jed,

 

It's not quite so important exactly which direction you point the dome, but that it be in the same light or quality of light as the subject. You should be measuring the amount of illumination reaching the subject without regard to the reflectivity of the subject itself. You seem to have done it correctly, and should not have overexposed. Perhaps another setting was incorrect - the ISO for example, or something on the camera. There may be a problem with the meter (are repeat measurements consistent?).

Edward,<br><br><i>The Zone system consists of two parts - exposure (which is valid for any film) and development (which is used to compress the response of B&W film). You can do one or both and still conform to the basic principles.</i><br><br>No, you cannot.<br><br>The Zone System (not the capital letters) is nothing but a rather elaborate reworking of the age old adage "expose for the shadows, process for the highlights". The simple observation that there must be a minimum exposure to make sure there is something in the shadows that can be developed, that during processing these bits are fully developed before the highlights are, and that that gives a way of control over the densities of highlight areas, without affecting the shadow bits. Adams did not invent that. It is (or apparently 'was') part of the very basic knowledge of everyone doing photography. Sad to see (again) that people know the Big Words, but no longer possess that basic knowledge.<br><br>Now, if you think you can do one without the other, and still be doing "Zone", you really are very much mistaken.<br><br>So i'm glad you know where to find Adam's books. ;-)<br>I would suggest however, to forget about all that Capital Initials stuff (but if you do revere St Ansel, please take note that Adams himself did too. So you would not really be straying. ;-)), and return to thinking about what this Capital Initials stuff is veiling in shrouds: the simple processes that are photography itself.

Q.G. and I have expressed our differing opinions on the subject of incident light readings

vs. reflective light readings. I don't know his background but I have certainly come to

respect his knowledge of photography and lenses. However, my own background involved

spending a lot of class time over four years getting a degree in photojournalism in the

days when there were no digital cameras. And my professors had strong feelings about a

preference for reflected light readings and for the Ansel Adams Zone System.

 

Here is why:

 

On a bright sunny day, the incident light meter produces the same exposure value--as in

1/1000 @ f 5.6--as on any other sunny day without regard to the subject being

photographed.

 

Thus, a white cat just one shade darker than the snow bank behind him will appear exactly

the same on b&w film (and in a transparency) as a black cat one shade lighter than the

coal bin behind him.

 

Shoot both subjects at 800 film speed, 1/1000th @ f5.6 and you will get a medium gray

cat in both photos. The cat will be neither black nor white. And he'll be standing in front

of a gray background. You can't distinguish the coal from the snow on b&w and a color

transparency looks terrible.

 

Take a spot meter reflected light reading of the white cat and place it opposite Zone VIII

(on the Adams Zone System Scale 0 to 9) and it will call for an exposure of 1000th @ f2.

The cat will suddenly be "white" and the snow one shade "whiter" (in Zone IX).

 

Take a spot reading of light reflected from the black cat and place it in Zone III and you'll

get a reading of 1000th @ f11. The cat will be black but detail will still be distinguishable

in his fur while the coal background (one shade darker) will be solid black.

 

Adams' use of over or under development and choice of emulsions to extend or contract

the way the scene brightness range is reproduced on b&w film, but has no relevance to

this discussion. That was just a very useful extra tool he worked out. And it certainly isn't

relevant to color transparencies.

 

A color transparency of each cat produced from the same incident light exposure meter

reading will just look blah in both cases. You have much less emulsion latitude going for

your with reversal film but you can still favor the exposure a stop or more toward the

lighter or darker side to better capture the "brightness range" of the particular scene and

the objects within it. The Chromazone System above explains that in very understandable

terms. Much of it is available on the web site to which I referred above.

 

Essentially, to render white subjects white under bright sun you will have to increase

exposure. To render dark subects dark you'll have to decrease exposure because an

Incident meter will always call for an exposure that produces a "middle gray" or an image

that's balanced on Zone V.

 

The theory also helps the photographer to "control" the brightness range. Civil War

photographers found they had to double (or more) the exposure time when shooting

images of black soldiers or their would be little detail in their facial features. (Double time

of exposure is the same as increasing a full stop.)

 

See the attached images. Note how the street or ground and the roofs are washed out in

the photo of the black soldier indicating overexposure, yet his facial features are just

barely distinguishable. (This isn't the best example but one I found quickly.)

 

In the photo of the three Union officers, note how there is full detail in the grass, twigs

and leaves on the ground as well as in their features. Clearly the first photo shows far

greater exposure than the second.

 

The same is true today. You can manipulate which end of the "brightness range" is

favored by your exposure--even with transparencies--to produce the color density you

desire and the level of detail. (See that Chromazone site; it's a good example of Zones III

to VIII being used to "place" or "favor" that part of the sceen brightness range that the

photographer deems important to the image he is trying to capture. Otherwise, the

resulting color transparency will be exactly the same regardless of whether the

photographer is shooting a white clapboarded silo or a deep red barn. The silo will be

blown out white and the red barn will be a blah, soft reddish. Dropping the exposure one

or one-and-a-half stops will increase the color saturation of both buildings AND the

beauty of using reflected light spot readings is that you can "plot" them on a zone chart on

paper so you know at the time of exposure exactly how much from "normal" your image

will vary.

 

The Chromazone system, by the way, comes with two pads of paper zone charts as will as

with laminated color strips grouped according to zones required to produce accurate

color. Frankly I don't use the system myself as I know what I am doing from years of

experience (and a meter marked with the Adams zones). But, for someone learning the

key to changing color saturation and how to control highlight and shadow detail when

using a limited latitude film (any chrome), the system and theory really work.

 

Q.G. Send me your address and I'll send you a free Chromazone Disc and kit for your

birthday (whenever it is.)

 

CPeter<div></div>

Comparison Image of Union Officers with ground properly exposed.<div></div>

<i>On a bright sunny day, the incident light meter produces the same exposure value--as in 1/1000 @ f 5.6--as on any other sunny day without regard to the subject being photographed.<br><br>Thus, a white cat just one shade darker than the snow bank behind him will appear exactly the same on b&w film (and in a transparency) as a black cat one shade lighter than the coal bin behind him.</i><br><br>Well there we are, CPeter. Must be that it was so long ago, but you have it completely backwards. That will happen using"<b>reflected light metering</b>, not incident.<br>Incident light metering doesn't take the colour or breflective properties of those ctas and banks into account, and so the black cat will appear as dark as it is, the white cat as light as it is on film. Reflected light metering however 'thinks' everything is the same, and the two metering results will vary such that the black and white cats do indeed appear "exactly the same on b&w film (and in a transparency)".<br><br>You do indeed need to increase exposure keep the white cat white, decrease the exposure to keep the black cat black. <b>But only when using reflected light metering!</b><br><br>A refresher course for your birthday perhaps? ;-)