Incident Vs Reflected light readings?

<p>Incident Vs Reflected light readings? How do I know when to use each and what is the difference between them using a Gosse n Luna Pro F, with Nikon F and F-36 Motor Drive Outdoor pictures using professional Portra 400 ASA Film <br>

<p>An incident meter measures the light that is <em>illuminating </em>your subject. A reflected light meter measures the light that is <em>reflecting </em>from your subject. <br>

Unless you really know what you are doing with a reflected light meter, an incident meter will generally be more reliable in most circumstances. </p>

<p>Ellis +1, and you should really learn to work with either type of meter until you know what you are doing.</p>

<p>A light meter is no better than the skill of the person using it.</p>

<p>A reflected light meter assumes the subject has a reflectance of about 18% (the same as neutral gray), and sets the exposure accordingly. That's good for a typical landscape in daylight, but not if something lighter or darker is predominant. Skin, for example, reflects about twice as much. A reading from a person's face will be about a stop underexposed. Grass, blue sky, red barns and such are about right. Bushes and trees are about a stop darker (resulting in overexposure).</p>

<p>An incident meter measures light falling on the subject. The exposure is set as though the subject has a reflectance of 18%, without regard to the composition of the subject.</p>

<p>An incident meter is highly effective for people (faces), flowers and closeups in general. The meter is held near the subject (or in the same light), pointing toward the camera. They are the method of choice for portraits, formal groups and anything with studio flash units or hot lights. It is not influenced by the clothing or environment of the subject, and renders all skin tones accurately.</p>

<p>Reflectance meters are used where you can't get near the subject easily, or where the subject is has very dark or very bright elements (or both). Camera meters are generally reflectance meters because the camera is here and the subject is there - a matter of convenience. Spot meters measure a small area (typically 1 degree wide), and it's up to the user to make the necessary compromises. Modern cameras use "matrix" metering, which measure both the intensity and distribution of reflected light, and use fuzzy logic to make decisions an experienced photographer would make. Cameras like the Nikon F5, F100 and newer are very, very good in this respect.</p>

<p>Ellis + 2. An incident meter will give you more consistent results with less skill than reflected readings. you may read references to taking reflected readings off of an 18% grey card. The problem is that even the grey card can provide different readings depending on how it's reflecting the light source.</p>

<p>"when to use each" -- whenever possible, use an incident reading. The only real reason not to is when you can't get your meter into a position where it is being hit by the same light as the subject (let's say there's a performer on stage in a spotlight and you're shooting from the audience).</p>

<p>Ellis +3 and Craig +1. Use the incident meter.</p>

<p>Reflected meters are for setting the tonality of a specific spot or small area of the subject. This is a technique that requires a lot of practice, with expertise developed over years.</p>

<p>It's instructive to take reflective readings after you've read the incident value. Move the sensitive reflective meter area around until you find a point on the subject that reads the same value as the incident meter. That spot has a reflectance of 18%, which is the value that the incident meter is calibrated for.</p>

<p>If you do this often enough, paying attention to colors and textures, you'll start to learn what an "average" reflectance is. Once you can estimate that accurately, you can start working with highlights and shadows.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>Given my druthers in over 50 years of shooting, I'd choose an incident meter over a reflected meter 99% of the time. I use both, but for sheer consistency and especially for somebody new to photography , lighting and exposure, I'd say start with the incident method and learn your way to reflected. After a while you should develop the skills to be able to mentally use the Sunny 16 rule (which means in your head with no external metering for normal outdoors work in daylight).</p>

<p>+1 to what Ellis said too.</p>

<p>And get one that can take a flash pop too.</p>

<p> Most of the Leica guys do not need a meter as they have a built in meter that works on pancakes and coffee. My bicycle runs on pancakes and coffee also. Amazing fuel. However my F100 is pretty much problem free using the center weighted meter. Sometimes I increase exposure a bit. The incident meter is fine but it's slow to use and scenics take a bit of guessing. You can put a styrofoam coffee cup over you camera lens and turn it into a incident meter if you think you need one. You have to turn around however as aiming it at your subject will ruin your frame.</p>

<p>As you might have figured out by now, Ellis has the essentials. ;)</p>

<p>There are Gossen manuals at Butkus's site (<a href="http://www.butkus.org/chinon/flashes_meters.htm">link</a>) that contain an explanation of how to use the meter for each kind of metering. Find the manual for your meter or something similar, most features on the different models aren't all that different.</p>

<p>Not to detract from some opinions here, but Ansel Adams trashed incident metering as a way to go. Read his works and see the prints he made.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ansel Adams trashed incident metering as a way to go</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Irrelevant. Techniques of the masters are seldom recommended to novices.</p>

<p>Someone learning to drive does not start out in a Formula I race car.</p>

<p>Reflected light meters are valuable tools in the hands of those who know how to use them. If you'll read my post from 6:45PM yesterday you'll see that I gave a method for learning their basic operation.</p>

<p>Then you study the Zone System, calibrate your entire workflow from film exposure selection through film development, print exposure and development, and you can make prints as good as Ansel.</p>

<p>Should only take thirty or forty years. I've been doing this for over 55 years, and still am not satisfied with the results.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Not to detract from some opinions here, but Ansel Adams trashed incident metering as a way to go. Read his works and see the prints he made.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for adding to the conversation. Ansel's stance was simple: "The Negative is the score, the print is the performance." Read up on how much work went into some of his prints. A case in point being "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" being a real pain to print because he mistakenly , as he later and freely admitted, based that negative's exposure on the known reflectance values of the moon. He also reinterpreted the negatives in many different ways over the years, burning the sky ever darker until clouds in early prints were not there in later prints, Adams even went so far as to redevelop the lower half of the negative in an attempt to intensify those shadow values. You can see the difference @ http://www.laurenhenkinblog.com/2010/09/the-interpretive-print/moonrisebefore/ and http://www.laurenhenkinblog.com/2010/09/the-interpretive-print/moonriseafter/</p>

<p>While it is true that any light meter reading requires interpretation on the part of the photographer. As with all light meters whether handheld broad angle reflective (like the Luna Pro) or 1˚spot reflective or incident type; or TTL (Through the Lens) spot, center weighted, averaging, or computer assisted evaluative (like the Nikon Matrix metering systems) you have to know how to calibrate the meter's performance to the camera's performance to how the film or digital image recording system ( sensor + internal processor (even for raw files) + firmware) behaves. This kind of functional knowledge you gain through experience. </p>

<p>But reflective readings require more interpretation. You have to be able to look at the scene and roughly judge how reflective they are and with a spot meter how one value relates to another.</p>

<p>In general , at least since the early 1990s Canon and Nikon's internal metering systems have worked very well and have over the past twenty years gotten better and better. That qualitative improvement is the result of hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of exposures by people using this gear. </p>

<p>But one important idea contains the truth of what Ansel Adams knew: no meter or metering system can read your mind as to what your intent is with a set of photos or a single photo. Sometimes the technically wrong exposure is very much the right one for the photograph you want to make. As Leigh B indirectly points out in 07:23Am post on 2/16/2011, Exposure is more than just a technical exercise. It also influences how you want to see and want someone to see what you saw. That is why in the film days those of us who worked outdoors we bracketed exposures like crazy: we were bracketing interpretations of ideas as well as technically covering our butts : we just didn't always know which exposure might yield a stronger interpretation, would make the clearer gesture, as a photograph.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's my understanding that light meters are set to the ANSI standard of 13% and not 18%.</p>

<p>Ellis +1, Craig +1</p>

<p>Incident light meters are the way I prefer to go, albeit with some hard-learned tweaks regarding equipment.</p>

<p>An 18% gray card can convert nearly any camera meter to read incidence light. It does take some skill to use a gray card, but not much. I recently just replaced my old worn-out gray card and I was elated to find that I could still get one.</p>

<p>A gray card can be most handy with film photography as most negative films have enough latitude to handle an exposure +/- a stop and some film (used to?) can have as much as 2 stops of latitude with minimal loss to image quality. Slide film is less forgiving, but I think it has beautiful color rendition.</p>

<p>I do believe an incidence meter won't help one much when using flash indoors (excluding fill-flash scenarios). But that's another topic all together. As for digital photography, I'll let someone who is more versed on it take that wheel. I only dabble with digital.</p>

<p>@ Garrison, yes, they are supposed to be according to the ISO standard, but manufacturers seem to do what they please. In the case of the OP, she specified the "Gossen Luna Pro F" which claims in its manual that it is 18%. This just goes to show that 1) everyone needs to calibrate their own process, and 2) stop generalizing on "18% grey". Meters are supposed to be calibrated to produce the correct exposure for average subjects, and there is no reason to believe this is exactly 18% - and in any event it is by no means grey.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A case in point being "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" being a real pain to print because he mistakenly , as he later and freely admitted, based that negative's exposure on the known reflectance values of the moon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ansel didn't even meter that shot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>stop generalizing on "18% grey".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps you should broadcast that statement to the industry. They don't seem to agree with you.</p>

<p>The value of 18% was used since the earliest light meters, at least here in the US. The value is based on extensive research at Kodak, or at least that's the common story. This only pertains to still photography. I don't know what standard is used for cinema.</p>

<p>If 18% is such an arbitrary value, perhaps you could explain why we can buy 18% gray cards, but no other value.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's my understanding that light meters are set to the ANSI standard of 13% and not 18%.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my understanding also (actually, it may be 12.5%, haven't read the standard). Meter a gray card (or clear blue sky, white wall, whatever) and make a shot. Look at your histogram. Is it dead center or off to the left? I've tested my Nikons over the years, matrix, center, and spot, and they all have underexposed by 1/2 - 2/3 stop. This indicates that they are set to ANSI standard, not 18%.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ansel Adams trashed incident metering as a way to go.</p>

<p>Irrelevant. Techniques of the masters are seldom recommended to novices.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How many novices use incident meters?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How many novices use incident meters?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The vast majority of those who use meters at all.</p>

<p>Considering this is the thread topic, it seems relevant.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>@Leigh - 18% is a standard reference value. We need a standard and this one was inherited from the graphics industry. But that doesn't mean it is exactly the value for an average scene. For that you need to make about a half-stop adjustment. This is clearly stated in the instructions for Kodak gray cards and other authoritative sources. It is also the only way my meters agree on both reflected and incident metering modes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How many novices use incident meters?</p>

<p>The vast majority of those who use meters at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting statement. I've yet to meet a novice that even knows what an incident meter is. They simply use the meters in their cameras, which are not incident meters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They simply use the meters in their cameras, which are not incident meters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The topic of the thread is hand-held incident v. reflectance light meters.</p>

<p>Apparently English is not your first language.</p>

<p>When I taught photography, our students were required to use handheld meters, so they would understand what they were doing...<br>

<br /> rather than just looking at a histogram.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>