Tip for beginners: Incident light reading for digital

[uk]

For 30 years I've been shooting MF and LF using the Zone System and a spot meter. Only

last year, through commercial necessity did I turn to colour and a D70 digital camera. The

auto focus/auto exposure/bracketing/continuous shooting modes were a revalation. To

ensure I got an image I bracketed +- 0.7 and shot in RAW. With 'deletion' on the move I

returned from commercial shoots with 150 frames that were culled to half a dozen for

submission.

 

I began to get frustrated as each frame needed examining and then some level of post

processing and it seemed that RAW was saving the day. I also back up with a roll or two of

MF film and these usually are much more impressive than the digital and have high

proportion of keepers.

 

This week whilst shooting a white subject in harsh light against a blue sky with deep

shadows in the background (worst case wedding scenario?).

 

I struggled to get the bracketing right and following threads on this Forum, I decided to

take an incident reading and the result was perfect. Great image on the screen, great

histogram. I set the camera on manual andd left it there and ended up with the most

consistant set of exposures I've ever had from the D70.

 

The work on the day was halved, the post processing has been more than halved and the

confidence that the shot was in the bag was immediate, making the whole thing less

onorous and more fun.

 

An added benefit for me is that, I no longer yearn for TTL metering for my recently CLA'd

and viewfinder re-silvered Leica M3 in wedding situations, removng what I previously

thought was a significant disadvantage causing the camera to move towards an ePay

listing.

 

So, if you haven't attempted incident reading with your digi yet, I suggest you give it a try.

 

Regards

 

Gary - Manchester UK<div></div>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

You just have to make sure that the iso settings on your camera and light meter match, my sekonic underexposes by 2/3 of a stop compared to my 5D though I have little doubt that the sekonic is more accurate, you have to test your meter against your camera for the most accurate results just as we used to expose NPH @ 320.

[chris m., central florida]

You need to calibrate most light meters to get an accurate exposure reading. One of my Sekonics arrived perfectly calibrated, the other was about 1/3 stop off and I would have consistently overexposed images if I had not claibrted the meter or adjusted ofr it on the fly.

[phil_p]

I've been curious about trying an incident light meter to get more accurate exposures. In camera metering can be tricky at times depending on the scene, it seems like it would be easier to measure the light falling on the scene instead of the reflective light.

 

Just to make sure I understand the concept, does the meter basically tell you aperture and shutterspeed to use for a given aperture based on the amount of light that hits the meter?

[emmett_s]

Phil P - Yep! That's the concept. An incident meter reads the light arriving on the subject. That way the subjects shade(snow? coal?) won't fool the meter into thinking that the subject is 18% grey.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Ben R. Wrote: "You just have to make sure that the iso settings on your camera and light meter match, my sekonic underexposes by 2/3 of a stop compared to my 5D"

 

Yup. I had thought of it as the 5D overexposing, but whatever way works for the way you think. :-)

 

On the use of incident at weddings. Gary, do you think you can pull that off when you are moving constanly in and out of shadow/sunlight etc. and not just miss a bunch? I can see the advantage when you have consisten light levels. Just wondering what you think, as you have a great deal more experience than I.

 

Regards, D.

[phil_p]

I realized I used the word aperture twice in my post, what I meant was an "aperture and shutterspeed for a given ISO." Sometimes I type faster than I think! An incident meter definitely sounds like a good thing, although I should probably get myself a grey card and accomplish some of the same things, but an incident meter seems generally more accurate.

[al_kaplan1]

Incident is the best way to go for digital or film. Get to a location, wander around, making readings and making mental notes about the light level in various parts of the location. After that you just have to change the shutter speed and/or f/stop as required. I use a Weston Master V. It doesn't even use batteries.

[maria barnett]

I have long suspected that my Sekonic may need to be calibrated---I seem to be overexposing when I rely on it. However, I have no idea how to do this. Can someone outline how to go about calibrating your light meter to your camera? As a newbie to using an incident meter I would greatly appreciate this information.

[al_kaplan1]

The easiest way is to take a reading with another meter that you know is accurate, or with your camera off a neutral grey (18%) card. Now set your seperate meter to the same shutter speed and aperture by adjusting the ISO. You might have to set the ISO at 250 or 500 or something else to get correct exposure with ISO 400 for instance.

[uk]

Thanks guys, appreciate the input and am really pleased that there is support for going

forward with film scanning.

 

David,

"On the use of incident at weddings. Gary, do you think you can pull that off when you are

moving constantly in and out of shadow/sunlight etc. and not just miss a bunch?"

 

Dunno really, I can't say that this is my biggest concern in getting into this wedding

business, I think Al is right in suggesting you wander around and take readings in advance

and decided on the upper and lower light levels and decide how you will control either

aperture or shutter speed in the different scenarios with the lens.

 

My guess is worst case will always be 1/8" at f2 and if it's worse, or there's movement, the

shot is lost anyway. The shot below was taken at those readings last Saturday and you can

see the ring going on the finger. Pleasing for handheld at 1/8" and the repeats were just

as good. I think I might have had my elbows on a pew.

 

I could not have shot this with my 18-70mm. It's not a great pic, but I'm building

confidence and I wasn't the hired photographer so getting on the stage was not possible.

 

My biggest concern is being tied down to a tripod - been there and that's not want I want

to do. It suffocates the style and not moving the damn tripod becomes more important

than getting better pictures and I've always felt that "I'll be glad when this is over". For me

it's like reading a speech rather than being well prepared and then prompted by the slides.

 

Second, and pretty high on the list is how the hell to focus fast enough to grab

spontaneous opportunities. I guess, be prepared and those opportunities are not a

surprise. I think that means don't wander around hoping, but wait and anticipate and

focus where it might happen. At a recent Jeff Ascough seminar, he showed a pic where it

was dark outside and the only light came from a single bare bulb. He waited for the bride

to bow to embrace a short lady when he knew the bride's movement would led the light

flood onto the girl's face. That's anticipation.

 

Third concern is will I even spot the pic opportunities. You know the "I walked past it a

million times and Elliott Erwitt made a class picture out of it the first time he saw it"

scenario. Think that needs to be worked on. If I don't manage it, I'll be in the cheap

wedding business for ever.

 

Maria,

Testing an incident meter against a camera meter is not difficult. First, using other

borrowed hand-held meters, check it's accuracy. Spot on, two or three times, means it's

probably OK.

 

Then check whether its reading produces a great histogram and a great digital image.

Much easier than cutting strips of film and developing for different lengths of time to

confirm highlight control !! There's quite a bit of latitude in most photographic processes

and variations don't normally ruin pictures, but cumulative errors do. Not the expert here,

but trying to make progress.

 

Gary - Manchester UK<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Nikon's matrix metering is a useful tool but it's not the right tool for every situation. I still use my incident meter in tricky situations or when I need only one meter reading for an entire sessions, such as shooting indoor events where the light doesn't vary.

[picturesque]

Agree with everyone about incident readings, but want to add, in reference to changing light conditions, that besides using the Al Kaplan walk around technique, one begins to remember settings after taking a few incident readings outdoors. Outdoor lighting is pretty consistent. How many times does one have to meter a particular type of lighting to realize that one already knew the answer and didn't have to meter at all? In my case, I need a few readings before it dawns on me, but it does dawn on me eventually.

[al_kaplan1]

Thanks, Nadine! Now I'm getting specific techniques named after me! "The Al Kaplan walk around technique". The truth is you could have read about that in a photo magazine half a century ago...LOL

It seems that every new generation has to re-invent the wheel.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008ci4

 

Scroll down to the June 24th post for a picture of Craig Hoehne making an incident reading at a wedding in Australia with my ugly face on his T-shirt...I wouldn't try that in the U.S.

[larry schaefer - chicago,]

As an excercise I have ocassionally dabbled with the Al Kaplan Walk Around Technique. Hereafter referred to as AKWAT. It is an effective means to establishing a more intuitive awareness of light conditions.

 

If you are shooting zillions of meter readings you begin to memorize by the repetition. Back in my teen Tri-X Plus-X and Panatomic-X days you just remembered as habit and found it to be faster not to meter that much.

[al_kaplan1]

Larry, I like that - AKWAT. Very good! Along the same lines it used to be easier and faster to frame before zooms because you'd learn your lens's coverage, and instinctively know where to stand. It 's easy to get sharp in focus shots when you get a feel for your lens's depth of field at various apertures and don't have to think about it each time. The best thing about using an old fashioned camera such as a Rolleiflex or Leica is the zero time delay when you push the release. No time wasted while the camera figures exposure and focus, and the mirror flips out of the way. What you see is what you get! You can see the subjects during the exposure so you can see blinks. A lot of people blink when they hear the sound of the camera doing its thing. By the time the mirror is up they're in full blink mode!

[rtrace]

I have to admit to never using an incident meter - other than when I was trying to decide if I should or not way back in the day. I just use partial or spot. Quicker for me.

 

Bogdan

[rtrace]

And of course I use EC/FEC as needed. Never had an issue really exposing for what I wanted. I guess it's whatever you're most used to or comfortable/fast with.

 

Bogdan