Light metering

[jack_welsh]

<p>All an incident meter does is measure the light falling on a subject. In a front lit scene, it measures the subject in the light, On a side lit scene, the half dome picks up the light in the light and shadows. The flat disc, is used to measure the contrast. The biggest confusion people have about incident meters is that you don't always have to be close to the subject. If, you photograph a mountain 20 miles away. You don't have to drive 20 miles to get close to it. As long as the meter is in the same lighting conditions, then you're set. If the mountain is in some fog conditions. Then, you will photograph the mountain showing those conditions. With a backlit scene, point the meter at the camera first. You can use the flat disc for that. Then, you can point the disc at the light source. Since this will probablt show that the scene has too much contrast. Place a reflector to direct some of the light on the subject. Then, take a reading again. If you can get a L-508 for under $200.00, then get it. Mine cost $500.00. I would rather sell a camera than the 508.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>"As long as the meter is in the same lighting conditions, then you're set."</p>

<p>Sure. But since in landscape work you often can't find the same light (as in the first image in this thread where what's happening on the mountain is very different from what's happening at the camera location), you aren't set. And you also aren't set because in the late afternoon, the mountain looks really bright when you are standing in the shadows, since your eyes adjust to the shadows. But the incident reading of the mountain would place it quite a bit darker than its subjective appearance. The geologist may find it a more useful shot, but it isn't what the landscape photographer wanted.</p>

<p>And a lot of time for landscapes/cityscapes, on a nice day with a dramatic sky, the interesting thing is to place the sky so the blue is rendered best for the (slide) film being used, and to let everything else fall as it falls. Can't do that with incident metering.</p>

<p>"All an incident meter does is measure the light falling on a subject."</p>

<p>Sure. But in a lot of situations, that's simply not enough, or not the right, information. The backlit portrait is simple with zone-informed spotmetering: decide what density of shadow the subject's face _appears to be subjectively_, and then place the (measured) luminance of the face at that zone. (To get to a zone from an incident reading, you need to know the reflectance of the subject; you don't need to know that for spotmetering.) And if you have a wide latitude film, the spotmeter then lets you ask how to compromise the zone placement of the subject to get the background under control.<br>

Spotmetering lets you ask the questions you need to be asking, namely how do I get my subjective impression of the scene onto the film.</p>

 

[John Sully]

<p>Lee get a spotmeter, the simpler the better. I've used a Minolta Spotmatic V and an old Soligor spotmeter. I liked the Soligor better. Pentax made a similar one. They are both cheap on the used market (hint Bozeman Camera has one in stock right now...). </p>

<p>The trick is to understand what the spot meter is telling you. You have to remember that the reading tells you what exposure to use to put the area you are metering to an 18% grey equivalent. You need to adjust the exposure up or down depending on how you want the metered area to appear in your final print. For film remember that you need to retain shadow detail (expose to the left in digital lingo) rather than expose for highlights (expose to the right). Using a spotmeter is a bit of an art and it takes some thinking to visualize where you want tones to end up in your final image. Practice, practice, practice. Working with MF is great though -- you can get huge prints with little grain and wonderful smooth tonality. Once you get the hang of it, you'll think you are a photo god.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Spot metering does allow you to place the shadows in zone III and the Highlights in Zone VII, etc. It's fine for those who want to use the zone system type of photography. Even, if it's just to place the key element in a certain zone. But, with incident metering for those who don't want to invest in a good spot meter. Then, incident will do fine. Any reflective meter can be fooled by the subject. Take a reading of a white wall, then a black one. The readings are different. It will show them both as a middle grey. The reflective meter reads everything as a middle grey. That's why when I take a reading of a shadow,I have to stop the lens down by 2 stops.The incident just measures the light falling on the wall. So,the reading is the same. A person can do very well of a backlit scene with the incident. He just as to know what the meter is telling him,(or, her!)<br>

To photograph the mountain when I am in a shadow,then, I would move just enough to put the meter in the same lighting conditions. The point is that anyone can do well with either one. Years ago, I used my Studio Deluxe in incident mode only. Now, with the 508, I use either spot or incident. Both modes work fine.If, a person wants to photograph so the sky is rendered best with a spot meter. Then, he has to take a reading of the sky and know how to interpet it to place it in the proper zone. If, I wanted to photograph so the sky looks normal with an incident meter. Then, I would simply place the meter in the sun. The sky will fall in the proper zone. Since the sky is also lit by the sun.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>David (L),</p>

<p>I see that this will never end.<br>

I'll be even more patronizing than i usually am, and give you a pice of (very good - yes, i'm modest too) advice:<br>

Take some time to think about what light is, how it behaves.<br>

Long enough to not come up with such beauties like "the light coming through the window isn't illuminating anything in the scene" as why you don't get a silhouette. Or that classic walk-over-to thingy. <br>

But certainly long enough to understand where in the process of metering what a meter does ends, and where you take over.</p>

<p>Next do what you keep telling other people to do, and get out and try! Do something you have obviously so little first hand knowledge of (either that, or you are the greatest imposter of all times).<br>

Then you will soon be singing a different song. (And, for instance, never worry about skies anymore. You'll know that skies are not a problem when using incident metering. Thinking that they are is clear evidence that you have no experience worth mentioning with an incident meter whatsoever.)</p>

<p>The final (perhaps unrelated, perhaps not) thing is to stop using Zone Jargon.<br>

All it shows is that you are confused, or hope to confuse. In this entire thread, not a single time has anything the zone system is concerned with been mentioned.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>To the original question for what to get in a meter. I'd get ( and did) one of the good Sekonic, if you can afford it the model that combines incident, spot and flash metering. It's the last meter you'll probably need, though the spot meter isn't as good (IMO) as the Pentax Spot meter. But its a good accurate meter and will handle your immediate needs as well as future needs. </p>

[rick_donnelly]

<p>This is the first time I've seen a metering version of the digital-vs-film wars. Amazing.<br>

Rather than offer more opinion, let me submit the following fact for consideration in support of the keep-it-simple approach:<br>

Galen Rowell never used a spot meter. He rarely used anything but the internal meter on his camera, and his own experience. Anyone looked at his color landscape photographs recently?</p>

 

[link]

<p>Lee,</p>

<p>If you're getting only one meter...get a spot meter. You can always use it as an incident meter by keeping a small piece of a photo grey card in your pocket and (by taking the card out of your pocket) taking a reading off the card with the grey card aimed toward the camera.</p>

<p>Amazing, two meters for the price of one. My favorite spot meter is the Pentax digital model, but I don't think it's manufactured anymore so you'll need to buy used. </p>

<p>For landscapes, an incident meter is certainly not ideal, though you could get by with one 80% of the time maybe. Though to be fair, a spot meter will require some learning to use correctly itself.</p>

<p>BTW, I really like the Portra 160nc for landscapes...</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Lee, I have the Sekonic L-358. I love it. I got because I have old manual focus Nikon lenes that would mount but not meter on my D70s. I also have an old Nikon F, with all of the view finders. The FTn was designed for old mercury containing button batteries that cannot be sold in the USA, and the substitutes do not do that well for me. So, the Sekonic filled in beautifully. So, I wanted an external meter for shooting film with it. When used in incident mode, it nails the exposure better, in my opinion, than an in camera meter will do. It does reflective metering too. In the latter mode, it can do to take a reading right off the subject or, if the light is generally the same where you and the subject are, off your own palm. It's not as expensive as some others, but it is full featured enough that you can take it into the flash realm if you want.</p>

<p>For spot metering, my wish list would be for something like the old Pentax hand held spot meter or a more modern equivalent.</p>

<p>Dave Ralph</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Perhaps we are getting dangerously near to expecting our equipment to do everything perfectly for us on every occasion, and excluding skill, knowledge and expertise on the part of the user. The truth is that you still have to learn your trade.</p>

<p>I started "serious" photography in the late 1950s. I couldn't afford a photo-electric meter, but my 35mm camera had a small extinction one built in. I only used transparency film. It was very expensive, and money was very tight. It meant that I couldn't press the shutter in the <em>hope </em>that the exposure would be good. I took landscapes, seascapes, sunsets, portraits, etc, etc. Only in very low light did the extinction meter fail to do its job. That said, it took a little time for your eye to adjust to the light when you looked through the meter eyepiece, and, to that extent, it was a pain. You also had to make sense of what you were about to take, but shouldn't you always do that? I might get two or three poorly exposed frames per film, but it was rarely more than that. Perhaps it was a bit like a backwoodsman of old: you made sure you shot your prey or you starved!</p>

<p>One day, I fell into conversation with another photographer: he was sporting the latest Weston Master with his posh camera. He was rather dismissive when I said I was using the small extinction meter.</p>

<p>We were sitting on a wooded bank overlooking a lake. He challenged me to meter several views - sunshine and shade - and compare them with his Weston. It took me longer to take my readings, but all were within half a stop of his. He was obviously surprised. Mine might have been more accurate............</p>

<p>I saved my money, and a year or two later I bought a Weston with an invercone, but I only occasionally used the latter. At that time, I still used only transparency film, and my photography remained quite catholic. There were, perhaps, even fewer poorly exposed frames: I continued to concentrate on using the meter properly, ie not just simply waving it in the general direction of the subject matter, and have regard to lighting conditions, especially remembering the relevance of highlights on transparency film.</p>

<p>However, perhaps I fell into "bad" ways when I bought my first Nikon - an f301. At first, I was inclined to assume it would meter perfectly everytime, but I think it got over that quite quickly!</p>

<p>Amongst others, I presently use a Nikon f90x, a D70s, and Bronica Etrsi. I recently bought a second Gossen Lunasix F, as a "spare" for use with the Bronica. I thought it would be interesting to test several cameras and meters in different conditions and see how they compared. There was the f90x, an 801s, the D70s, three Westons and the two Gossens.</p>

<p>Two of the Westons were obviously miles out, and discarded. Of the others, in a variety of conditions, they were within half a stop or so of each other. That said, I didn't simply point the camera or meter and assume the reading would inevitably be right. Perhaps going back to my days with the extinction meter, I really tried to concentrate on what I was doing. It is not a matter of mistrusting the meter: it is a matter of appreciating properly that the meter is a tool, and you should be in control of it, not the other way round!</p>

<p>Some people who take photographs, look, but they don't see. It can be the same when metering....</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>.</p>

<p> </p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Well, light meter discussions are so little fun ...and taken so needlessly seriously.</p>

<p>I just went MF and bought the Gossen Digisix meter for it. I like to compare (for landscapes) the incidence reading (with dome on, pointing to the sky/sun) with semi-spot metering (dome off, 25 degrees) and moving the meter's aim about the subject to get EV differences. Then I decide.</p>

<p>Correct exposure is a function of one's brain, memory, experience, desire to depict what one wants and how one wants the pic to look. NOT of the method used to obtain these readings!</p>

<p>Fortunately one cannot buy experience, nor brains. One has to train oneself and then - even after 35 years with TTL metering in my case - one will get perfect exposures 99 % of the time. No matter which meter, which method of metering.</p>

<p>Good luck then and perseverance and a bit of understanding of the simplest physics of light and darkness to all the posters here!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Agree entirely. Frank. Thanks for those comments.</p>

[john_lilenhof]

<p>Don't forget to compensate for lens extension.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>The OP stated he was using Portra 160, one of the most forgiving in exposure latitude print films ever coated.<br>

If he's within a couple of stops, he's probably golden. Reading the box and applying Sunny-16 guestimation will likely be close enough from dusk to dawn for getting results in one shot. Critical shots can backed up by bracketing a stop over and a stop under the guestimate. If he's got a working shutter, he just nailed it.<br>

So the point of this gratuitous incident v. spot argument is...?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<blockquote>

<p>"So the point of this gratuitous incident v. spot argument is...?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps that the sun isn't always shining? Skies are not always blue?<br>

;-)</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>You do realize that Sunny 16 doesn't mean the same exposure throughout the whole day, right? Last I looked Kodak was still printing instructions inside the box for sunny, cloudy bright, cloudy, open shade, dimly lit, so on and so forth.<br>

Color negative film is pretty advanced stuff, but exposing it for good results sure doesn't require much rocket science at all.</p>

 

[philippartridge]

<p>Geez, the OP must be sorry he posted his question now, not even a troll, yet look at the war he precipitated! Hah. On the old argument re spot v incident, the best technique, I believe, is spot metering. Incident simply won't work sometimes , and will prove sub-optimal perhaps even most of the time - as you cannot be in the light most of the scene is lit by in some circumstances; and one needs to know the dynamic range of the intended composition.<br>

And incident will not give you any clue about the things you most need to know:<br>

. the dynamic range of the scene;<br>

. the LV (or EV in adjusted terms) of the brightest component of the scene and similarly for the bottom of the light scale;<br>

. the LV relative to your chosen exposure of the components in which you want detail;<br>

. how each part of the composition will express its tonality relative to mid-tone.<br>

I want a dollar for every scene for which I had to forego a shot due to excessive DR!<br>

And I defy anyone still on this mortal coil to consistently derive correct exposure for Velvia 50 without blocking either shadows or highlights a fair proportion of the time.<br>

The Pentax digital spotmeter goes literally everywhere with me and gets way more use than any of my cameras.<br>

Interestingly in this saturation digital age, they still fetch excellent prices.<br>

PS You can get away with plenty if you shoot C41 with a little nominal over-exposure; E6, forget about it.<br>

regards all.</p>