Incident Vs Reflected light readings?

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Glad I'm not alone. That's my experience as well, Chris. Thom Hogan used to have a great article on this "untruth" too.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> 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>Agreed. And even most amateurs don't know what a hand-held meter is today.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I've been doing this for over 55 years, and still am not satisfied with the results.<br>

- Leigh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Treat it like 13% grey and you'll get the hang of it.</p>

[chris_leck]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1763462">Garrison K.</a>: Thom's article is at http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm.</p>

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Histograms are tools. Meters, hand-held or in-camera, are tools. Ideally, photographers become proficient with all of these tools. Then they select the tools needed to accomplish their goals.</p>

<p>However, today's in-camera tools, along with instant playback, make external meters superfluous in many, or most cases. Since the digital age, I have eschewed external metering as it hasn't been necessary for most of my work. The occasional exception is flash metering of multiple strobes. Different strokes for different folks. We are fortunate to have so many tools to choose from. It's all good.</p>

<p>It is interesting that I have met quite a number of photographers (including advanced and pro) that don't understand histograms, let alone use them. Like an external meter, they simply provide information. It's up to the photographer to put information to good use, and silly to ignore helpful tools.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>cheers, Chris.</p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>We are fortunate to have so many tools to choose from. It's all good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. I think any serious photographer should be able to use all available tools.</p>

<p>Our focus at school was on professional training, and most of the emphasis was placed on studio work. Very few studio cameras have light meters built in, much less histograms, and those are very expensive.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>Treat it like 13% grey and you'll get the hang of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've always used 18% gray cards and have no exposure problems whatsoever.</p>

<p>My comment was regarding the aesthetics of the work. Techically it's excellent, both negatives and prints, although certainly not in a league with Adams et al.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[chris_leck]

<p>OK, back to the original post. If I was using color negative film, I would compensate and bracket from the internal meter, but that's not the question. Therefore, I would return to Ansel Adams' "The Negative," which means understanding the zone system (not so difficult) and making reflected spot measurements. Ansel there discusses incident metering and why it's sub-optimal. YMMV.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Many accomplished photographers used incident light meters with great success. Is that not the genesis of the Weston meter line?</p>

<p>Remember that Ansel was the inventor of and the primary cheerleader for the Zone System, which does require reflectance metering. He could hardly be considered an unbiased reference.</p>

<p>I'm quite a fan of the ZS, having worked with it a few decades ago. Unfortunately, I'm not a good enough artist to achieve its full potential. I can handle the techniques, it's the aesthetics that are lacking.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>Our focus at school was on professional training, and most of the emphasis was placed on studio work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. If I did much studio work, I probably would rely an incident flash meter heavily.</p>

<p>Outdoors, I haven't found incident metering to be worthwhile unless flash is involved. Even then, there are other ways to deal with that. There's a site that I can't mention here that deals with the subject a lot. Please keep in mind that I'm not rejecting incident metering. It's a tool that I've tried and not found generally useful (except for flash). Probably I've not mastered it sufficiently, and I've found alternate ways to do things.</p>

<p>I would never criticize someone for using non-flash incident metering. Rather, I would try to learn from them. Perhaps some reciprocity is in order. I found that incident metering didn't work well enough for me long before I read Ansel's words saying that it didn't work properly (and maybe this should be kept in the context of his work).</p>

<p>The OP asked about using an external meter outdoors with film, but did not elaborate on the subject(s) or if flash was involved. She has not replied to this thread. It's hard to make suggestions without sufficient detail, yet easy to go off on tangents.</p>

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>Many accomplished photographers used incident light meters with great success. Is that not the genesis of the Weston meter line?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ansel railed against the original Weston meters. He was co-founder of the zone system, surely influenced by the fact the he couldn't get the results he wanted from Weston's incident meters. If I had a copy of "The Negative" on hand, I could supply quotes.</p>

 

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>The OP asked about using an external meter outdoors with film, but did not elaborate on the subject(s) or if flash was involved. ... It's hard to make suggestions without sufficient detail, yet easy to go off on tangents.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True.</p>

<p>I've used handheld meters, usually incident, for all types of outdoor photography for well over 50 years, with very consistent results.</p>

<p>Neither my Hasselblad system nor my field or studio cameras have built-in meters, although the digital Hasselblad back does have a histogram display that I seldom use.</p>

<p>Everybody's different. That's why they make different equipment. Would be pretty boring if everybody shot the same thing the same way.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>I can handle the techniques, it's the aesthetics that are lacking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha! I'm with you there. Tools don't supply vision. Ansel was an odd duck, combining artistic vision with the mind (and practice) of a scientist.</p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>...He was co-founder of the zone system, surely influenced by the fact the he couldn't get the results he wanted from Weston's incident meters. If I had a copy of "The Negative" on hand, I could supply quotes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely true. As I said previously, the ZS requires reflectance metering. That's the whole basis of the system.</p>

<p>However, countless photographers who do not use the ZS have made outstanding pictures. ZS is not the only game in town, except perhaps in Anselville.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[zoid]

<p>I have found that reflective light meters work pretty well until the ultimate problem:</p>

<p>Bride in off-white dress with fair skin. Well-tanned groom in black suit. Outdoor shoot under shaded lighting, fill flash required.</p>

<p>Nail it in one shot with the super-advanced camera reflective light meter? Use the Zone System? Or just take an incidence light reading and set the camera and flash?</p>

<p>I actually had this problem when I shot my sister's wedding as the photographer. I went with the incidence light meter reading and got the shot. I'm no pro, but I have learned when to trust the camera meter, and when not to.</p>

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>Neither my Hasselblad system nor my field or studio cameras have built-in meters, although the digital Hasselblad back does have a histogram display that I seldom use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't we miss the meticulous metering, Polaroid backs, color meters, etc.? Not I.</p>

<p>Maybe you don't need the histograms with your experience. Learning them may not hurt. Part of learning them is to learn that they can lie to you (blown red channel, especially). Maybe you need histograms as much as I need an incident light meter.</p>

<p>Obviously, without built-in meters, one needs an external meter and to learn to use it. As this is a Nikon forum, it's getting harder to find Nikons without meters. Otherwise, many of us have forgotten the "Sunny 16" rule or couldn't apply it if we tried. In the aforementioned "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM," Ansel had no meter, but made some quick calculations.</p>

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm no pro, but I have learned when to trust the camera meter, and when not to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. What you did was to take advantages of the tools in your kit (much of which is the wetware behind the camera). Your situation was pretty much the 'ultimate problem.' Good job, and horses for courses.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Hi Chris,</p>

<p>I use a histogram all the time, but it's in the Phocus software on the computer, not the one built into the digital back.</p>

<p>My Tessina doesn't have a meter or a histogram, but it works just fine. My Contaflex does have a meter that still works 50 years after it was built. I doubt that will be said about any current histogram display.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't we miss the meticulous metering...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But meticulous metering is the essence of the Zone System, and the rationale for using reflectance meters in the first place.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>As this is a Nikon forum, it's getting harder to find Nikons without meters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not meaning to abuse this poor dead horse, but...</p>

<p>I have a Nikon F2 that works fine, though its meter does not. That was replaced with a regular finder many years ago.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>However, countless photographers who do not use the ZS have made outstanding pictures. ZS is not the only game in town, except perhaps in Anselville.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Totally agreed. I don't use the zone system. I use 'ETTR until it breaks.' Not exactly from Anselville, I try to get as much as I can into my raw files. That may include UniWB.</p>

<p>My earliest comment about the zone system was that it was worth understanding. You mentioned it first, as though it was <em>the </em>alternative to incident metering. There are numerous alternatives, and many shooting situations don't avail themselves to either the zone system or incident metering.</p>

<p>A case in point is that I often shoot live action in changing light (sometimes with fill). There is no time for the zone system and incident metering is impossible. My approach is to understand my cameras' metering, have a good idea of the necessary offset, and chimp like crazy. Maybe a studio shooter will think I am a chimp, but it works and I sell images. Even then, this is not the only way to do things.</p>

[chris_leck]

<blockquote>

<p>But meticulous metering is the essence of the Zone System, and the rationale for using reflectance meters in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with the first part, not sure about the second. Reflectance metering seems to work quite well.</p>

<p>The dead horse, IMO, is whether or not to use incident metering. If it works for you, use it. This isn't a religious issue. I'm certainly not against it, but it's never worked for me. Perhaps I've never learned to use it properly, but it seems that incident metering obviates artistic decisions, reducing them to a simple meter reading.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Yep, there are lots of different ways to achieve the desired goal. That's what makes it fun.</p>

<p>I mentioned ZS as an example of a technique that requires reflectance metering. I didn't mean to imply that it was the only situation in which reflectance is appropriate.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[zoid]

<p>Understand the meaning of the failed Nikon light meters. There is the f16 rule, but that's off topic for this thread. I never needed a color meter. It wasn't that hard to know what the color temperature was during the course of a typical day. I could always just look it up. Meticulous metering is handy, but I found it was always easier to find the center, and then check for latitude, then check for proper Zone. As far as blown red channels, every time I loaded a new roll of film, I was in essence loading a new CCD. Chimping isn't chimping in every situation. There are different types of photographers and they have to fight different situations with photography. Shooting models is a bit different than shooting breaking events which is a bit different than shooting landscapes. Knowing the baseline for exposure is fundamental. Then, a photographer adapts rules of thumbs for what they shoot. But in the beginning, I think it's best to know the basics. One may not always be shooting models throughout their career.</p>

[chris_leck]

<p>@Zoid: Good post, good points. Thanks. A couple of comments:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>In some cases, especially with film, a color meter and compensating gels are essential. For most, that era is over. I still gel flash. With what I shoot, it's not a rigorous thing. </li>

<li>Film doesn't blow the red channel as does digital. This is a fault of nearly every digital camera. </li>

</ul>

[chris_leck]

<p>@Zoid: What do you mean by "failed" Nikon light meters? Are they more "failed" than others?</p>

<p>I've never met a meter that saw things quite my way, and don't expect that I ever will. That's a big undercurrent in this discussion.</p>