HELP!!!! with spot meter.....

[roger_hicks1]

Scott -- have you a reference for 18% grey being derived from green grass? It's not an explanation I'd heard before -- though it's a good idea. Also, a modest question: why 18% when the 'average' scene reflects about 13 per cent of the light falling on it?

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Steve,

 

Sorry for getting a bit off the subject of your original request, but WHY do you believe that you need a spot meter with LF?

 

You are no doubt familiar with the original research on film speeds -- the First Excellent Print -- and I'd suggest that there are no real penalties for over-exposure with large format: loss of resolution and sharpness, and of course increased grain, matter with 35mm, where the image is enlarged a great deal, but don't matter with LF. This is why so many Zonies get away with over-exposure and under-development. Use almost any metering technique, and give at least a stop extra exposure, and you should be OK. The room for error is enormous, and is accommodated by the process, provided it's on the side of over-exposure (ISO speeds are based on the minimum acceptable exposure}. If you take SHUTTERBUG, try my article in the November 2003 issue, page 190, 'False Accuracy'. This gives a fair idea of the scale of the variables involved. I repeat: do not be deceived by the Zone System, which will do ANY beginner more harm than good, and is substantially useless to anyone who understands basic sensitometry.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[james___]

Now with that said, I find your statement absurd Roger. Just metering the scene and then giving an arbitrary 1 stop overexposure will accomplish what? The reason for the zone system (sensitometry) is so that the photographer will be able to read the scene brightness range and develope accordingly to compensate for an overly, or under lit scene. Just giving extra exposure is just as bad as relying on your SLR's meter to give you a properly exposed negative. And if what you state about the zone system is so true, then why, tell me why, most large format photographers use it? Even for color positive material. For you to tell a beginner that the "zone system" is useless and bad for them, you are doing them a grave disservice (unless all you want to do is push your books). The zone system is all about sensitometry. I've read your book and find it lacking for new comers and journeymen practitioners alike. You want to sell books, then produce one that is as simple as what the zone system teaches. The zone system is quite simple to learn and practice. One set of tests and you are on your way to fine negatives. I fail to see where people who don't use it say it is about endless testing. I tested once, and still use those numbers.

[d_poinsett]

I don't see how the zone system is inherently either harmful or useless. Managing density at each stage of the process is one of the hallmark opportunities of large format b&w work and the zone system has been shown many times over to be an effective method, based on sound sensitometric principles, to achieve it.

 

Confusing is not the same as harmful and because there are effective alternatives does not mean the zone system is useless, especially to the large format b&w worker. What is the basis of such a claim?

[roger_hicks1]

As soon as someone can tell me how taking a reading from a gray card tells you anything about the darkest part of a scene and thereby ensure adequate shadow detail, I'll rejoin this argument. Until then, there's not much to argue about.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>As soon as someone can tell me how taking a reading from a gray card tells you anything about the darkest part of a scene and thereby ensure adequate shadow detail, I'll rejoin this argument. Until then, there's not much to argue about</i><p>

Is very simple, for a subject with an <b>average</b> range of luminesence, a reading and exposure from a gray card would place the exposure in the "middle" of the range. Supposedly, given an average range this would produce shadows with detail and printable highlights.<p>

 

If we continue talking about an average scene, then your method of metering the shadows and closing 2 stops will probably give the exact same exposure as metering from a gray card, but it requires two steps instead of one.<p>

 

As with anything that requires "averaging", it will not be ideal for all situations, but then neither will it be your suggestion.<p>

 

What I find funny is that you disparage the "zone system" yet the method you suggest is precisely the basis of the zone system. Have you heard "meter for the shadows and develop for the highlights" before? guess were that comes from...<p>

 

Personally I prefer the BTZS method, as it includes the paper response in the testing method, but the zone system is definitly a useful tool. Like all tools one needs to understand the basic concept and know how to use it. Something you obviously dont, given your comments.

[d_poinsett]

It�s always good to give credit where credit is due.

 

I agree with Mr. Hicks assertion that reading a gray card will tell you nothing about the shadows or highlights of a specific scene. Using a gray card will get you in the ballpark if that is the chosen means for establishing exposure. Presuming the film is developed in a compatible manner, using a gray card could sometimes produce exposures that adequately capture the intended range of tones from shadow to highlight but it cannot do so under all conditions. Understanding these limitations is valuable and Mr. Hicks is wise to point them out. There are other methods that give greater control but I would not go so far as to say that the gray card method is useless. It simply gives the control it gives, nothing more or less. Using a gray card has probably been realistically displaced by its modern counterpart � the automatic exposure scheme in modern cameras.

 

I also agree with Mr. Hick iterative process for establishing exposure and development for b&w film. This method gives a level of control that is a step beyond the results gained from using automatic exposure and general development recommendations published by manufacturers. The main limitation with this method is that, like the gray card scheme, it presumes that the range of tones in the subject can still be captured and printed. The value in understanding this limitation is to realize that when photographing scenes with extreme high or low contrast, the resulting negative and print may not produce what was expected.

 

Using Mr. Hicks methods will produce results that are probably better than average most of the time, results that are probably closer to what the photographer had in mind. His recommendations are relatively simple thus accessible to many people. Simplicity, of course, is also the appeal of the gray card scheme.

 

To control the results in b&w beyond what has been described so far requires additional steps that most photographers find either daunting or not worth the bother. Mr. Hick�s assertion that these additional steps are somehow unconditionally harmful, useless, silly, etc. seems unjustified at best. If the point is the additional steps may not be a good choice for all photographers then it seems that a less sensationalistic claim would be more appropriate. For the photographer who wants more control of the process, using gray cards and one-size-fits-all exposure and development guidelines will likely be inadequate.

[james___]

If you are photographing a scene and within the scene is a very dark dark yet detailed tree trunk, rock, birds feather, or pavement, if you meter a grey card in the same light that the object is in, then stop down 2 stops (which will by definition give you a zone 3 very dark detailed tone regardless of color) you will have the correct exposure for that object making it in effect a very very dark yet detailed object. If you are photographing that same scene and in it there are almost white yet detailed clouds, snow, bright sandstone, birds feather or any other bright nearly white yet detailed object, and yopu metered a grey card in the same light as those objects, and opened up 2 1/2 stops, you woul;d render that object as the same detailed nearly white yet detailed object. The difference is that that will give you the maximum density range the paper is allowing you when you print. It is when you find objects that are above or below your intended 5 stop range where dev schemes come into play. And there are many scenes that require different dev times in order to render the scene as "you" want it rendered. Those deep deep deep shadows I want rendered as deep yet detailed objects and those puffy white clouds which if metered will show to be 7 stops brighter than your deep dark shadowsrequire you to change your dev scheme in order to bring them intop the range of the paper. 5 stops. But most scenes will be within the latitude of the paper anyway so metering a grey card will suffice if you don't have a spot meter handy. If you have one then why would you use a grey card and add the extra steps. To all things there are many methods.

[d_poinsett]

James, it could be that I misunderstand your example of using a gray card but I don't think it would work as you describe. The point of reading a gray card in a scene that contains either textured shadows or highlights is no different than any other scene -- upon reading the gray card you simply get an exposure indication that will ultimately reproduce the gray without making any further adjustments up or down. The central presumption in using a gray card is that the rest of the values will fall into place.

 

The problem is that we really don't know much lighter or darker the textured highlights and shadows are than the gray card and whether they do fall into place. If, given a particular film and its development, the resulting negative densities happen to land in the right place, then, for a given paper, we might get a print that renders them. Or we might not.

 

Without having some means to measure the relative brightness of highlights and shadows, we cannot be certain about how they will be represented in the negative. That doesn't mean we can't use a gray card. It just means that using it the way we have been discussing will be limited in the kind of negative we can produce.

 

I agree with your reminder that film development plays a critical role and should be included in control techniques. I also agree with your implication that many of these elements are based on personal taste and choice.

 

I'm not sure I understand your statement about the 5-stop range of paper. Do you mean the density range of paper is 5 stops?

 

I appreciate your final statement. It is that kind of open-minded attitude and makes ongoing learning possible for all of us -- newcomer and expert alike. There are indeed a wide range of methods that can be used to get from click to print.

[roger_hicks1]

Mr.Poinsett has made exactly the point I am trying to make, only (for which I thank him) less combatively. If you are going to rely on 'average' scenes you don't need a spot meter -- ANY meter can (by definition) handle an 'average' scene.

 

It is clearly meaningless to stop down (say) two stops from a gray card and assume that this will always give adequate shadow detail, because everything depends on how bright the shadow area is. And how do you find this out? You METER it.

 

As for the snide question about the origin of 'expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights', this antedates the Zone System by decades, as does ALL the sensitometry on which the Zone System is based. Hurter and Driffield did the basic work in the late 1880s -- hence the H&D curve.

 

This is why I dismiss the Zone system. Development for different contrast levels is not an invention of the Zone System; the N+/N- system is merely a restatement and formalisation of principles dating back to good old H&D. I firmly believe that you can learn more, faster, by an intelligent reading of manufacturers' spec sheets than from the Zone System -- especially contrast/time curves, which should get you close enough to ideal contrast without messing about with more gray card experiments.

 

If you suspect that a subject has an unusually long brightnness range, you need two readings: the deepest shadow in which you want detail, and the brightest highlight in which you want detail. This will determine whether you need extra or reduced development. The only reason to read a mid-tone is to see where the tone falls on the H&D curve.

 

The naming of Zones is, as I have often said, a work of genius: the names make it far easier to visualize what you are going to get in a print. Apart from that, there is little or nothing to commend the Zone System. If you want to get all scientific about exposure, buy a spot meter and a densitometer -- don't mess around with gray cards. If you don't want to get scientific, then use almost any metering technique and give a bit of extra exposure on bright sunny days (to allow for the deep shadows).

 

Quite honestly, a lot of Zone adherents of my acquaintance are saved by the latitude of pos-neg mono photography: they'd get exposures that were at least as acceptable if they stopped trying to be so clever.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>If you are going to rely on 'average' scenes you don't need a spot meter -- ANY meter can (by definition) handle an 'average' scene. </i><p>

Exactly, that is why the zone system is an useful tool, using a gray card is not always appropriate, the same as your metering the shadows advice. BTW you seem to be confused, you meter the gray card and use the recomended meter exposure, you do not close down 2 stops. <p>

 

<i>As for the snide question about the origin of 'expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights', this antedates the Zone System by decades, as does ALL the sensitometry on which the Zone System is based. Hurter and Driffield did the basic work in the late 1880s -- hence the H&D curve. </i><p>

 

True they did research in the 1880, but they did not "create" as it were a simple methodology to obtain consistent results. While the implication of their pictorial representation of film behavior could suggest this, the "quote" can be attributed to the originators of the zone system.

 

<i>This is why I dismiss the Zone system. Development for different contrast levels is not an invention of the Zone System; the N+/N- system is merely a restatement and formalisation of principles dating back to good old H&D. I firmly believe that you can learn more, faster, by an intelligent reading of manufacturers' spec sheets than from the Zone System -- especially contrast/time curves, which should get you close enough to ideal contrast without messing about with more gray card experiments. </i><p>

 

I doubt so very much, while manufacturers curves can be useful, they are curves made under lab conditions and rarely do they represent what a person obtains when they photograph using different methodology. If this was not so, then we will all be using the manufacturers ISO speed and developing times, but given that meters, agitation etc, vary from person to person a lab made curve is useless, other than to determine the inherent contrast of the film.<p>

 

<i>If you suspect that a subject has an unusually long brightnness range, you need two readings: the deepest shadow in which you want detail, and the brightest highlight in which you want detail. This will determine whether you need extra or reduced development. The only reason to read a mid-tone is to see where the tone falls on the H&D curve</i><p>

 

Funny you are describing zone system mechanics. Or do you really think that a LF photographers goes out, carries all that equipment and only takes <b>one</b> meter reading? If this is what you are advocating, then I disagree completely. You seem to be telling us to abandon a useful tool so that we can "half ass it" using manufacturer's ISO and your readings from the shadow. Hell why not just do away with the light meter all together and do like Weston did, just guess at the exposure? After all Weston got some perfectly good shots this way, if he was reading your advice he would probably be thinking you are making this too complicated, why take a reading of the shadows and open up the lens...dont you know the f16 rule?<p>

 

ANybody can disparage a methodology, the same as some people who take the zone system to be a religious experience, both approaches are extreme, as I said it is only a tool and has to be used a such. <p>

 

Certainly your way and your advice is not any better than using the zone system, if anything it is a worse approach.

[roger_hicks1]

You can attribute any quote anywhere you like -- but if it was a common expression BEFORE someone said it (as 'expose for the shadows...' was, long before the Zone System), you are not adding much to your argument.

 

As for the assertion that the two readings (shadow and highlight, both with texture), is Zone System methodology, of course it is. The Zone System is a subset of basic sensitometry, based on the same rules. Once again it is a question of who got there first. Clue: it wasn't Ansel adams. Read 'Solving the Unusual Exposure Problem' BJA 1937 for an already popularized argument for spot metering.

 

I am not in the least confused about taking readings from gray cards. The reference to stopping down was in response to someone else who said that was how to expose shadows. I am quite clear on the subject: reading gray cards is invariably a waste of time.

 

Fault, if you can, the following logic:

 

Spot reading 1 -- shadows. Determines minimal exposure. Can be used with any negative material.

 

Spot reading 2 -- highlights. Determines optimum development. Of limited use with 35mm and roll-film unless you are shooting subjects that ALL need the same development. Useless unless you can change the slope of the H&D curve by development.

 

Other spot readings may be made to see where various parts of the subject fall on the curve -- but unless you are photographing gray cards, why meter one?

 

'Lab condition' -- yeah, quite unlike gray cards, then. To quote a man far more knowledgeable than you or I, "the film is refreshingly ignorant of the subject matter to which it is exposed." What are Zone exposure and development tests if not lab conditions?

 

Do you know how film speeds are determined? Are you familiar with the Jones and Condit research in the late 1930s and early 1940s that led to ASA speeds? Do you know why manufacturers use the figures (and assumptions) that they do? Do you know how and why they have changed over the years? Have you ever read the manufacturers' own instructions, plainly telling you to vary both film speed and development times to suit your own needs? Do you know why they say that? Because from your repeated invocation of the Zone System as the be-all and end-all makes it unlikely.

 

Thirty years ago, I looked at the Zone System and decided I wasn't ready for it. Twenty years ago I was taken in. Ten years ago I realized just how limited and time-wasting it is.

 

I am still waiting for an explanation of how you determine a shadow brightness by reading a gray card. I don't really expect one, because you can't. I'm getting slightly tired of people who tell me I don't understand the Zone System, but cannot themselves answer a simple, plainly phrased question.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>I am still waiting for an explanation of how you determine a shadow brightness by reading a gray card. I don't really expect one, because you can't. I'm getting slightly tired of people who tell me I don't understand the Zone System, but cannot themselves answer a simple, plainly phrased question</i><p>

 

There is no sense discussing something with someone who stubbornly cries his method is the only way. As I said, reading a gray card is only an indication of an <b>average</b> scene, it says nothing about shadow or highlight brightness. Why is this so difficult to understand?<p>

 

<i>Fault, if you can, the following logic:

 

 

Spot reading 1 -- shadows. Determines minimal exposure. Can be used with any negative material.

 

 

Spot reading 2 -- highlights. Determines optimum development. Of limited use with 35mm and roll-film unless you are shooting subjects that ALL need the same development. Useless unless you can change the slope of the H&D curve by development.

 

 

Other spot readings may be made to see where various parts of the subject fall on the curve -- but unless you are photographing gray cards, why meter one? </i><p>

 

There is no "logic" here, add to your two steps a third one, namely test for appropriate film speed and you have what is known as the zone system. The concept of the zone system is very simple, regardless of your efforts to try to make it appear difficult.<p>

 

<i>'Lab condition' -- yeah, quite unlike gray cards, then. To quote a man far more knowledgeable than you or I, "the film is refreshingly ignorant of the subject matter to which it is exposed." What are Zone exposure and development tests if not lab conditions? </i><p>

 

Exactly, it is a test for your <b>own</b> conditions, not Kodak's. As to your quote, obviously he is more knowledgeable than you as you seem to misunderstand the underlying message. All it says is that film and chemistry are very forgiving processes (as far as photography is concerned) but that does not mean a greater degree of control cannot be achieved.<p>

 

<i>Do you know how film speeds are determined? Are you familiar with the Jones and Condit research in the late 1930s and early 1940s that led to ASA speeds? Do you know why manufacturers use the figures (and assumptions) that they do? Do you know how and why they have changed over the years? Have you ever read the manufacturers' own instructions, plainly telling you to vary both film speed and development times to suit your own needs? Do you know why they say that? Because from your repeated invocation of the Zone System as the be-all and end-all makes it unlikely</i><p>

 

Perhaps you better go back and read my posts as your stubbornness prevents you from understanding the message. I <b>never</b> said the zone system is the end all or be all for photography, I merely said it is a useful tool for those who require greater degree of control. As a chemist I can probably teach a thing or two about determining film speed, as a pt/pd printer I can tell you that understanding sensitometry and proper testing methods has saved me a lot of film and expensive solutions.<p>

 

Your position and the quote you gave are precisely the problem with people who decide that proper testing methods are useless, giving that film and developing have a high degree of forgiveness you decide that those who want and need a greater degree of control are wasting their time. All this shows is your ignorance and lack f understanding, not the uselessness of the method. OTOH if you like doing things haphazardly, that is fine for you, but dont tell me a sensitometric approach is a waste of time.

[robert_lawrence]

Where does the Zone System specify anything about metering grey cards in a scene that you are photographing? Nowhere.

 

If this is Roger Hicks's concept of what Zone System practitioners do then it's *not* the same system that I and most people on this list call the Zone System.

 

It *does* involve metering grey cards to establish an Exposure Index (EI) for a datum reference to give a specific negative densities and tests to determine development times ie. a basic sensiometric approach. But that's the last time one has any use for a grey card :)

 

Having thus determined this 'personal', 'real-world' EI and the SBR of your scene ... you meter and expose for the shadows and develop to accommodate the SBR based on a reading of the highlight.

 

Having trawled through the posts in this thread we seem to be arguing over semantics, as far as I can tell Roger is proposing the exact same thing apart from using the manufacturers numbers and contrast curves rather than a personal 'real-world' datum established for one's own equipment and methods.

 

If Roger's definition of a 'Zonie' is someone who meters grey cards in the field then I'm with Roger - it's a futile exercise ... and actually has absolutely nothing to do with the Zone System as I understand it.

 

My definition of a 'Zonie' is someone who is practising sensiometry and trying to get the optimum out of his set-up and get maximum control yet using Zones as an algebra to understand EI and SBR.

 

I thought I was a Zonie ... but maybe I am a 'Hicksie' and never knew it :)

 

All I *do* know is what ever I am doing it works for me and I get repeatable and consistent results.

 

'A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet ...'

[roger_hicks1]

Robert Lawrence has it. Metering gray cards is one way of establishing personal film speeds and development times. I'd say it's not a terribly good one, now that densitometers are widely available, but it works.

 

After that, metering gray cards to determine the exposure of an actual scene is a complete and utter waste of time. If I have misunderstood people about whether they meter gray cards or not in order to determine exposure, I apologize; but I am sure that several people have said that they do exactly this, and that none of them has been able to explain why they do it. Whittering on about average scenes won't cut it.

 

This is one point. The other is that the Zone System is not the fons et origo of exposure theory. It is one statement of it, essentially based in the late 1940s and 1950s. ALL the basic research antedated Ansel Adams. The basis of Zone theory could be explained in an (admittedly fairly thick) pamphlet -- it doesn't take the stack of books that AA wrote, let alone the truly dreadful books that followed it (I except BTZS from this).

 

My own belief, which I have seen little to alter, is that the Zone System has a tremendous appeal to people who don't really understand what they are doing, but welcome a series of rote exercises that make it look as if they do. I know that many sane, intelligent people use the Zone System -- but I also know, from long, painful, personal experience that for many, it's a religion, and an excuse for not learning the science (and art) of exposure theory in a more rigorous manner. The slightest suggestion that the Zone System is not the One True Path provokes immediate and vicious ad hominem attacks, and (invariably) the accusation that I don't understand what I'm talking about -- when I would cheerfully bet that I understand a good deal more than most of them. I just don't worship their god.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>Whittering on about average scenes won't cut it. </i><p>

The fact that you wont accept that under certain circumstances, metering a gray card is a perfectly good method does not make it any less true. Much like taking a single incident meter reading. <p>

<i>This is one point. The other is that the Zone System is not the fons et origo of exposure theory. It is one statement of it, essentially based in the late 1940s and 1950s. ALL the basic research antedated Ansel Adams. The basis of Zone theory could be explained in an (admittedly fairly thick) pamphlet -- it doesn't take the stack of books that AA wrote, let alone the truly dreadful books that followed it (I except BTZS from this).</i><p>

I dont think anybody here is saying that Adams, White, et al invented sensitometry, all they did was put all the information into a single easy to use method so that it would be easy to undertsand. As far as I know, Adams only wrote <b>one</b> book, "the Negative" where he talks about exposure. Where did you get this "stack" of books idea?<p>

<i>My own belief, which I have seen little to alter, is that the Zone System has a tremendous appeal to people who don't really understand what they are doing, but welcome a series of rote exercises that make it look as if they do</i><p>

perhaps they understand more than you do, you just have failed to see their point. Seems that if people disagree with you "they dont understand". Good argument. <p>

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jorge,

 

Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that I am as stupid and ignorant as you appear to think.

 

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain exactly when (barring sensitometric experiments) there is any value whatsoever in metering a gray card in order to determine a real exposure of a real subject.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that I am as stupid and ignorant as you appear to think. <p>

 

 

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain exactly when (barring sensitometric experiments) there is any value whatsoever in metering a gray card in order to determine a real exposure of a real subject. <p>

 

 

Cheers, <p>

 

 

Roger</i><p>

 

Any situation where you use an averaging meter, like in 35mm would be the same. Any situation where you use the sunny 16 rule would be the same. Any situation where you take an single incident meter reading would be the same.<p>

 

There have been times when I have forgotten my meter

and have been forced to use the sunny 16 rule to guess at exposures. I recently had such situation and the 12x20 negative was perfect. If I had had available a wide field reflection meter and a gray card, I would have metered the gray card and used that exposure.<p>

 

In landscape situations, where the main subject is far away (mountains, etc) metering a gray card once in the open and once in the shadows gives a better luminance ratio than it does trying to meter the shadows and the highlights.<p>

 

All that is required is a little knowledge as to<b>when</b> it is appropriate to use a technique. There is not one single "correct" way that applies to all situations.<p>

 

As to you being stupid and ignorant, I never said you were stupid, only ignorant. Not because you lack knowledge, but because you fail recognize how little you know. Statements like:<p>

 

<i>My own belief, which I have seen little to alter, is that the Zone System has a tremendous appeal to people who don't really understand what they are doing, but welcome a series of rote exercises that make it look as if they do.</i><p>

 

Are generalizations borne out of ignorance. If you think the zone system is a waste of time, fine, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. To lump most of the people who use it as mindless drones who do it just to "feel knowledgeable" is ignorant. I started with the zone system and then moved on to the BTZS. I can say without any doubt that using the zone system improved my negative exposure and it was a good learning experience. It is not a perfect system, but is better than just metering the shadows and developing according to manufacturers instructions, as you suggest, and hope that things come out ok....

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jorge,

 

Okay.

 

You don't believe in metering shadows to get adequate shadow exposure: there is 'no logic' in it.

 

You feel the same way about metering brightness ranges to determine development times: again, 'no logic'.

 

But you do believe in metering gray cards to determine exposure. I'll accept that a gray card is as much use as an incident light reading -- you're metering a different Zone, in Zonespeak -- but given how much easier it is to take an incident light reading, I still can't see why you'd use a gray card. Besides, incident light readings (and gray card readings) are suitable for transparency, where exposure is pegged to the highlights, but not for negatives, where it is pegged to the shadows.

 

This is one reason why so many Zonies say that films aren't 'really' as fast as their ISO speed. If you meter the shadows, you may well find that they are. You may also find that you prefer more exposure. That's fine too. But if you meter gray cards or take incident light readings, you have to use a low EI if the shadows are more than 2 or at most 3 stops darker than the mid-tone.

 

And you're the one who calls me ignorant. I feel no great need to try to correct your errors again, save one.

 

Check back through the thread and you will see that I propose a simple iterative method for determining film speed and development time, and that if you are going to use a spot meter, you might as well use it properly and meter the shadows (to determine shadow exposure) and highlights (to determine brightness range for development time). This is some way from advising people to use the manufacturer's speed and development time and to hope it comes out. In fact, I'd suggest it's a lot better than metering a gray card and hoping it comes out, or using the Sunny 16 rule and hoping it comes out.

 

Finally, addressing others' points, not yours, the reason I advocate an intelligent reading of manufacturers' spec sheets is not in order to follow them blindly. It is because they contain a lot of useful information, including time/contrast curves which can save a lot of time compared with N+/N- rote.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>You don't believe in metering shadows to get adequate shadow exposure: there is 'no logic' in it. <p>

You feel the same way about metering brightness ranges to determine development times: again, 'no logic'. </i><p>

 

 

 

Ah well look, if you cannot understand what I write or attempt to put words in my mouth, there is no sense in continuing this silly discussion. Apperently anybody who is not in agreement with you is a "zonie" who does not know what he/she is talking about. <p>

I never said what you think I "belive", I have only said that under the right circumstances metering a gray card is perfectly acceptable.<p>

 

Like you, I no longer have a desire to try and correct your ignorance, it is plain for everybody to see and I am sure a good "recommendation" for your book. As I always say, when you argue with a fool, people looking at you dont know which one is the fool...so I am done here, ciao.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jorge,

 

I am at least as happy as you are to let anyone on the forum decide which of us is the bigger fool, or which of us knows less about exposure. As you say, there is no point in prolonging this. Have fun taking pictures.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[michael_dimarzio]

Hi Stephen,

 

There is so much technical expertise here and has digressed into a debate. I'd like to offer my experience. I read Roger's book (Perfect Expossure) and it made sense of what I trying to do with a meter, I understood my failures and reinforced my successes. I was using an el cheapo Seconic that was ripped of with my beater M645Pro (the total assault was about a $12,000 loss). I'd like to suggest putting your Canon on manual and meter all shots manualy, use the same film that you want to use in sheet film, if available. Of course the metering will be diferent from another lense/camera combo, but 35mm learning is alot less expensive to learn a good technique then LF. Interestingly, I replaced the M645 with a C645, and got fat and lazy with it's TTL. My metering by hand was much better, I got the results that I wanted. Roger states in his book (I recommend it, it is written with aplomb and humor) that "if it works for you, it works for you". So who cares if your Gossen is actually measuring reflected psychic energy transmitted from a Macumba Church from Rio de Janeiro, and it reads out unkown figures from an ancient and long dead language, if you get the exposure results that YOU want. And remember, if all else fails, fire up a fatty and start over! Cheers bro~md