Ummm, errr... the discussion about 1/2 stop correction is for NORMAL subjects and NORMAL reflectance. For dark subjects the recommended adjustment is more profound:
No but because for very dark subject when metering as is would put it too close to the toe which starts to lose details and contrast. Adding a 1/2 stop bring it up into the curve where the curve is more straight and because the subject is all dark there is no danger of burning out highlight. I face fi the subject is all black you may want to put in at the center of the curve then print it darker.
Ummm, errr... the discussion about 1/2 stop correction is for NORMAL subjects and NORMAL reflectance. For dark subjects the recommended adjustment is more profound:
View attachment 408465
Then I guess they compensate for meter calibrated with a different K factor. May be K factor of 10? which is equal to Ansel Adam no K factor when his measurement is Candela Per Foot Squared. Adams complained that meter manufacturer use K factor to fuss the exposure so that to give inexperience photographers higher percentage of correct exposure.
...
I don't like the digital meters, so I have not "up-graded". I like a meter that displays ALL of the f-stop and speed combinations at the same time.
Kodak's instructions (link in post #47) illustrate the complications involved when using a gray card. The first complication is trying to estimate an angle that is 1/3 of the total angle between the subject and the primary light source. Some people have "perfect pitch" -- the ability to accurately identify certain audio frequencies. What I do not have is "perfect protractor" -- the ability to accurately visualize angles in 3D space. (Probably why I am no good with a pool cue.)
And then there are the rules for when to adjust the gray card reading.
The first adjustment rule is: "For subjects of normal reflectance, increase the indicated exposure by 1⁄2 stop." I've never really understood the rationale behind this suggestion. I assume the 1/2-stop additional exposure is necessary because 18% is not the correct reflectance to represent the average reflectance of a normal scene?
Due to the high cost of Kodak brand gray cards, I was tempted into buying some Delta brand gray cards at a much lower cost. Delta advertises the same specifications as Kodak, 18% gray, plus or minus 1%. However the Delta instructions are slightly different. Delta says the correct angle is "halfway between the main light and the camera." And Delta does not suggest adding 1/2 stop exposure to normal subjects.
I still carry a Kodak gray card, but I rarely use it. For most subjects and conditions, my built-in camera meters are adequate - if used with good judgement. If I want a second opinion in difficult lighting, then an incident meter does pretty much the same thing as a gray card, and it is less fussy to use.
Adams couldn't have been more wrong. That is not what the K factor is or does.
This is K. It's a constant that combines certain variables associated with the meter and the camera constant of q, which is the variable representing the light loss of the camera system. Through the lens metering doesn't need q, it just reads the actual illuminance, but still requires a value of K for the metering system.
View attachment 408470
1.16 cd/ft2 or 12.5 cd/m2
Well, if the younger generation thinks that spot meters are paleolithic, what are Weston meters? - Jurassic?
Well, if the younger generation thinks that spot meters are paleolithic, what are Weston meters? - Jurassic?
The company I worked for as a Buyer mandated the use of FAX machines for submitting purchase orders, even well into the internet and cell phone era. It was distinctly more reliable because it inherently involved hard copy both ends. Same goes for rotary land line phones - not so good outside the home, but not battery and signal dependent either.
When someone dies, the insurance companies only accept FAX, not PDF evidence of death...that is what we encountered when my wife's mother passed late last decade.
That is so modern!
When I stopped working with estates, about 16 years ago, they generally only accept mailed or delivered proof of death, and never just a photocopy.
Original Certificates of Death preferred, although notarially certified copies also worked.
US doctors won't email prescriptions or reports, require fax machines or you have to use the doctor's or hospital's medical portal. This might have to do with the Federal privacy acts and that email is not considered secure. Although if the fax is using VOIP, it's going through the internet anyway, isn't it?
So your meter is calibrated for K=12.5. Ansel was wrong but his argument is that his EV0 is 1cd/ft^2 which is the same as K10.7. But he said since his stuff is based on 1Cd/ft^2 he used no K factor. Doing so his meter read about 0.4 stop low which is about the same as the Weston meter. By the way he was also wrong in calling it foot candle which is an illumiance measurement (which by the way he didn't care for) he only cared for the luminance.
Incident metering falls apart if the subject is very dark or very light, such as a snow scene. The subject needs to be an average of ~18% reflectance with normal contrast for incident metering to work- but then most subjects fit this criteria.
The meter does not need to be up against the subject, the meter just needs to be illuminated by the same light. In a studio, where the light sources are close to the subject, that does mean the meter is close to the subject.
I can think of insurmountable circumstances that can render an incident meter useless, like trying to estimate the light falling on the opposite side of a canyon thousands of feet deep. You can't just hop over there, take an incident reading, and hop right back. Maybe you studio types scratch your head when someone like me states that; but for some of us, it's been the real world a multitude of times. A one degree real spot meter, however, makes that kind of circumstance easy.
Histograms are late to the game, and don't relate to film photography; neither do pixels.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?