Does one sometimes also use exposure compensation on incident metering?

[benveniste]

For incident metering, you only apply exposure compensation if you have a good reason to deviate from a technically correct exposure. For example, you might be planning to project a transparency, or want to view what a deliberate underexposure would look like on a Polaroid (or *gasp* digital). But generally, you are better off starting with a correct technical exposure and making the adjustment during printing.

 

[Superdennis]

"Generic incident light meter" (or, I suppose, "generic reflected light meter") is a unicorn. Meters all have their idiosyncrasies, battery meters will do much better in low light that one that is self powered, and old tired selenium cells can be weak, too. It's important to test what ever meter you use and yes, you may need to use exposure compensation under low light conditions if it has been a few decades since your meter has been serviced.

darkroommike, I understand that you were searching for Chicago Majestic tripod and head gear awhile back. I own a model 3000 tripod, and a Majestic Bencher as well, which has a perfect gear head. I'm unsure of this forum rules for contact info, but if you like, email me at [superdennis@protonmail.com] and we'll see if you can use these fine instruments.

 

[CMoore]

Peter, this may not be strictly relevant to you but I offer it for what it is worth. The attached video describes a case where an exposure based on a spot reading appears to have the edge over an exposure using an incident one. The presenter explains what was needed in the spot exposure v the incident one

The difference is shown at about 17 mins 40 secs if you want to go straight to that moment. I need to add that both are pics of scanned negatives as prints. I think he is a hybrid worker so not darkroom prints but i found his comments interesting



pentaxuser

Man-Oh-Man...........what a genuinely decent guy.
He makes some damn nice videos.
How did you stumble onto him.?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Incident metering doesn't require compensation.
But:
1. It's not the same using the dome out or recessed.
2. it's not the same placing the incident meter 100% vertical or slightly aiming up.
Those two give differences of 1/3, 2/3, or a stop, and should be well understood and tested on paper by the photographer, depending on the type and placement of the light source(s).
3. Sometimes I do compensate, though. But not because the scene was going to be imprecise on paper: it was going to be precise... It was going to reflect reality as it is.
This is my most usual case: I am using a film I know well. It works perfectly from black to white at an EI and with a development time. In the middle of a non portraiture roll I need a portrait, and my subject is not caucasian white but a little darker (the common case here in South America), so skins are closer to Z5 instead of Z6: if I know the skin in this portrait would look better at Z6 instead of Z5 1/3, I prefer to open two thirds no matter if the rest of the scene goes up a bit... In some cases, as I seldom do sunny scenes, I prefer to give 2/3 more development instead of more exposure, because that doesn't affect -in the end- my soft light scenes. That, to be able to work fast in the street with a fix f-stop I don't want to open and lose DOF.
Lately that's what I've been doing: I callibrate EI and development time, and then I meter (or estimate) at that EI my soft light scenes using my preferred fix f-stop, but developing 2/3 of a stop more than my time, but knowing I should underexpose 2/3 any direct sunlight scene to take care of highlights. In other words, raising only my soft light scenes a bit, because of the common tone of skin around here. It looks more natural and clean than having most skins close to Z5.
If there are no skins, I expose and develop normally.
I explained it to my girlfriend (she studied photography many years ago so she understands zones and placement) and she said: "OK, so, in the end, you're being racist."

 

[benjiboy]

As I understand it this is a 50% average, but the 18% refers to the printing process used to arrive at it.

That's wrong an 18% grey card is called so because it reflects 18% of the light falling on it, the grey color on the cards are a shade halfway between dead black and absolute white ( ie 50% )

 

[pentaxuser]

Man-Oh-Man...........what a genuinely decent guy.
He makes some damn nice videos.
How did you stumble onto him.?

I have just had a look at this thread again, CMoore, and I noticed I hadn't replied so sorry about that. Yes I also think he is a genuine, decent person trying to help rather than make money out of his videos

I think I was first steered towards his videos from a member of the forum FADU( Film And Darkroom User) based in the U.K. A totally analogue group whose interests are literally confined to film and darkroom matters

Not always as exciting as Photrio but scores heavily on level of useful interaction

pentaxuser

 

[CMoore]

I have just had a look at this thread again, CMoore, and I noticed I hadn't replied so sorry about that. Yes I also think he is a genuine, decent person trying to help rather than make money out of his videos

I think I was first steered towards his videos from a member of the forum FADU( Film And Darkroom User) based in the U.K. A totally analogue group whose interests are literally confined to film and darkroom matters

Not always as exciting as Photrio but scores heavily on level of useful interaction

pentaxuser

Well Then..........that makes YOU a genuinely, decent guy also

 

[RalphLambrecht]

only if a contrast range demands it and acontrst increase or decrease through development is the chosen approach. Inthat case an EI change may go along and require an exposure compensation.

 

[snusmumriken]

To address the question in the thread title, you have to use your judgement with any kind of meter reading. If you are taking a landscape photo, and you happen to be standing in a cloud shadow when the rest of the landscape is sun-drenched, you would obviously need to adjust the exposure indicated (...if time allows!).

That's wrong an 18% grey card is called so because it reflects 18% of the light falling on it, the grey color on the cards are a shade halfway between dead black and absolute white ( ie 50% )

I'm afraid that's wrong, too. To quote the late Barry Thornton:
"There is much confusion about this 'average' or 'middle' terminology as well. When asked, many of my clients say they visualise it [mid-grey] as the exact mid-point between black and white; the reading given by a meter pointed at, say, a chessboard with an exactly equal number of equally sized black and white squares. In fact, such a scene would give a reading, theoretically, of exactly half the reflected light of a totally white board. Half the light means the same as one stop less or one zone less; so, if pure white is zone X, then the chess board would indicate zone 1X on the meter, not the stipulated zone V for middle grey. To get a zone V reading, the chessboard would have to have around 80% of its area black. Try it with a mock up and you will see this is so."

 

[markjwyatt]

...I really want to get the point across, that an incident meter doesn't read significantly differently if you have a black cat in a coal mine or a polar bear in the snow, because it's looking at the light...

And if you have a black cat in a coal mine you might want to compensate by opening up (maybe 1 stop), right?

If you have a polar [white] bear in the snow, you might want to compensate by closing down (maybe 1stop), right?

If it is a white cat in a coal mine (still clean) or a black bear in the snow, you might need to consider what film you are using, especially if there is direct sun and shadows too!

Maybe the correct answer to the OPs question is "sometimes in extreme cases".

 

[benjiboy]

To address the question in the thread title, you have to use your judgement with any kind of meter reading. If you are taking a landscape photo, and you happen to be standing in a cloud shadow when the rest of the landscape is sun-drenched, you would obviously need to adjust the exposure indicated (...if time allows!).
I have found for practical p

I'm afraid that's wrong, too. To quote the late Barry Thornton:
"There is much confusion about this 'average' or 'middle' terminology as well. When asked, many of my clients say they visualise it [mid-grey] as the exact mid-point between black and white; the reading given by a meter pointed at, say, a chessboard with an exactly equal number of equally sized black and white squares. In fact, such a scene would give a reading, theoretically, of exactly half the reflected light of a totally white board. Half the light means the same as one stop less or one zone less; so, if pure white is zone X, then the chess board would indicate zone 1X on the meter, not the stipulated zone V for middle grey. To get a zone V reading, the chessboard would have to have around 80% of its area black. Try it with a mock up and you will see this is so."

I have found for practical purposes over more than 60 years of photography that the Kodak 18% Grey Card is a reliable way of producing a mid tone on film.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have found for practical purposes over more than 60 years of photography that the Kodak 18% Grey Card is a reliable way of producing a mid tone on film.

Yes of course, because that's what exposure meters are calibrated to. And (apparently) the majority of scenes average out to 18% reflectance. It's just that 18% reflectance isn't mid-way between white and black.

 

[benjiboy]

Yes of course, because that's what exposure meters are calibrated to. And (apparently) the majority of scenes average out to 18% reflectance. It's just that 18% reflectance isn't mid-way between white and black.

The primary use of gray cards is to provide a standard reference object for exposure determination in photography. A gray card is an (approximate) realization of a Lambertian scatterer; its apparent brightness (and exposure determination) therefore depends only on its orientation relative to the light source. To establish the exposure for a photograph Kodak recommends placing the gray card as close to the subject as possible and "aiming the surface of the gray card toward a point one-third of the compound angle between the camera and the main light. For example, if the main light is located 30 degrees to the side and 45 degrees up from the camera-to-subject axis, aim the card 10 degrees to the side and 15 degrees up." The card should be metered from approximately six inches away. Once a meter reading has been obtained, Kodak further recommends adjusting the exposure parameters using these criteria:For subjects of normal reflectance, increase the indicated exposure by one-half stop.
Wikipedia

P.S. The half stop reduction in compensation for exceptionally light or increase in exposure by half a stop for exceptionally dark subjects only applies in my experience for print films, for transparency( positive) films dark subjects require a half a stop more exposure, and light subjects half a stop less exposure, I find this also applies to incidental light readings.

 

[wiltw]

The primary use of gray cards is to provide a standard reference object for exposure determination in photography. A gray card is an (approximate) realization of a Lambertian scatterer; its apparent brightness (and exposure determination) therefore depends only on its orientation relative to the light source. To establish the exposure for a photograph Kodak recommends placing the gray card as close to the subject as possible and "aiming the surface of the gray card toward a point one-third of the compound angle between the camera and the main light. For example, if the main light is located 30 degrees to the side and 45 degrees up from the camera-to-subject axis, aim the card 10 degrees to the side and 15 degrees up." The card should be metered from approximately six inches away. Once a meter reading has been obtained, Kodak further recommends adjusting the exposure parameters using these criteria:For subjects of normal reflectance, increase the indicated exposure by one-half stop.

FWIW I have access to three vintages of instruction card for Koday 18% gray card, and only ONE of the three have that blue text recommendation...

1. "Hold the card close and in front of the subject, facing the camera and take the light reading from the card with the meter not more than 6 inches away...It is not necessary in daylight to hold the card in the actual subject position, so long as neither the subject nor the card is in shadow....It is not necessary in daylight to hold the card in the actual subject position, so long as neither the subject nor the card is in shadow. (note: there is zero mention of any particular angle or orientation"
   ©1948, Eastman Kodak Company. 2-48-CH
2. "ln artificial light, position the gray card in front of and as close to the subject as possible. Aim the surface of the gray card toward a point one third of the compound angle between your camera and the main light...In daylight, orient the gray card the same way as recommended for artificial light using the sun as the main light"
   ©Eastman Kodak Company, 2007. Kodak is a trademark of Eastman Kodak Company.
   KODAK Gray Cards CAT 190 3061
3. There is zero statement in the Kodak web instruction How to Use a Gray Card -- Kodak https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/gray-card

 

[benjiboy]

Here's a practical question, if you were shooting portraits of a black girl who was very black and using incidental metering and negative film, what compensation would you apply to the meter reading?.

 

[MattKing]

Here's a practical question, if you were shooting portraits of a black girl who was very black and using incidental metering and negative film, what compensation would you apply to the meter reading?.

Incident (rather than incidental) metering measures the light hitting the subject, rather than the light reflecting off the subject. So you start with the recommendation from the meter, and then sometimes consider adjustments based on how you weight the importance of important tones in the subject.
If you are dealing with a very dark subject - such as very dark skin - you can decide whether you wish to it to record as very dark on the negative (by following the meter's recommendation) or whether you would like to increase exposure in order to have more detail available on the negative.
If you elect to increase the exposure, you can always darken the skin later, at the printing stage.
But if you increase the exposure, it will also affect the mid-tones and highlights. In particular, the highlights may end up being too bright, and you may lose detail there (depending on the film, and what printing manipulations you have available to you).
So if you are going to adjust the exposure to deal with very dark skin, you often make your decision based on what else surrounds your subject.
And don't forget the role of specular highlights.

 

[benjiboy]

Incident (rather than incidental) metering measures the light hitting the subject, rather than the light reflecting off the subject. So you start with the recommendation from the meter, and then sometimes consider adjustments based on how you weight the importance of important tones in the subject.
If you are dealing with a very dark subject - such as very dark skin - you can decide whether you wish to it to record as very dark on the negative (by following the meter's recommendation) or whether you would like to increase exposure in order to have more detail available on the negative.
If you elect to increase the exposure, you can always darken the skin later, at the printing stage.
But if you increase the exposure, it will also affect the mid-tones and highlights. In particular, the highlights may end up being too bright, and you may lose detail there (depending on the film, and what printing manipulations you have available to you).
So if you are going to adjust the exposure to deal with very dark skin, you often make your decision based on what else surrounds your subject.
And don't forget the role of specular highlights.

I've shot a lot of black people in my life Matt, my question was a rhetorical one, because I know your answer is quite correct, but what I also know is that black people get very upset if their skin tones are too light in their portraits.

 

[BrianShaw]

I've shot a lot of black people in my life Matt, my question was a rhetorical one, because I know your answer is quite correct, but what I also know is that black people get very upset if their skin tones are too light in their portraits.

Living in that world... my experience is a bit different. Maybe it's cultural difference between my land and yours, but over here there is more upset over being printed too dark... even if that is the reality.

 

[MattKing]

I've shot a lot of black people in my life Matt, my question was a rhetorical one, because I know your answer is quite correct, but what I also know is that black people get very upset if their skin tones are too light in their portraits.

Skin tone in the final result (with negative film) is mostly a printing decision.
A subject's preferences for how they look in a photograph is a very complex issue, imbued with all sorts of generational, cultural and societal factors that are definitely outside the considerations of this thread!
I used to print wedding photos for professional photographers who served the Chinese Canadian community. At that time, they had to struggle with pleasing clients where the older generation tended to prefer a lighter skin tone in the prints while the younger generation tended to prefer a darker skin tone in the prints. As their printer, I followed their instructions!
But when you meter for negative film, you are mostly trying to preserve your options.

 

[markjwyatt]

Some of the darkest black people I have seen are actually Caucasian. Go figure.

 

[BrianShaw]

Some of the darkest black people I have seen are actually Caucasian. Go figure.

LOL... how true. And also...Some of the lightest white people I have seen are actually Black. Go figure.

 

[markjwyatt]

Skin tone in the final result (with negative film) is mostly a printing decision.
A subject's preferences for how they look in a photograph is a very complex issue, imbued with all sorts of generational, cultural and societal factors that are definitely outside the considerations of this thread!
I used to print wedding photos for professional photographers who served the Chinese Canadian community. At that time, they had to struggle with pleasing clients where the older generation tended to prefer a lighter skin tone in the prints while the younger generation tended to prefer a darker skin tone in the prints. As their printer, I followed their instructions!
But when you meter for negative film, you are mostly trying to preserve your options.

I think there is at most 1 zone maybe a bit more between the lightest and darkest skin tones. This is usually not a problem until the face is in shadow or highlight while other important parts of the picture (including other people) are in the opposite (i.e., high dynamic range shots), and of course it also depends on the skin tone that is in the shadow or highlight. One of multiple reasons why wedding photographers like flash...

 

[benjiboy]

Skin tone in the final result (with negative film) is mostly a printing decision.
A subject's preferences for how they look in a photograph is a very complex issue, imbued with all sorts of generational, cultural and societal factors that are definitely outside the considerations of this thread!
I used to print wedding photos for professional photographers who served the Chinese Canadian community. At that time, they had to struggle with pleasing clients where the older generation tended to prefer a lighter skin tone in the prints while the younger generation tended to prefer a darker skin tone in the prints. As their printer, I followed their instructions!
But when you meter for negative film, you are mostly trying to preserve your options.

I don't agree Matt I think it is very relevant to the subject in this discussion because incidental metering is most used in portrait photography and photographers like me who don't do their own processing need to get the exposure right the first time not only on negative film but on slide film too.

 

[markjwyatt]

I don't agree Matt I think it is very relevant to the subject in this discussion because incidental metering is most used in portrait photography and photographers like me who don't do their own processing need to get the exposure right the first time not only on negative film but on slide film too.

Kodak and others have come under attack for being racist because of the way skin tones came out (https://petapixel.com/2015/09/19/he...lm-was-originally-biased-toward-white-people/ , https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jan/25/racism-colour-photography-exhibition ) for different skin colorings. I am kind of curious (from a positive sense) about what filters work best with which skin tones for B&W photography. The recommendations used to include medG for Caucasian to darken skin tones a little; blue was considered good for men (probably Caucasian) to bring out "character" (generally not for women- that was the rule; a diffusor was preferred- but that is a cultural artifact). What about black, East Indian, darker Hispanic, indigenous American, various Asian, etc.? Then the cultural factors come in. How do they want to be portrayed? If it is candid, and not portraiture, how would you want to portray them (not just in terms of lightness/darkness, but also diffusion vs. sharp)? I tend to like to portray anything/one I shoot as they look naturally tot he eye, but this is in itself tricky, especially in high dynamic range lighting conditions.

 

[benjiboy]

Some of the darkest black people I have seen are actually Caucasian. Go figure.

You really are getting your exposures wrong.