Thank you everyone so much who had taken the time out to explain to me. I will try to answer a few questions raised:
May I enquire what you think you will gain from your exercise and why do you think it is necessary for your use of film?
You might agree that it is always simple to understand a new concept if some prior knowledge/experience is useful in kickstarting the understanding process. All I was trying to do is find out at what point of time, I will have to bother about losing highlights. Let's say a very high contrast image, like a beach with stones at sunset is being shot. When I am shooting digital, I will use an appropriate graduated neutral density filter to pull down the exposure of the sky within the "dynamic range" of the camera. I now understand, that I probably have to bother much less for film because of its latitude. But I did not know that when I asked the question and was trying to understand how I could get such a shot done on film. Does that answer your question?
But if I were shooting color slide film, I would seriously consider calibrating because slide film doesn't have as much latitude, and you really want to get exposure correct for slides.
I am not shooting slides yet. Primarily because they are too costly for a student budget. But I do plan to shoot slides at some point of time. So, knowing the limitation of slides vs negatives is useful. So, other than a trial and error, is there a way to determine the latitude (if I may use that term) of slides?
This also seems to be about nailing the "perfect" exposure in camera.
I'll assume though that your target is a print from an enlarger in a darkroom.
You got this right. I was indeed aiming to get the right exposure in camera, since I do not have a darkroom and (I believe) limited to scanning. I wish I can set up a colour darkroom some day.
For me metering the background is typically meaningless because the background is going to be blurred and my blurring turns what Bill get as sharp deep blacks and sharp brilliant whites into a bunch of messy shades-of-gray regardless of how either of us meters.
I am probably going to ask another stupid question. Please don't yell at me if it is too stupid. Just ignore it. If, as you say, you are not "that" interested in background, if you actually manage to "blow out" (again, I now understand this is very unlikely, but my digital experience kicks in here) parts of the background, will it not look very weird with white patches with almost no detail? I realise, in a darkroom you will probably be able to get back detail with burning, but again, you *need* something to be recorded on the negative, right?
To cite an experience, I shot a photo of my sister having fallen asleep on the table while reading (on a FP4+ at box speed, ID-11 at manufacturer recommended temp, concentration, etc). The table lamp was glowing at 12 'o clock. Her face was in the shadow. I printed that one in a darkroom. I was able to burn detail of her face, but even after dodging a lot, the lamp completely went white and the bulb was not visible. I was trying to understand, if there is anything I can do to get a little bit of that bulb in the photo.
Second thing to understand about negative film, shadow detail is the hard limit.
I got it this time. Thanks so much for explaining.
I have the same meter and the whole exercise is pointless, I call it "nerdgasim" and it's very prevalent on digital forums. The time to do it can be much better invested. I didn't even bother doing it with my DSLR.
Normally, I would have just said "nuff said" and move on to the next most interesting thing
. But I would like to respectfully disagree a bit to your statement. I believe in understanding both the strengths and weaknesses of a process before calling it "nerdgasim" which is precisely the reason for this question. But as others have taken the time to explain, I now more logically understand why my proposed exercise has little value. Please do not interpret this as I am saying you did not do your due diligence. I am sure you have. All I was trying to do is understand how this thing works.
"tilting at windmills" as mentioned by the LFP OP would be the best description. But then he also sounds like a beginner walking into a fog. I don't recommend beginners launch into the fray with an L758D until they have the basic principals of exposure in their head, and for LF, that would mean the Zone System. It is a significant and very accurate piece of equipment but it really is only as good as the person using it.
First of all, I would like to thank you for answering. You have answered almost all my questions, most of which turned out to be very stupid once things have been explained to me. And you have never shown any shortage of enthusiasm or patience in explaining. I thank you for that. Now to get back to the point, you have got it right. I am indeed a beginner in film photography. However, I almost think that I know a bit of how the meter works. But yes, I do agree, that L-758DR is probably the most advanced meter in the market but only as good as the user. You nailed it there.
Now, the Canon 1Ds Mark III is one of the most advanced digital cameras of them all (there are others in the same league, but this does not interest me) and it does not need, nor will you benefit from, profiling — itself widely discredited for the imprecision it introduces into photography as a supposed 'benchmark'.
I will not argue about how good or bad that particular Canon camera is because that is not the point. But that is definitely not a benchmark in the film world. On second thoughts, I think that very information about what camera I use is redundant and not required. Just mentioning the meter I use should have been enough to explain the context of the question. I would also respectfully disagree about the camera not benefiting from a hand held meter. I think I have benefitted from using the meter for mixed light situations, backlit scenes, insanely high contrast scenes, studio photography and number of places. It had allowed me not to guess the settings and get it right the first time with that very camera. But again, that is irrelevant for this forum (or I think so).
Do you want to be tied to a digital camera in turn tethered to a computer instead of learning and actively practising the foundation principles of exposure of film? What a digital camera tells you doesn't necessarily hold true for exposures on film (one factor being that digital sensors do have more dynamic range than film).
Not at all. I want to keep my digital skills for very specific scenarios (burst shooting anyone) and want to use film. That is the reason, I bug so many people with my utterly stupid questions. But people like yourself have been very nice to enable me and not feel like a prized idiot.
Do you understand additive vs subtractive compensation? Last, middle or first reading averaging? Mean average of weighted average metering? This would be critical on the list of things to actively observe and learn (whether using spot or incident) with film, not digital.
I think I know at least conceptually about what the different types of compensation are and the different metering mode. Actually, I am a computer science graduate student and love to crunch numbers. I have done some little work on MagicLantern (an open source firmware for Canon cameras) and know a bit about metering. I understand film and digital works differently. I was just trying to create the knowledge "delta" vs flushing everything digital down the drain and start from scratch. But I think starting from scratch has its own appeal as well. But you are inviting more trouble for yourself. I will ask more stupid questions and you will have to answer them.
If you are okay with that, be my guest.
Pick up a LF camera, knuckle down with the Zone System and let rip for the L758D. And throw the Canon away.
I wish I had the money for buying a good LF camera and also feeding it. One day, I promise.
I used to dislike the OM-4 spot shadow and spot highlight features since the adjustments were fixed in firmware, so the Sekonic's adjustability makes me happier that I can dial in what I believe shadows and highlights should be.
It really only takes a few minutes to change the setup from a standard seven-and-two-thirds stops to eight stops. And that is all it takes to align the meter exactly to Zone System.
Sure, seven and two-thirds is close. "Spot-shadow" of the OM-4 is close. But the Sekonic lets you change the clipping points. You don't have to run a full profile to do that.
If you know the boundaries of great color, then those boundaries would make sensible clipping points. I don't think it's "two diaphragm stops" as it was in 1942, but whatever the clipping points are, it really only takes a few minutes to set them. Then, with realistic clipping points, you might scan the scene with spotmeter readings and be able to decide whether you want to modify the light. You don't have to geek out to get some practical information from the meter.
Thank you so much for your answer. This makes a lot of sense.