How do you use an incident light meter?

[KenS]

While I (nearly always) carry both my Gossen and my Pentax spot meter, I prefer the Pentax for a spot reading off a piece of clean white 'towelling and 'placing that value reading as ZVIII+1/3. I'm looking for a "white with texture" rather than a 'middle grey... and letthe shadows 'fall where they may".
For the past 17 years all my sheet film is processed in Pyrocat HD with BTZS tubes (No more 'hangers-in tank' or tray development since I found I was getting 'better... and more 'even' results with 'rotary development'

Ken

 

[MLP120]

I have a (newbie type) question. If I take a incident reading for a starting point then shoot 5 exposures bracketing by, let's say a half stop each while camera is on a tripod for landscapes, could I photo stack all 5 images in a post processing program? I am new to medium format and purchased a Mamiya 645 AFD and shooting film again. I have a Gossen Luna Pro 2 light meter but going to take my Nikon D7100 along to take test shots. Any suggestions are much appreciated. I forgot to mention that I am shooting Kodak Portra 160 color and Delta 100 B&W film.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I have a (newbie type) question. If I take a incident reading for a starting point then shoot 5 exposures bracketing by, let's say a half stop each while camera is on a tripod for landscapes, could I photo stack all 5 images in a post processing program? I am new to medium format and purchased a Mamiya 645 AFD and shooting film again. I have a Gossen Luna Pro 2 light meter but going to take my Nikon D7100 along to take test shots. Any suggestions are much appreciated. I forgot to mention that I am shooting Kodak Portra 160 color and Delta 100 B&W film.

Sure, you could do that. But why?

1- When you shoot film and scan for digital processing, alignment is not consistent. Film wobbles as it winds, positioning on the scanner is not precisely indexed shot to shot. So you will need a program that will re-align on a pixel level. Well, no actually on the grain level because pixels will be unaligned frame to frame.

2- Difference in 1/2 stop on negative film is rather minor. I would do 1 to 1-1/2 stop steps.

3- Since you are new to film, I would suggest that you do a +/- 3 stop bracketing (7 shots total) of a single shot. Watch what happens as you underexpose and overexpose in the negatives. See where detail is lost, detail is retained, how contrast changes as you have the same subject on different exposures (different locations on the tone curve). See if Delta 100 behaves differently than Portra 1600 when over and under exposed. THEN- stop it. Don't do games like this again for at least the next ten rolls of film you shoot.Learn to get ONE negative that works. THEN- after you get a feel for a single negative, you can look into frame stacking, film-based HDR, focus stacking with film scans, etc. For now, learn how exposure affects the final image and how to get one negative that works.

Suggestion: take notes for the first few rolls. Camera settings, describe scene (deep shadows, flat light, whatever). And use the digital camera to take reference shots, and note what the digital is showing you in relation to the negatives.

welcome to film. Good choice to do medium format- the differences from digital will be easier to get a handle on. Two things to note. One, welcome to slow land. Two, welcome to surprise-ville, where the delay between taking the shot and seeing the image makes each roll of film back from the lab a surprise.

Oh, one last comment- to get the best response to a question, feel free to start your own thread. Coming in on the end of a long thread, many people have already looked and moved on, etc. As you start getting negatives back, please do ask questions. And post images if possible- simply saying 'my negative looks thin' is not as helpful as a phone camera shot of the negative itself.

 

[GLS]

I have a (newbie type) question. If I take a incident reading for a starting point then shoot 5 exposures bracketing by, let's say a half stop each while camera is on a tripod for landscapes, could I photo stack all 5 images in a post processing program? I am new to medium format and purchased a Mamiya 645 AFD and shooting film again. I have a Gossen Luna Pro 2 light meter but going to take my Nikon D7100 along to take test shots. Any suggestions are much appreciated. I forgot to mention that I am shooting Kodak Portra 160 color and Delta 100 B&W film.

Generally speaking the only reasons to stack images are as follows:

1) You want multiple bracketed exposures to create an HDR (high dynamic range) blended image. This is only necessary when the dynamic range of the scene exceeds what the film/sensor is capable of recording in one exposure.

2) You want to reduce the noise in very long exposures by averaging multiple shots (this is only really relevant to digital capture though).

3) You want to create a greater depth of field by stacking differently-focused images of the same scene (focus stacking; generally only done for macro photography).

In your case perhaps none of these is relevant or necessary. Bracketing simply for uncertainty of exposure is unnecessary and wasteful with negative films.

 

[Ariston]

I have a (newbie type) question. If I take a incident reading for a starting point then shoot 5 exposures bracketing by, let's say a half stop each while camera is on a tripod for landscapes, could I photo stack all 5 images in a post processing program? I am new to medium format and purchased a Mamiya 645 AFD and shooting film again. I have a Gossen Luna Pro 2 light meter but going to take my Nikon D7100 along to take test shots. Any suggestions are much appreciated. I forgot to mention that I am shooting Kodak Portra 160 color and Delta 100 B&W film.

Bracketing isn't a bad thing, but then you just need to choose the frame with the best exposure. There is no need to combine them in post processing unless, as mentioned, you are doing some digital manipulation. Your Portra had good latitude, so it is probably easiest to just err on the side of overexposure.

 

[MLP120]

Sure, you could do that. But why?

1- When you shoot film and scan for digital processing, alignment is not consistent. Film wobbles as it winds, positioning on the scanner is not precisely indexed shot to shot. So you will need a program that will re-align on a pixel level. Well, no actually on the grain level because pixels will be unaligned frame to frame.

2- Difference in 1/2 stop on negative film is rather minor. I would do 1 to 1-1/2 stop steps.

3- Since you are new to film, I would suggest that you do a +/- 3 stop bracketing (7 shots total) of a single shot. Watch what happens as you underexpose and overexpose in the negatives. See where detail is lost, detail is retained, how contrast changes as you have the same subject on different exposures (different locations on the tone curve). See if Delta 100 behaves differently than Portra 1600 when over and under exposed. THEN- stop it. Don't do games like this again for at least the next ten rolls of film you shoot.Learn to get ONE negative that works. THEN- after you get a feel for a single negative, you can look into frame stacking, film-based HDR, focus stacking with film scans, etc. For now, learn how exposure affects the final image and how to get one negative that works.

Suggestion: take notes for the first few rolls. Camera settings, describe scene (deep shadows, flat light, whatever). And use the digital camera to take reference shots, and note what the digital is showing you in relation to the negatives.

welcome to film. Good choice to do medium format- the differences from digital will be easier to get a handle on. Two things to note. One, welcome to slow land. Two, welcome to surprise-ville, where the delay between taking the shot and seeing the image makes each roll of film back from the lab a surprise.

Oh, one last comment- to get the best response to a question, feel free to start your own thread. Coming in on the end of a long thread, many people have already looked and moved on, etc. As you start getting negatives back, please do ask questions. And post images if possible- simply saying 'my negative looks thin' is not as helpful as a phone camera shot of the negative itself.

Thanks Dan, I appreciate it. I shot 35mm film for 30 years but just a little nervous about getting it right. Will do the 10 roll experiment and hopefully learn enough not to have to bracket.

 

[MLP120]

Bracketing isn't a bad thing, but then you just need to choose the frame with the best exposure. There is no need to combine them in post processing unless, as mentioned, you are doing some digital manipulation. Your Portra had good latitude, so it is probably easiest to just err on the side of overexposure.

Thanks Ariston, I appreciate it and hopefully get it right in camera so I can start printing.

 

[MLP120]

Generally speaking the only reasons to stack images are as follows:

1) You want multiple bracketed exposures to create an HDR (high dynamic range) blended image. This is only necessary when the dynamic range of the scene exceeds what the film/sensor is capable of recording in one exposure.

2) You want to reduce the noise in very long exposures by averaging multiple shots (this is only really relevant to digital capture though).

3) You want to create a greater depth of field by stacking differently-focused images of the same scene (focus stacking; generally only done for macro photography).

In your case perhaps none of these is relevant or necessary. Bracketing simply for uncertainty of exposure is unnecessary and wasteful with negative films.

Thanks GLS, I appreciate it. I hope to get good enough with film again so I never have to do the digital work flow. Just want to shoot and have prints for the wall made.

 

[Kino]

Generally speaking the only reasons to stack images are as follows:

1) You want multiple bracketed exposures to create an HDR (high dynamic range) blended image. This is only necessary when the dynamic range of the scene exceeds what the film/sensor is capable of recording in one exposure.

2) You want to reduce the noise in very long exposures by averaging multiple shots (this is only really relevant to digital capture though).

3) You want to create a greater depth of field by stacking differently-focused images of the same scene (focus stacking; generally only done for macro photography).

In your case perhaps none of these is relevant or necessary. Bracketing simply for uncertainty of exposure is unnecessary and wasteful with negative films.

You can also create "Superresolution" images: https://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-...eating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/

Photoshop can align images in a stack to register exactly and combine to "increase" resolution, but I have found it only partially useful.

Since it averages pixels, a bracketed sequence would simulate a sort of HDR image, but the results with film negative scans would be ... well, I don't know what it would be. Might be worth a try just to see what happens!

 

[GLS]

You can also create "Superresolution" images: https://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-...eating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/

Photoshop can align images in a stack to register exactly and combine to "increase" resolution, but I have found it only partially useful.

I think in this context that would be of very dubious benefit. By far the bigger limiting factor regarding resolution will be the digitisation method.

 

[Kino]

I think in this context that would be of very dubious benefit. By far the bigger limiting factor regarding resolution will be the digitisation method.

As would pretty much all you listed, but I thought I'd give him one more useless option...

 

[guangong]

The Norwood meter was designed with Hollywood lighting for cinematography in mind. Just an idle comment.

 

[AndyH]

The Norwood meter was designed with Hollywood lighting for cinematography in mind. Just an idle comment.

I have one original Norwood that is as accurate as the day it left the factory. The flat contrast head is useful, and the reflective metering unit is also pretty accurate. Also have the Sekonic version times three, two of which are spot on, while the other is a consistent half stop low. A couple of Weston Masters with the Invercone for incident readings.

But if I had to take only one light meter with me, I'd still always choose my Luna Pro models. The incident reading dome may be small, but it's always spot on. And the spot attachment goes down to 7.5 degrees, and with the full rig, I can get low light, studio, and zone readings. The best light meter ever made in my opinion.

Andy

 

[guangong]

I have one original Norwood that is as accurate as the day it left the factory. The flat contrast head is useful, and the reflective metering unit is also pretty accurate. Also have the Sekonic version times three, two of which are spot on, while the other is a consistent half stop low. A couple of Weston Masters with the Invercone for incident readings.

But if I had to take only one light meter with me, I'd still always choose my Luna Pro models. The incident reading dome may be small, but it's always spot on. And the spot attachment goes down to 7.5 degrees, and with the full rig, I can get low light, studio, and zone readings. The best light meter ever made in my opinion.

Andy

Ditto.

 

[villagephotog]

I have one original Norwood that is as accurate as the day it left the factory. The flat contrast head is useful, and the reflective metering unit is also pretty accurate. Also have the Sekonic version times three, two of which are spot on, while the other is a consistent half stop low. A couple of Weston Masters with the Invercone for incident readings.

But if I had to take only one light meter with me, I'd still always choose my Luna Pro models. The incident reading dome may be small, but it's always spot on. And the spot attachment goes down to 7.5 degrees, and with the full rig, I can get low light, studio, and zone readings. The best light meter ever made in my opinion.

Andy

It's OT, but just had to agree with you on the Luna Pro. For me, one of the pleasures of deciding to shoot some film again (after almost 20 years of digital-only) was that I had a reason to use my Luna Pro F again. This is one of the "null" system Gossen meters, and reads both ambient and flash (the Luna Pro SBC [Lunasix in Europe, I think?] is the ambient-only version.) It's just such an incredibly functional design in so many ways, with the full range of parameters always visible on its analog dials. A real pleasure to use (aside from being a tad chunky.) I don't need it all that often, but it always makes me happy when I have an excuse to use it.

 

[AndyH]

It's OT, but just had to agree with you on the Luna Pro. For me, one of the pleasures of deciding to shoot some film again (after almost 20 years of digital-only) was that I had a reason to use my Luna Pro F again. This is one of the "null" system Gossen meters, and reads both ambient and flash (the Luna Pro SBC [Lunasix in Europe, I think?] is the ambient-only version.) It's just such an incredibly functional design in so many ways, with the full range of parameters always visible on its analog dials. A real pleasure to use (aside from being a tad chunky.) I don't need it all that often, but it always makes me happy when I have an excuse to use it.

I had forgotten all about the flash "null" model, but you got me jonesing enough that I checked out eBay. Cheap! I think I'll pick up a couple for the outfits I occasionally shoot flash with, or maybe just one to go in my "flash bag".

Andy

 

[villagephotog]

I had forgotten all about the flash "null" model, but you got me jonesing enough that I checked out eBay. Cheap! I think I'll pick up a couple for the outfits I occasionally shoot flash with, or maybe just one to go in my "flash bag".

Andy

Mine has always read flash very accurately for me, but I have one caveat: it's not super-sensitive, and if I turn my flash down to fairly low power — let's say 1/8th or 1/16th on a 300ws flash (or shoe-mount flash), the Luna Pro F often won't read that effectively. I think the flash duration is just too short. Obviously it varies by flash, but other flash meters can read those lower power levels perfectly well. It's relatively easy to work around on the Luna Pro F (I take a reading at full or half power, then just read the proper exposure for lower power levels off the analog dial). It's a little extra messing around (turning the flash power up and down). Something to be aware of.

The Luna Pro F also does not read ambient light as low as the regular Luna Pro can. I think the difference is 3 or 4 stops. It reads well past the level of subjects under low indoor light, lit by streetlights, or in the half hour after sunset etc. But it's not sensitive enough to read very dimly lit subjects that some other meters (including Gossens) can—a moonlit landscape, for example.

As I mentioned, you can also get the "null" reading system in an ambient-only Luna Pro that has 3-4 extra stops of sensitivity. In the U.S., that was the Luna Pro SBC, which I think was the LunaSix in Europe (could be wrong about that last part). I'm not sure about prices on those.

 

[MattKing]

Luna Pro SBC, which I think was the LunaSix in Europe

Actually, it is/was the Luna Pro SBC in the US, the Profisix in the rest of the world.

 

[KenS]

I only use a spot meter... I carry a 'swatch' of clean white towel (in a clean plastic 'baggie... stick it in the 'area of interest' and take a spot meter reading... place that 'value in ZoneVlll+1/3 (for 'highlight" with texture)... letting the shadow 'fall where they may... give 'normal' development. 'Reasoning?' the hominid 'eye' is first drawn to the 'highlight detail when looking at the final print. Apparently this was first 'recommended' for Kodachrome film that had extremely 'tight' processing... and I have found out over some 20-odd years that it works 'beautifully' for my large format negatives.

Ken

 

[DAVID GEORGE WATSON]

This has been undoubtedly been one very interesting thread to concentrate the minds of a few, and understandably so! Might I suggest, and indeed recommend a small book which I bought in the 60's, when a friend was working for Photax Ltd, here in Eastbourne England the then Importers of Gossen Exposure Meters and also Yashica and Contax Cameras, which he used to repair. The book is titled,'Exposure Metering and Creative Photography' by Heinz von Lichten, and Published by Gossen themselves . It covers everything you could ever want to know ,about exposure calculating, and in a very clear and understandable way. Gossen is surely one of the oldest makers of not just photographic meters ( since 1919) , but specialist meters for all branches of electronics and is a very highly respected Company. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone still using film and exposure meters! I always take my copy with me if I think the lighting may need further thought, we are after all fallible at times, and we can never stop learning!

 

[madNbad]

This has been undoubtedly been one very interesting thread to concentrate the minds of a few, and understandably so! Might I suggest, and indeed recommend a small book which I bought in the 60's, when a friend was working for Photax Ltd, here in Eastbourne England the then Importers of Gossen Exposure Meters and also Yashica and Contax Cameras, which he used to repair. The book is titled,'Exposure Metering and Creative Photography' by Heinz von Lichten, and Published by Gossen themselves . It covers everything you could ever want to know ,about exposure calculating, and in a very clear and understandable way. Gossen is surely one of the oldest makers of not just photographic meters ( since 1919) , but specialist meters for all branches of electronics and is a very highly respected Company. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone still using film and exposure meters! I always take my copy with me if I think the lighting may need further thought, we are after all fallible at times, and we can never stop learning!

Thank you for the suggestion. Gossen has it online and available as a PDF download. The new version also discusses white balance for digital photography.


https://gossen-photo.de/wp-content/uploads/DL/FOTO/Kompendium_der_Belichtungsmessung_GB.pdf

 

[runswithsizzers]

Thank you for the suggestion. Gossen has it online and available as a PDF download. The new version also discusses white balance for digital photography.


https://gossen-photo.de/wp-content/uploads/DL/FOTO/Kompendium_der_Belichtungsmessung_GB.pdf

Thanks for the link!

 

[DAVID GEORGE WATSON]

Thanks for the link!

That's good to know! I don't recall us having white balance inn the 60'S, it's changing day to day! Regards!

 

[DAVID GEORGE WATSON]

When I use an incident meter with roll I meter for the shadows and use VC filters when printing to get the right highlights. If you meter for the highlight you should get printable highlights but your shadows will be underexposed. which is why AA used a spot meter. Phil David developed BTZS using a incident mete, he metered for the shadows to set exposure then metered for the high light to determine development times.

I used to assist a friend in the 60's doing weddings, used 220 TXP 320 , Developed in May & Bakers Promicrol, (superb negs!) or D-76 1+1. Metering Incident, for the shadows, and develop for the highlights, perfect negs, no burnt out brides dresses and skintones , and full detail in the Grooms dark suit!

 

[removedacct3]

Metering Incident, for the shadows, and develop for the highlights

Incident metering for shadows? Is that as simple as holding your meter in the shade while pointing the dome towards the lens, or is there more to it?