I need some metering help.

[Ektagraphic]

I am just going to go over this thread a few times and try to make sense of it all. I don't feel very smart right now, but I guess we all have to start somewhere.....but after messing around with my meter I think I am starting to understand things. Thank you all so much for your input so far!

 

[Q.G.]

Okay. I will meter into my hand. Then I will move the ISO dial back one speed/stop. I think I have it.

Why!!!???
What you are doing then is simulate an incident reading (the light falling on the hand, instead of the dome), and add a tentative correction.

Have said it before, but here goes again: just use that lumisphere and do an incident reading.

 

[JBrunner]

Why!!!???
What you are doing then is simulate an incident reading (the light falling on the hand, instead of the dome), and add a tentative correction.

Have said it before, but here goes again: just use that lumisphere and do an incident reading.

I think we all are getting at the same thing. Q.G's point could be summed up as this:

A lumasphere is a grey card in practical application.

Your hand with the reflectance value considered is a grey card in practical application.

All an incident reading or a grey card reading tells you is the exposure for a middle grey value. A reflected reading gives you a luminance value. If the meter is broad, it is an average of the luminance it sees, and winds up in most cases reading like an incident meter or a spot value from a grey card, however it is more easily fooled. If it has a narrow angle as a spot meter it is (as spot meters are reflected meters), it is more or less exact to what you put the spot on, and you have specific information about specific things. Minor weighting issues aside, your hand held meter in reflected mode isn't doing anything different than your camera meter is doing. If you can place an incident meter in the same light as the subject it will give the same reading even if the subject is far away (like if you are in an open field) If you can't (you are in sun and the subject is in shade) then a reflected reading is in order, or you have to go over to the light the subject is in for an incident reading.

What I see Ekta doing is trying to apply the reflected readings as if he was using a spot meter, which he isn't. If I had to use a reflected meter, I would tend to meter less sky and more subject, tending towards more exposure, not less (unless I was shooting just the sky). If it were a landscape with sky and the sky was an important part, I would likely apply a yellow, orange, or red filter (B&W) If we are talking about chrome, I would expose for the middle, polarize and depending, consider a grad. These are all generalizations of course, and in the end I loath working with meters that generalize, unless time is a factor.

One feeling that I get, is that Ekta needs to work on the basic concepts of exposure related to luminance vs. incidence, and reciprocity, and stop looking for a proper exposure and instead learn to choose an exposure, and why. That is meant constructively.

In the end, advice is great and all, but I would bet that every person here has a personal way of reading and interpreting their meter, that said, I'll repeat myself- consider a spot meter- it's my bet you'll learn more about exposure, (some of it the hard way) in a shorter time, then you ever will with something as broad and inexact as a hand held reflected or incident meter. Incident meters, broad reflected readings, and grey card readings all offer only "serving suggestions" They don't tell you diddley about what you are exposing. If that isn't in the cards, just point the meter at the FoV, consider values that are far above or below the average, and be done with it, because it won't get much more specific than that. Without bringing a spot meter into the equation, this is all pretty much about the mechanics that achieve the same averaged end.

(You can obtain reflected values for specific things by getting the meter up close, so that is all it sees, but might get to be a pretty obtuse way of working)

YMMV

J

 

[Ektagraphic]

Sometime soon, I am going to try all the things talked about on here and see what works best for me.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Only AT your subject IF your subject is in different light and you can't find (or recreate) the same light near you.

... And you can accurately determine if the "Light near you is the same"

...How?

 

[JBrunner]

... And you can accurately determine if the "Light near you is the same"

...How?

If I'm in the same sun, it is the same. If I'm in the same shade it is the same. It's pretty easy to tell just by looking, if you have any sense of light, and I've done it a fair share of times. If there is any question, it doesn't work so well, and I honestly wouldn't recommend it to the inexperienced, but as I outlined in the big post above, why would one bother with any of it, unless you had to?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Spot meters are good, but they are slow. Good for view camera work, where time is less of a consideration than accuracy. One major consideration would be the stablity of the light.. Clouds attenuating the sun from time to time can wreak havoc.

As with all equipment, there IS a certain level of skill requred - the final decision lies in the area of "aesthetics" and I'll go out on a limb and say that *NO* mindless piece of apparatus will work well - even mariginally - there.

 

[Q.G.]

... And you can accurately determine if the "Light near you is the same"

...How?

It's not difficult.
If the sun is shining, it is shining.

Shade is a bit more tricky, but not too hard. As long as you can see the thing you are taking pictures of (i think it is a safe bet that you can), you can see how it is lit and/or how it is shaded.
It is not difficult to find similar shade, or if not present, shade the meter in the same way.
Works fine. No worries.


PS.
See only now that The Prince of Darkness said very much the same thing.
Sorry for the redundancy.
But then, it can't hurt to read the same thing twice.

Ed is quite right too: it takes some basic level of skill required.
It is not difficult, and when you put some thought into it, it is possible to attain that basic level without even making mistakes along the way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Spot meters are good, but they are slow.

I learned something today ... when I use the spot meter on my Nikon F-100 it is slow!

I am going to have to account for that time delay when I take photographs in the future!

[Do you mean in the future when you are taking photographs or do you mean when you take future photographs. I am getting so confused! :confused:]

Steve

 

[removed account4]

i think that bracketing can help in any situation.
light ... shade ... sort of shade ... whatever it might be.
bracket a little bit and *maybe* you are home free ....

but like anything, a little experience goes a long way
and saves time, effort, and film ..

as zippy says: "are we having fun yet? "

 

[JBrunner]

Spot metering is slow, (although I'm obscenely fast with one) and that is just fine for the kind of photography I do, and conversely impractical for say street photography, journalism, and other things, and then there is a middle. I think even if you are only going to shoot with an in camera meter in impromptu situations that learning to use a 1 degree spot meter on the side will pay big dividends in a persons overall understanding and therefore control when choosing an exposure. Are you going to make the exposure the meter tells you, or the exposure you need for your neg? Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are different, and a spot meter will teach why they can be different faster than anything else, even if you only use it to learn and shoot with it very little. Practical for everything? No. Useful for many things? Absolutely. A couple of hours in the backyard with just a spot meter sans camera is worth about a year of photography school. JMO YMMV

 

[Ektagraphic]

I just shot a bunch of photos of a chair that I put in the middle of my yard and I tried lots of diffrent techniques. I'll be sure to share how it went.

 

[lxdude]

Jason,

I don't see how a grey card reflected reading or incident reading is inexact. They are exact values for which the meter is calibrated. Neither one gives an averaged result. They give a correct and specific readout of the exposure needed to expose the film as it was designed to be exposed. They can be deviated from if desired for whatever reason, but give a dead-on baseline from which to work. I would never throw them in with broad reflected readings, which are imprecise as to exactly what is being metered and are prone to being thrown off by luminance variations within their angles of acceptance, therefore giving "accurate misinformation".

I use off-the-palm and grey card methods with my in-camera meter more often than reflected readings, as I know I can trust them. I can then place values differently if I want to, relying on experience, if I want an exposure different from "correct". One thing I especially like about incident metering, and by that I include metering incident light off a calibrated surface like a grey card, is I can determine an exposure and not have to change it for anything in the same light; very good in situations where there's no time to re-meter. If the light changes I can then re-meter or rely on experience to alter exposure settings. I don't need to take numerous readings of different parts of a scene if incident gives me the information I need.

I'm not knocking spot reading in any way; but spot readings do require a person to read and place values correctly to obtain desired exposure. It is generally more deliberate and time consuming, therefore not always applicable to a situation. However, it can sometimes be faster than incident if a person knows what they're doing, like say metering a face in dark surroundings and using experience to adjust if needed to gain the desired tonal value. Spot allows determination of the total luminance range very exactly, as well as relative values within the total range. All good stuff. I'm sure you could add a lot more, Jason. I don't contest your contention that spot metering will lead to greater understanding, as it requires effort to use properly.

But is there really that much difference between a grey card and metering individual areas of a scene? In specificity, yes, obviously. The grey card is specific in tone, and the spot reading is specific in area. But the spot meter still reads everything as middle grey, and it's up to the user to place values relative to that. So a grey card reads as null, while specific parts of a scene spot read as null, null minus, or null plus. The user can pick out a middle tone and use it like a grey card to determine exposure, or pick another tone and vary from the meter reading a chosen amount unless they want to render it middle gray, or average multiple readings, maybe weighting one way or the other based on knowledge or hunch.

If incident works, and for me it does, then I don't think it's inferior. I still have to know how to apply it properly to get what I want. I know from experience what to expect. It's great for determining the light falling on a leaf, and it works fine for determining exposure for objects in the shadow area underneath that same leaf. But it doesn't work well for determining exposure of the leaf, transilluminated, shot from underneath.

Even if incident and grey card readings are slavishly followed, so long as they are within the bounds of applicability, they will always give a good exposure; that is, one with well distributed tonal values. That in itself, I think, makes it valuable for people learning exposure. As mentioned, it gives a baseline. That could even make it valuable as a reference tool for people learning how to expose using a spot meter.

 

[lxdude]

Hey Patrick,
I just wanted to let you know this. If you do meter off your hand and open up a stop, or use a grey card, angle it so you get the highest reading you can. Just be careful not to pick up any surface reflections (surface shinyness).
Jeff

 

[Q.G.]

Or better still, do not try to emulate an incident light reading at all.
Just use that lumisphere, and ...

 

[lxdude]

Or better still, do not try to emulate an incident light reading at all.
Just use that lumisphere, and ...

Well, yeah.
Just for general knowledge, like when using the in-camera meter. Which is great for macro, as there's no need to figure light loss.

I agree on the lumisphere; if you've got it, why not use it?

Lumisphere, lumisphere... where have I heard that before? It was a place I used to work... no, that was the looneysphere.

 

[JBrunner]

lxdude,

I won't belabor the entire post by quoting it. Some of your points are a repeat of what I said, however, an incident reading or a grey card reading are exactly average, and that is why they work, most of the time, as they are designed to. An average approach to an average negative. Average isn't exact, except in regard to the sum, nor is average substandard or negative. One can certainly use it to arrive at an average exposure, or as you say, one with evenly distributed tones, and if that is all the further ones understanding and tool set for exposure needs or wants to be, that's fine. If one wants to venture further, more information is needed. Films are calibrated for an average, average exposure, average development, average printing. They need to be, for the average photographer is exceedingly average in approach and execution. Going beyond that requires more. It is up to an individual to decide if that is for them, and if it is worth it. I have only given advice. Sunny 16 sans a meter is valid as any other. EW didn't even use no stinkin meter, but the question here directly addresses how to use a particular method of metering, and baseline metering as you call it is only exact in regard to the baseline. As I said before sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. As you say, the application of a what is derived at a spot meter can be an average, but it also lets one disregard or regard what one desires. It lets one choose what is important and what is not, without guesswork. Is it easy to learn? No, but things really worth knowing rarely are. The question is more about who is making the decisions than how they are arrived at. I'm hoping I can help Ekta learn to arrive at decisions, rather that having a meter give him a be all end all magic number, even if a spot meter isn't practical for most of what he does. I don't know because I have never seen his photography.

He came here and asked a question, and got the big brain treatment about "How to do it" - I say learn why, not how.

I'm not speaking in absolutes, nor do I think everybody has to do things how I do things, but I think I do have the mileage to offer an opinion.

And yes I agree that an incident reading or grey card reading in conjunction with spot metering can be very informative for someone learning about exposure.

 

[lxdude]

Jason,
I think we're in philosophical agreement. Nothing should be taken as gospel. People should look and think beyond the set way of doing things. I think a baseline's value is as a baseline; a starting point, not a stopping point.

Your central point that a spot meter can teach a lot and in a short amount of time is one I agree with completely. You can never know too much. When I used one for the first time I had already learned a lot about getting what I wanted out of an image. But the spot meter yielded insight into what I was doing that I didn't have before. My ability to visualize the exposure improved a lot.

We use different methods but I think the same idea. I usually meter incident but rely on experience to inform my exposure decision from there. I usually use chrome films but don't feel constrained by the conventional wisdom regarding exposure. It's wisdom, but it's conventional. I deliberately overexpose for a high-key effect and shoot in fading light when the meter says "no way". It's all about knowing the medium or being willing to stretch things when you don't. What's the worst that can happen? A frame gets ruined. What's the best that can happen? New insight, new confidence, new ideas.

I consider any single exposure reading, however produced, as a starting point, and as you say, not a be all, end all. The meter's only there to help, not dictate. IMO, experimenting with exposure is essential to discovering the full potential of the medium. I think the modern in-camera meter systems, capable as they are, can create a comfortable place where someone using them doesn't even realize there are more possibilities.

I think Patrick got the advice he did because he asked for advice on using the meter he had. Your advice took it further, to the meter you recommend he try.
I thought your advice was very valuable; it just sounded to me like you were denigrating the other methods. I didn't think grouping incident and grey card readings with broad area reflected readings differentiated them enough as the first two are usually much more reliable, which kinda made it sound like a sweeping generalization. That was my objection, along with the semantic meaning of the terms "inexact' and "average". But your subsequent post made your meaning much clearer to me.

Regards,
Jeff

 

[removed account4]

Nothing should be taken as gospel. People should look and think beyond the set way of doing things. I think a baseline's value is as a baseline; a starting point, not a stopping point.

there you go


what works for one person may not work for another.
the best thing is to use "stuff learned" as a starting point
and go with it from there after testing and retesting and understanding ..


i look forward to your results patrick!

john

 

[umdah]

So do you compensate? Say the subject is not grey.

I want to take a picture of a lighted cafe at night from the outside. Where do I point the incident meter and what do I do with the reading indicated.

Sorry, but I am a slow learner.

Best.

.....

All an incident reading or a grey card reading tells you is the exposure for a middle grey value.

....

J

 

[Shaggysk8]

I would walk in the cafe and take a reading, then dial it in. this is where a spot meter can help as you can take readings from all over the image to get an exposure you require.

Paul

 

[JBrunner]

So do you compensate? Say the subject is not grey.

I want to take a picture of a lighted cafe at night from the outside. Where do I point the incident meter and what do I do with the reading indicated.

Sorry, but I am a slow learner.

Best.

Trying to meter such a composition with an incident meter would be a serious disadvantage for me. One could go inside, and meter, and then go outside and meter in the shadows, but how much transmission might windows take out? In this particular scenario a spot meter would be far more comfortable for me. Regarding compensation, for me, pre-visualization and development come strongly into play so my answer would be not so useful for anyone but me and fulfilling my intention, and suiting the kind of shooting and printing I do. In general one might decide what is going to be white or black or where I wanted a particular shade to fall (V or VII perhaps), and expose accordingly, but as I said, in such a scene one might choose to adjust with the tonal range in development, or perhaps expose more for the interior or exterior to suit a personal interpretation. Remember, you decide what is going to be grey, not the subject.

 

[Ektagraphic]

A little off topic from metering your scene...I don't know exactly what your situation is but if there is incandescent lighting in the Cafe, you may want to film with a tungsten balenced film.

 

[JBrunner]

A little off topic from metering your scene...I don't know exactly what your situation is but if there is incandescent lighting in the Cafe, you may want to film with a tungsten balenced film.

Forgive me, for as always, I tend to be myopic to color, and think in B&W terms. In this case, with B&W film and a tungsten lit subject it should be noted that B&W film often doesn't achieve the same speed as it would in daylight. It varies from film to film. As much as a stop or so in my experience.

 

[jasonhall]

Personally I love the Sekonic L558-R. It gives both Incidental and 1 degree spot metering. Best of both worlds at my finger tips. I find myself useing the spot meter more and more as it give the ability to be very specific, and I really like that. An understanding of the zone system will help a great deal. I only use it in part and typically meter for the highlights of the subject and let the shadows fall were they may. Also with the spot meter, when I use a filter, I can place it infront of the meter and let it compensate for and not worry about filter factor.

Also I can take several reading and the meter will average them for me. This is much like the meter in your camera, but I can be specific as to what I want included in the final reading. Acually only used that method for Infrared film(Efke IR820) and it work great.

If I am close to my subject, such as a portrait of a close up of an object in arms reach, I will often use the incidental metering. This is mostly true if the light is some what flat, such as being in the shade.

Seems this is being made much harder than it needs to be, but I tend to side with JBrunner and beleive the spot meter is a great tool. I feel that I never really got control over my exposures until I started to use one.

With the meter the OP has, he will have to meter the scene and then be mindful of there are any particularly bright and dark object in the area metered. Then make a mental decision (guess if you will) how to compensate for it. If you want to account more for the sky, then angal the meter more skyward and so on.

Metering the hand certaily works for some conditions.

No one method will work for all conditions so best to develop a keen understanding of how each type of meter works and how to get what you need out of it.

Have fun!!!!


Jason