I need some metering help.

[Ed Sukach]

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

... Add, "and the atosphere is the same." The same haze, prticulate content (dust/ moisture ...), same type and density of clouds in the sky..."

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.

They are standing under oak trees. I am standing under a sycamore. Density of the shade? - "Looks the same to me... " depends on my perception; a.k.a subjective evaluation.

Yes, you CAN "get away with it." Reliably, all the time ... accurately ?

I can think of sundry other examples where it is the SAME sun, and the amount of light measured at the camera will be different than the amount of light illumnating the subject ... the camera is positioned near light colored buildings with LOTS of reflective glass; the sujects is a group standing in fron of dense, dark evergreen trees. What if the camera, of necessity, is located in shade and and the group you are photographing is in *bright* sunlight?

Works fine. No worries.

I find that *I* have less to worry about if I use a light meter - Incident, reflective, spot (really reflective -).

Now ... the sbject was originally about "hand held meters. Taking spot meter readings with a built-in camera meter will be slower ... eight meter readings (as in my Olympus OM4) will take more time than one "averaging" reflective meter reading.

My Son-in-law and Grandsons race motorcycles. I wouldn't even dream of attempting to use spot metering in that application - hand held or in-camera.

 

[Q.G.]

Ed,

You're trying to make it sound more difficult than it is.
It's perfectly easy to get reliable, accurate results. It really is.
Much more so (!) than when using reflected light metering, spot or wide.

And i guess we can "get away" with reliable, accurate results, so why worry?


Sure. You can think of situations in which it's not easy, and perhaps a reflected reading would be 'easier' (only as far as taking the reading is concerned). But what of it?
I can think of no situation in which reflected light metering would be as uncomplicated as incident light metering usually is.
So which of the two 'wins'?


Not that i prefer either one over the other, but taking spot readings using a built-in spot meter is just as fast as taking spot readings using a separate spot meter. Faster, even (assuming you already have the camera in your hand).
Same for taking averaging reflected light readings.
(Would be so for incident light metering too, if cameras had the ability to do that).
So i'm not quite sure what you are trying to tell us there.


Anyway, the thread soon turned to trying to simulate an incident reading (quite a few posts about how, and how to compensate for the error introduced by not having a grey card to meter off), while the OP had a meter capable of doing incident light metering all along.
The stress that was put on the great ease of incident light metering was there, not to advocate incident light metering as such (though it has become that too, ever since someone mistakenly said you need to be AT your subject to be able to do that ), but to tell the OP that with what he has, it is not necessary to simulate such a reading or trying to figure out how to correct the errors introduced in the sumulation.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,

You're trying to make it sound more difficult than it is.
It's perfectly easy to get reliable, accurate results. It really is.
Much more so (!) than when using reflected light metering, spot or wide.

And i guess we can "get away" with reliable, accurate results, so why worry?

In a past life, I learned a LOT from working in a Metrology Laboratory (not 'meteorology', tha has to do with weather - here I mean FINE measurements), and some of it, at least the basic framework is applicable here.

It is futile, morale destroying, expensive and plain old CRAZY to knock oneself out in an insane quest for perfection, in the form of absolute accuracy in measurements. All we can do is take reasonable steps to MANAGE error. The first reasonable step is, invariably, to determine causes, possible and real, that will have adverse effects on accuracy.

The reatest single cause, I've found, is the human propensity to "assume"; to acept as fact something that we do not know... have not enough information - to make reasonable inferences.

I don't think I am trying to "complicate things"... or do I have, or advocate, a single method of metering. In the appropriate situation, where I CAN place the meter in close proximity to the subject, I will use incident metering. If I was to take a photograph of El Capitan, either with 35mm or 8" x 10", I would take my time. and meticulously spot meter. There ARE instances where an "averaged reflective" reading may be enirely appropriate .. what comes to mind would be a riotous pre-teen birthday party full of squirming children.

When I do any of this, I try to keep in mind the character of the meterering method, possible error factors, and have some idea of the final metering accuracy.

Complicated! No. A LOT less troublesome than trying to apply an inappropriate method and "jury-rigging, "Kentucky windaging", or ?... to work form a unknown set of values.

Did I read this thread corerctly? Someone was suggesting taking a INCIDENT measurement by pointing (? How would you do that?) the Lumisphere at the palm of the hand?

 

[Q.G.]

No.
You were not reading the thread correctly (you could have read it again, instead of asking ).
Someone suggested pointing the meter at the palm of the hand to take a reflected light reading, than figure out how to correct that.
It was suggested then (several times) to just use that lumisphere and take the incident light reading the first suggestion was trying to simulate.


I agree with the first part of your post:

It is futile, morale destroying, expensive and plain old CRAZY to knock oneself out in an insane quest for perfection, in the form of absolute accuracy in measurements. All we can do is take reasonable steps to MANAGE error.

And that is very easy, when metering is concerned.

Your post then appears to veer towards that "inane quest for perfection" again, with the suggestion that what works perfectly would be "an inappropriate method and "jury-rigging, "Kentucky windaging".


Anyway, you must have learned too that no single measurement makes any sense, unless you know, understand what you are measuring, and why, what you need to know and not (!) need to know.
And when you do, you'll know that you realy were making it sound more difficult than it is.

 

[John Koehrer]

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.

With any light meter all light is gray.

If you point a reflected light meter at different colors it's not seeing the color, it's seeing the light reflected from the color. Lighter colors will give higher speeds or smaller aperture needed than dark colors IN the same light.
You need to interpret the reading and adjust your exposure & development to give the result you want.

An incident meter removes the interpretive part from taking a reading
as long as the meter is in the same kind of light as the subject.

 

[removed account4]

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.

hi umdah

to take a photograph of a lighted cafe at night from the outside,
set your camera up ...
go TO the cafe scene and point the meter back TO the camera ...
( point the lumisphere / ambient light measurerer-thingy towards the camera, NOT the reflective measurement device ... )
go to several places in the subject, and record / remember the readings
and then average them ...
this will give you a reading of the light falling on the subject ...

if you want the lighted exterior signs &C to be most of
the image, the people inside to be silhouetted ( if seen at all )
your reading was for the OUTSIDE, not the inside ...

if you want the people inside more than mere shadows
(they might be blurs, without a flash to illuminate them )
you should GO INSIDE the building, take your meter out, and point it to the camera ... (just like you did outside)
it is probably going to need 4 or 5 more exposure than the outside ..
( dim cafe ) ... if the windows are "tinted" don't bother
you won't see a thing ...

the way you would "compensate" is by getting your average reading
and weighing it towards if the subject is lighter or darker ( giving less or more exposure )

i usually bracket, and notice which view was picked, so if the same sort of scene arrives again
i will know how to compensate for the scene ...
i kind of generalized, but hopefully it made sense enough that
you can figure it out ..

 

[Ed Sukach]

And that is very easy, when metering is concerned.

I did not say or mean to infer any degree of difficulty. Most of this is taken care of as "muscle memory" - or whatever the term would be for preconscious (pensee') actions.

Your post then appears to veer towards that "inane quest for perfection" again, with the suggestion that what works perfectly would be "an inappropriate method and "jury-rigging, "Kentucky windaging".

"Veer"?? I would SUGGEST that no one ASSUMES that whatever you are doing "works perfectly" - without some sort of objective information to support that evaluation.

... "Works perfectly"?? I know that my most careful efforts NEVER reach perfection. My point entitirely. I have to accept some sort of inaccuracy, and I want to have some idea of that inaccuracy.

BTW ... I have spent a lot of effort in the calibration of "light meters", primarily "Cascade Phtomultiplier" types. How accurate - in terms of manufacturing tolerances - do you think the BEST of the "camera exposure meters" are?

Anyway, you must have learned too that no single measurement makes any sense, unless you know, understand what you are measuring, and why, what you need to know and not (!) need to know.

... What I NOT need to know...?!?!
If I inadvertantly learn something -- there is a requirement that I must erase that knowledge from my memory ... ??

And when you do, you'll know that you realy were making it sound more difficult than it is.

Possibly we both should "cool it for a while. Your sense of timing has me really confused -- "I must have learned ... and when I do..."

BTW - I wrote "insane" not "inane".

 

[Q.G.]

Ed,

I'll give you an example of what you not need to know.
You need not know what the exact reading would be in, say, EVs, down to the third decimal point.
It would serve no purpose.

Accuracy is something we can obsess about, but why?
Your "most careful efforts" may "NEVER reach perfection", yet it does indeed work perfectly.

The measure for that is how the results turn out.
Not how bad meters are in detecting and counting single photons.

I do think we agree on that, else i do not know what you meant when you called the "quest for perfection" "inane".

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,

I'll give you an example of what you not need to know.
You need not know what the exact reading would be in, say, EVs, down to the third decimal point.
It would serve no purpose.

I've never said that we did "need to know accuracy in EVs to the third decimal point".

Let me say it again:
Perfection - "Ultra Accuracy" is not necessary, or even obtainable, but we CAN make efforts to MANAGE error.

I will not claim accuracy in mechanical meaasurement of +/- 1 one microinch using a yardstick. The use of a yardstick in mesuring to that sort of accuracy will be inappropriate - totally.
Are you suggesting that that knowedge - a judgement as to the applicability of a yardstick in that situation is "not necessary" - or detremmental in some way?
I have this platinum-iridium bar. On it are inscribed two lines 39.37 inches apart - I know that because I've measured the distance with the tape measure my wife uses when sewing.

Why should I be concerned? That tape measure "worked perfectly".

Are you saying that because of the apparent success I've had in the measuring process, I do not need to know - or that in some way, knowing, that the accuracy of that measurement could only be trusted to +/- 1/4" will be a "bad thing"?

I do not advocate constant anally precise measurements ALL THE TIME - only that we understand what we are doing.

Let me repeat that - it seems to have been interpreted incorrectly - a couple of times:

We really NEED to understand "What we are doing"!!

Accuracy is something we can obsess about, but why?

This is by no means an "obsession". I just would NOT use a Laser Level to drive nails - even if I could get "perfectly good results". That does not indicate "obssesive accuracy".

 

[Q.G.]

So let's not make things sound more difficult than they are, and we are in perfect (near enough - but no need to obsess about accuracy too much ) agreement.

 

[umdah]

metering..

Jnanian, thanks for a lucid explanation. I shall try what you suggest.Hope I
get to understand all this. :confused:

Best.

hi umdah

to take a photograph of a lighted cafe at night from the outside,
set your camera up ...
go TO the cafe scene and point the meter back TO the camera ...
( point the lumisphere / ambient light measurerer-thingy towards the camera, NOT the reflective measurement device ... )
go to several places in the subject, and record / remember the readings
and then average them ...
this will give you a reading of the light falling on the subject ...

if you want the lighted exterior signs &C to be most of
the image, the people inside to be silhouetted ( if seen at all )
your reading was for the OUTSIDE, not the inside ...

if you want the people inside more than mere shadows
(they might be blurs, without a flash to illuminate them )
you should GO INSIDE the building, take your meter out, and point it to the camera ... (just like you did outside)
it is probably going to need 4 or 5 more exposure than the outside ..
( dim cafe ) ... if the windows are "tinted" don't bother
you won't see a thing ...

the way you would "compensate" is by getting your average reading
and weighing it towards if the subject is lighter or darker ( giving less or more exposure )

i usually bracket, and notice which view was picked, so if the same sort of scene arrives again
i will know how to compensate for the scene ...
i kind of generalized, but hopefully it made sense enough that
you can figure it out ..

 

[dwdmguy]

While going thru this thread always trying to improve, I noticed a few different instructions on using the palm of your hand and then compensating. Some are stating to open up and others are saying to stop down.

Would it not be correct to take the measurement of one's hand and then to stop down to get to zone V? i.e., f/4 to f/5.6 ?

Thx

 

[Shaggysk8]

Your meter will tell you what Zone V is, then if you want to put your hand on zone VI open by one stop if you want in on IV close by one stop.

Paul

 

[dwdmguy]

Your meter will tell you what Zone V is, then if you want to put your hand on zone VI open by one stop if you want in on IV close by one stop.

Paul

That's funny, I'm first thinking "That's wrong" but I seem to be thinking of my "white hand" .. everyone has different skin tones.....

 

[Q.G.]

That's why the best advice still is: "Just use the lumisphere and take an incident reading."

 

[BetterSense]

My white hand is quite exactly 1 stop over zone 5, so when I'm using my camera meter I use my palm and then open one stop.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Metering from the palm of your hand, whatever colour it may be, does not take into account the principle luminances of the subject you are going photograph, and which are more important a sole (or single luminance) reflected reading. For that, multi-spot metering then averaged and compensated to the desired zone is best. Averaged (then compensated as necessary) incident readings are an effective workaroiund.

Strictly speaking, a lumisphere is not practically a grey card, but a diffuser. Correctly, the lightmeter to which it is attached is calibrated to grey card value. Without determining meaningful baseline values through skill and experience (this seems to me to be the problem with the OP's opening remarks), a lightmeter with whatever features is useless, as you are relying too much on its feedback as gospel. And it's not.

 

[Q.G.]

Metering from the palm of your hand, whatever colour it may be, does not take into account the principle luminances of the subject you are going photograph, and which are more important a sole (or single luminance) reflected reading. For that, multi-spot metering then averaged and compensated to the desired zone is best. Averaged (then compensated as necessary) incident readings are an effective workaroiund.

Or you could use that Lumisphere and take that incident light reading...

Strictly speaking, a lumisphere is not practically a grey card, but a diffuser. Correctly, the lightmeter to which it is attached is calibrated to grey card value. Without determining meaningful baseline values through skill and experience (this seems to me to be the problem with the OP's opening remarks), a lightmeter with whatever features is useless, as you are relying too much on its feedback as gospel. And it's not.

Of course is the Lumisphere not a grey card. A reflected light meter's optical system isn't either.
But what of it?

The "meaningful baseline value" is what the thingies are adjusted to by the makers of these thingies.
That makes a reflective light reading off a grey card as good as an incident light reading of the light falling on that grey card. And vice versa.

That's all what you need to know. And you do need to know that, and have to be able to rely on it.
Else, you need to go through a process to find out how what the thingies tell you translates to a fixed standard you can hang on to.
Good thing that we don't have to.

 

[dwdmguy]

Q.G. What do you have against incident metering?

All I can say is that I've been using my 3 to 10 degree spot metering and compensating for the zone. I've been hitting the shadows and stopping down two stops and my neg's have greatly improved. I'm also in a habit of writing down my exposures in a small note-book, sans snapshots, when the metering between zones are over / minus 4 zones and then process the film to that. I took it up a whole new level for my work.