Incident meter tips?

[wiltw]

Did you mean to compare 2 with 5 (instead of 4)?

Yup, I actually inserted a new #4 after I had written "#2 is only 0.2EV different from #4"

 

[trondsi]

OK, thanks for the comparison of the meters Wiltw!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Your arsenal of metering techniques and experience should, ideally, cover incident, spot and multispot.
In-camera spot meters are rudimentary and nowhere near the level of usefulness that a separate multifunction meter has.

You can get away with a single meter for B&W photography (not necessarily spot or incident exclusively), but if you go down the path of chasing landscapes with transparency film, take all the metering choices you can lay cash to, and go on an intensive test run of various everyday scenes, taking detailed notes as you go along. Sekonic runswebinars, online spot metering courses, but they assume you own and assume you are conversant with middle and high level methodology. Still free though!

 

[Eric Rose]

What worked for me when I was shooting slides was take an incident meter reading towards the camera and one away from the camera and average them. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

[Alan Klein]

I use high contrast Velvia 50. I'll use both reflective as well as incident readings depending on conditions and try to average a couple of readings to get me in the ballpark. I also bracket my shots. Nothing's perfect.

 

[trondsi]

OK I got back the first roll shot with the new incident meter. These were generally taken holding the meter up in front of the camera (next to subject if possible) with the sphere facing the camera. Several shots are dead on, which is great. There are also several shots that have a tendency towards underexposure. It's not bad though, but the one shot that I actually bracketed, the picture that I thought would be overexposed was correctly exposed. In dim indoors light the exposure was dead on. Stupid me, I got overexcited and forgot to take proper notes. Will do on the next roll. I wonder if Eric Rose has a point here: maybe I should try averaging in bright light.

Speaking of averaging: the meter seems to be exactly between the values of lightest and darkest when 2/3 of the dome is in the shade, 1/3 in the light.

 

[markbarendt]

Slides?
How viewed?

 

[trondsi]

I view my slides on a light table. Why?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Slides?
How viewed?

Que?
And, "slides". In Australia the more common term is "transparency", relative to the again more common use of printing (originating a long time back in the days of Ilfochrome Classic print production from transparency film). I never view them in a projector. They are viewed on a colour-corrected light table, scrutinised by loupé, masked, labelled and queued for printing BIG, and in the majority of circumstances now, sold. And so, things like incident, spot/multispot, averaged metering etcetera are, at the end of the day, irrelevant when work sells. What really counts is the quality of work produced, and avain, having the diversity of skills to address all possibilities, rather than rely on just one and breast-beat that "just one" type of metering method is the best for all. Hello? Truth is, it's not. Go further.

 

[markbarendt]

I view my slides on a light table. Why?

Just ruling out scans.

One thing that IMO is too often left out of the exposure discussion is artistic bias.

What I'm getting at is that meters are dumb. Meter readings are suggestions, they can be technically perfect and still suggest the wrong camera setting.

Meters don't look at a scene and think "my master is going to want this a photo of people snow skiing on a bright clear day to look bright." or "my master is going to want to see all the detail in the snow's surface." Those biases of "the meter's master" are mutually exclusive with slides/transparencies because you are essentially going straight to a finished positive.

The artistic knowledge needed to make that choice only comes with experience and with consideration when shooting.

So, for the scenes where the meter reading wasn't the best, could you have known by looking at the scene how to bias the reading? Could you have metered differently or biased the meter reading to make that happen?

One way I do this is by biasing the direction I point my incident meter's head, if I want to brighten my subject (protect the mid-tones or shadows) I turn the head away from the main light a bit, if I want to darken my subject (protect the highlights) I turn my meter toward the main light some.

 

[trondsi]

OK I got my second test roll of Provia 100 F back. This time I took extensive notes. Here are some of my subjective conclusions, mostly for high contrast pictures, using my Sekonic L-398A (incident mode only):

-Measuring with dome facing the camera seems to work if the scene is quite moderately lit, maybe in shade, but often leads to what I would consider underexposure in bright light.
-Averaging, dome facing straight into light vs dome completely in shade, leads to pretty nice and bright exposures. Some very bright parts may blow out, but this method works in many cases.
- turning the dome so that it is exactly in half light half shade (down the middle of the dome), gives a light measurement that is still much closer to the bright light than to the shade (but less than the brightest light ). It is good if you are afraid of blowing the lights. In a very contrasty scene shades get pretty dark, but not as bad as if the whole dome is in the light. Turning the dome completely into the light is not necessary, and will look too dark.
-I liked the exposure better when I turned in one third into the light and two thirds in the dark. This one is pretty well balanced.
-I also did one picture putting the dome completely in the shade, but setting shutter speed 2 stops faster. This resulted in a very good exposure.

 

[MattKing]

My suggestion is that you avoid trying to balance exposure by placing the dome at the intersection of light and shade.

Instead, take readings in the full light and then in the full shade and choose an intermediate setting, based on how much the readings differ and the nature of your subject.

If you shoot black and white negative film, you can then use a similar meterjng technique and Phil Davis' BTZS to help determine development as well.

 

[trondsi]

My suggestion is that you avoid trying to balance exposure by placing the dome at the intersection of light and shade.

Instead, take readings in the full light and then in the full shade and choose an intermediate setting, based on how much the readings differ and the nature of your subject.
.....

I agree, that seems to be a reasonable way to go.

 

[Sirius Glass]

OK I got my second test roll of Provia 100 F back. This time I took extensive notes. Here are some of my subjective conclusions, mostly for high contrast pictures, using my Sekonic L-398A (incident mode only):

-Measuring with dome facing the camera seems to work if the scene is quite moderately lit, maybe in shade, but often leads to what I would consider underexposure in bright light.
-Averaging, dome facing straight into light vs dome completely in shade, leads to pretty nice and bright exposures. Some very bright parts may blow out, but this method works in many cases.
- turning the dome so that it is exactly in half light half shade (down the middle of the dome), gives a light measurement that is still much closer to the bright light than to the shade (but less than the brightest light ). It is good if you are afraid of blowing the lights. In a very contrasty scene shades get pretty dark, but not as bad as if the whole dome is in the light. Turning the dome completely into the light is not necessary, and will look too dark.
-I liked the exposure better when I turned in one third into the light and two thirds in the dark. This one is pretty well balanced.
-I also did one picture putting the dome completely in the shade, but setting shutter speed 2 stops faster. This resulted in a very good exposure.

Wrong!

With an incident meter, have the meter at the subject or in the same light. Aim the meter towards the camera. Take the reading. Done.

 

[markbarendt]

Wrong!

With an incident meter, have the meter at the subject or in the same light. Aim the meter towards the camera. Take the reading. Done.

Easy Sirius, it'll be ok.

While the classic method you describe is great, reliable, and what I recommend to most folks also, it is not the only way. The laws of physics will keep trondsi in line.

 

[markbarendt]

OK I got my second test roll of Provia 100 F back. This time I took extensive notes. Here are some of my subjective conclusions, mostly for high contrast pictures, using my Sekonic L-398A (incident mode only):

-Measuring with dome facing the camera seems to work if the scene is quite moderately lit, maybe in shade, but often leads to what I would consider underexposure in bright light.
-Averaging, dome facing straight into light vs dome completely in shade, leads to pretty nice and bright exposures. Some very bright parts may blow out, but this method works in many cases.
- turning the dome so that it is exactly in half light half shade (down the middle of the dome), gives a light measurement that is still much closer to the bright light than to the shade (but less than the brightest light ). It is good if you are afraid of blowing the lights. In a very contrasty scene shades get pretty dark, but not as bad as if the whole dome is in the light. Turning the dome completely into the light is not necessary, and will look too dark.
-I liked the exposure better when I turned in one third into the light and two thirds in the dark. This one is pretty well balanced.
-I also did one picture putting the dome completely in the shade, but setting shutter speed 2 stops faster. This resulted in a very good exposure.

With each test try to understand why and try a repeat it in a different situation. Ask what is different about what the meter is seeing.

 

[wiltw]

Easy Sirius, it'll be ok.

While the classic method you describe is great, reliable, and what I recommend to most folks also, it is not the only way. The laws of physics will keep trondsi in line.

Agree. Back in the days of film, I would sometimes attend workshops and some guys taught 'aim incident meter at the camera' and other guys taught 'aim incident meter at the Main light'. I interpreted the two points of view so that neither was wrong, with this explanation...

1. when shooting transparency, you worry more about the highlights, so you point your incident meter at the Main light so as to bias the reading for a bit less exposure, to better avoid blown out highlights
2. when shooting color neg, you worry more about muddy color in the shadows, so you point your incident meter at the camera (equal influence of Main and Fill on the hemisphere) so you bias for a bit more exposure.

 

[trondsi]

Wrong!

With an incident meter, have the meter at the subject or in the same light. Aim the meter towards the camera. Take the reading. Done.

Tried it, several times, and those were not my best pictures. In strong sunlight, those slides are often underexposed. So I am not going to continue doing that. I mean, maybe my meter is off, and that this should work with any other (accurate) incident meter, but knowing your equipment is part of the deal. Also notice that several others are saying that averaging worked for them when using incident meter and E6 film. Averaging works better for me too, and it may indicate that nothing is wrong with my measurements. But I take it that you have experienced different results.

I'd be glad to hear more people's experience though (and remember to mention the kind of film used, since E6 is relatively unforgiving)

 

[Diapositivo]

The simple ordinary way to use an incident light meter should work most of the times, for most of the subjects.
If it leads to underexposure, I think there is a calibration problem with the light meter, or a problem with camera, lens, or development.
Given that something is out of tune, trying to accommodate the situation by having recourse to the average of several measurements will lead IMHO to erratic results.
I would chase after the problem, by first trying to compare the lightmeter with another one of well-known performances.

Personally, for all those situations where the simple use of the incident light meter leaves doubts, I would use a spot reflected light meter.

The wonderful quality of the incident lightmeter is that it gives you a very simple and fast method to have a valid exposure. If you have to begin thinking, tinkering, averaging, compensating etc. then it's better to use a spot light meter.

 

[markbarendt]

Tried it, several times, and those were not my best pictures. In strong sunlight, those slides are often underexposed. So I am not going to continue doing that. I mean, maybe my meter is off, and that this should work with any other (accurate) incident meter, but knowing your equipment is part of the deal. Also notice that several others are saying that averaging worked for them when using incident meter and E6 film. Averaging works better for me too, and it may indicate that nothing is wrong with my measurements. But I take it that you have experienced different results.

I'd be glad to hear more people's experience though (and remember to mention the kind of film used, since E6 is relatively unforgiving)

It is important to remember that meter readings are simply suggestions, their role is like a navigation buoy or lighthouse for someone driving a boat, it gives you a reference point. You still need to decide where you want to be in relation to that point.

The classic measurement will place exposure reliably near what most people like, sounds to me like your preference may differ from that norm, that's just fine.

 

[trondsi]

That's very possible. To my eye there's too much shadow detail lost', and the sky is too deep in color. Or maybe Diapositivo is right. It's not the camera though; I am using a camera that has just been fixed by Harry Fleenor (shutter speeds included).

But here's an interesting thing: the guy in the video I mentioned earlier (can't find it at the moment, he used two or three metering techniques to get the same result taking digital landscape photos) also shaded his incident meter slightly to get a correct result, and Eric Rose (above) says that averaging works for him. Both of these techniques worked better for me too, at least in bright sunlight (not sure it matters, but the sun here in LA can be very bright).

I am receiving a Weston meter in a week or so. I'll see what it thinks about incident metering

 

[trondsi]

ouch. Ben Horne on landscape metering: "don't trust your incident meter"



Still, he didn't mention using various measurements with the incident meter.

 

[markbarendt]

First thing that struck me in the video is that there was no objective comparison. He metered his face with incident then meters the studio with the spot. There's no connection in the lesson. The way he talks though one could walk away from the video thinking a scientific fact has been proven.

Second is that he is willing to take the (I assume a classic) Incident meter reading at face value but then goes on to suggest using your judgement with reflective/spot metering.

I could go on but will leave it there.

We need to remember two things about perfect exposure:

1) It's only important when going straight to positive; slides, trannies, & JPEGs. Which is what the OP is doing in this thread. (This is why there are discussion here at APUG about printing test strips and the like, they are figuring out how to get the positive right.)

2) Meters, all meters, use standards based on "averages" but we as individuals aren't necessarily after averages.

Perfect rendering of a positive isn't a universal norm. We have to decide if we want a scene to look normal or lighter or darker than what the meter is suggesting and what if any compromises we are willing to make. That judgement comes with experience regardless of the type of meter.

 

[Chan Tran]

His first camera was a Rebel and then he moved on to the D side. So he doesn't have a lot of experience I would think. Besides if he would use that incident reading his exposure would be perfectly fine. I also bet that he would have more problem metering himself with a spot meter.

 

[Diapositivo]

First thing that struck me is that he considers +2 and -2 EV as the boundaries whithin which slide film gives texture. A bit too restrictive. I would rather say +3 and -3 EV, or something less.

Yes he puts, at the beginning of the film, his lightmeter near his cheek pointed upward in a very casual way, I don't think he meant that to be explicative of the way you correctly use a lightmeter. On the other hand, what you can expect from somebody wearing a beret in studio ;-)