Okay let's clarify. What are you pointing the meter at when taking one of these "incident" readings please?
RR
You can make incident readings of shadows even if you don't have a spot meter by looking around for something near you that has a similar value, then meter that.
That's right. It's more accurate, because it takes into account the film and paper curves, both of which have a huge effect on tonal values, while the Zone System as usually presented ignores both.
BTZS does not require use of incident metering. It presents incident metering as a tool that can be useful in many circumstances - more circumstances than many people give it credit for - but it is considered not an exclusive or mandatory tool but rather as complementary to spot metering of reflected light.
Huh?? Not so. Adam's Zone System takes every bit of the process into consideration from film to development to paper to dry-down.
In a recent (and still active) thread regarding Barry Thornton's Two Bath developer, a poster linked to an article by Sandy King regarding two-bath development. In that article, Mr King writes:
"Kodak T-MAX 400 was used for this testing. Exposure was determined by a single incident meter reading, taken in the deepest shadows where open detail was desired, with the meter set to box speed of ASA 400. An incident meter reading in the shadows is one of the simplest and most reliable methods of determining exposure for most scenes. Other methods of metering are perfectly acceptable so long as the exposure is sufficient to give texture in the deepest shadows where detail is needed."
This is the first time I have seen it suggested that a photographer, when measuring different light levels in a scene, would use an incident meter to measure the shadows. As an incident meter is not pointed at the subject but rather back at the camera, it has no idea what it is being held in front of -- which, of course, is the point of using an incident meter. I cannot understand how one could measure shadows or highlights with an incident meter?
I suspect this was an error, one of those things where you know what the right word is and yet go ahead and write the opposite. If anyone can explain to me how to go about measuring shadows with an incident meter, I'd be interested to know as I use an incident meter for 99% of my exposures.
You can make incident readings of shadows even if you don't have a spot meter by looking around for something near you that has a similar value, then meter that.
People will believe what they want to believe... including me. I believe there is nothing more accurate than a direct reflected reading from the objects in a scene.
The important word in the quote from Sandy King is "in".
The incident meter reading is taken "in" the shadows, not "of" the shadows.
It is a measurement of part of the light illuminating the subject.
Sandy King bases his exposure decisions on that light - seems reasonable.
A meter reading is only accurate if taken in exactly the same lighting condition. Also, what incident meter is as accurate as a direct reading from the object and knowing at what zone to place that object? Take an incident reading while wearing a bright white shirt and surrounded by bright objects... and then take a reading with a black shirt surrounded by very dark objects. Not only that but what are the "important" values of those objects in the shade? Stubbornness never accomplished anything other than self-satisfaction. Use a spot meter for true accuracy.
That isn't how shadows or highlights work. Light that is incidentally falling on a subject at a given time has the same luminance all over. The light that lands on shadow areas is mostly absorbed and not reflected back to the camera or the viewer. Only some of the light is reflected back to the camera or viewer and that is the light we should be metering if we want to determine the exposure values for those shadow areas. Incident light readings are of no use unless you want to guess what is and is not Zone III (for example) and reduce the exposure 2 stops from the general (Zone V) reading that is all an incident meter can give you.
RR
Bill, thanks for that, your last statement clarified the difference you were speaking to.
I guess I would prefer to do the mental calculations as needed rather than constantly fiddling with the meter's adjustments to get a an appropriate direct reading. I can see the advantage of that method, though.
It is really amusing how little photography and photographers have changed in the past 30 or 40 years. A dear friend of mine (a professional) and I argued many of these same points in those days, he in favor of incident light meters and me in favor of reflected. The only thing we agreed on was that an incident meter was a quick way to "average" the light FALLING ON the subject. The reflected light meters on the other hand gave more control in exposing to stress shadows or highlights to get something other than a realistic picture for artistic purposes IMHO...RegardsI also prefer setting the EI once.
I really like Sandy King's article, it's good.
My only criticism is that you have to be careful when following his advice. That's not criticism at all. I'm just cautioning you to be careful not to double-correct for something he's already factored in. If you ALSO choose to use "half box speed"... that would be a double correction.
I just re-read this thread and noticed we haven't directly answered Trask's original question... how do you take an incident reading from the shadows?
You stand in the "shade" and aim the meter at the camera. That assumes there is some shade to stand in. There's lots of advice how to fake it if you can't literally stand in the shade.
A meter reading is only accurate if taken in exactly the same lighting condition. Also, what incident meter is as accurate as a direct reading from the object and knowing at what zone to place that object? Take an incident reading while wearing a bright white shirt and surrounded by bright objects... and then take a reading with a black shirt surrounded by very dark objects. Not only that but what are the "important" values of those objects in the shade? Stubbornness never accomplished anything other than self-satisfaction. Use a spot meter for true accuracy.
Use BTZS if that works for you. It's far too imprecise for me.
In a recent (and still active) thread regarding Barry Thornton's Two Bath developer, a poster linked to an article by Sandy King regarding two-bath development. In that article, Mr King writes:
"Kodak T-MAX 400 was used for this testing. Exposure was determined by a single incident meter reading, taken in the deepest shadows where open detail was desired, with the meter set to box speed of ASA 400. An incident meter reading in the shadows is one of the simplest and most reliable methods of determining exposure for most scenes. Other methods of metering are perfectly acceptable so long as the exposure is sufficient to give texture in the deepest shadows where detail is needed."
This is the first time I have seen it suggested that a photographer, when measuring different light levels in a scene, would use an incident meter to measure the shadows. As an incident meter is not pointed at the subject but rather back at the camera, it has no idea what it is being held in front of -- which, of course, is the point of using an incident meter. I cannot understand how one could measure shadows or highlights with an incident meter?
I suspect this was an error, one of those things where you know what the right word is and yet go ahead and write the opposite. If anyone can explain to me how to go about measuring shadows with an incident meter, I'd be interested to know as I use an incident meter for 99% of my exposures.
It is really amusing how little photography and photographers have changed in the past 30 or 40 years. A dear friend of mine (a professional) and I argued many of these same points in those days, he in favor of incident light meters and me in favor of reflected. The only thing we agreed on was that an incident meter was a quick way to "average" the light FALLING ON the subject. The reflected light meters on the other hand gave more control in exposing to stress shadows or highlights to get something other than a realistic picture for artistic purposes IMHO...Regards
I give up. My method is not others' methods and I'm perfectly fine with that.
People will believe what they want to believe...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?