No, sorry Steve, that is incorrectPoint the dome at the subject from where the camera is located.
This comment is NOT how you use an incident meter!!!
With incident meter, point the dome toward the lens ideally with meter at subject position, take the reading. If impossible to be where the subject is, you can stand in the direction of the subject and aim at the lens but the assumption is the light is identical there as it is at the subject (which sometimes is not a valid assumption!)
That's correct, I'm surprised how many people who have been photographers for years don't understand how to take incidental light readings
If using a reflected light meter, you aim it from camera position toward the subject.
Who made mistakes? Sirus Glass? No he was just kidding I think.OK Guys I think you're piling on. We all make mistakes.
Who made mistakes? Sirus Glass? No he was just kidding I think.
If the light is not very directional he’s going to have very little idea that anything is wrong.Sirus Glass says that he shoots at box speed, my testing suggests that by pointing the dome at the subject he is overexposing by 2 stops, ISO 400 is now ISO 100. I was able to shoot at box speed using his method with my Sekonic with a disk insert that about 1/3 fewer holes than the standard insert, so maybe.
What you said is true but I think Sirus Glass was kidding. He knows better than that. I don't think he made the mistake.Sirus Glass says that he shoots at box speed, my testing suggests that by pointing the dome at the subject he is overexposing by 2 stops, ISO 400 is now ISO 100. I was able to shoot at box speed using his method with my Sekonic with a disk insert that about 1/3 fewer holes than the standard insert, so maybe.
What you said is true but I think Sirus Glass was kidding. He knows better than that. I don't think he made the mistake.
Even if he did make the mistake, so what? We all have in our lives at least one thing that we've been doing wrong for many years without realizing it, and without consequences. I know I've had my share of "Oh my God! Is that how this is supposed to go? Can't believe nobody ever told me I was doing it the wrong way!". Part of life, part of human nature, and certainly no reason to shame anybody for it.
Considering he is not replying and his immediate response; it wasn't a joke.What you said is true but I think Sirus Glass was kidding. He knows better than that. I don't think he made the mistake.
I just can't believe that he made such a mistake. I saw many of his posts. I am quite sure he knows better.Considering he is not replying and his immediate response; it wasn't a joke.
Too elaborate for him or anyone if it was.
It is funny however that one of the most snarky, selectively pedantic posters on here should make such a mistake. He will never hear the end of it, and rightfully so.
I won't be contributing however.
If he made a mistake it's fine. I don't dwell on it. I just can't believe he made such a mistake. I saw way many of his post and I am quite sure he knows much better than making such a mistake.Even if he did make the mistake, so what? We all have in our lives at least one thing that we've been doing wrong for many years without realizing it, and without consequences. I know I've had my share of "Oh my God! Is that how this is supposed to go? Can't believe nobody ever told me I was doing it the wrong way!". Part of life, part of human nature, and certainly no reason to shame anybody for it.
Considering he is not replying and his immediate response; it wasn't a joke.
Too elaborate for him or anyone if it was.
It is funny however that one of the most snarky, selectively pedantic posters on here should make such a mistake...
+1. Add "condescending and mocking of others" to the description, and you've captured it perfectly. I suppose that I, too, would avoid this thread if I were him.
What is your idea of an ideal printable negative?I don't use my sekonic (incident light and zoom spot reflected light) the same ways for slide film, b&w negative film, or color negative film.
All that meters do, is telling us the amount of light they sense, but that doesn't mean they are always telling us the values we should use: they give us just a base to take decisions...
An incident reading under direct sunlight is OK for slide film, but not for b&w negative film. An incident reading under soft overcast light is OK for b&w negative film, but not precise for slide film. The dome must be inside in some situations, not just for two dimensional subjects: sun can fool domes depending on its position in the sky.
IMO handheld meters tend to care about highlights for slide film, so camera's reflected light meters often recommend a bit more exposure (half a stop, two thirds...), and that's fine for negative film, both for b&w and color.
In case of color negative photography, you can give it the right light, or twice, or three times, and the resulting negative is the same, and that's not the case of slide film or b&w negative.
The problem with b&w negative film is, it's an intermediate step where people can't see their accuracy while metering, both because it's not a positive, and also because it becomes a, b, c or d after small development differences.
And, many people print from mediocre negatives all their lives, trying to stretch things while printing.
I don't talk about young students: it's common among teachers and other "experts" too.
Hi Juan. I have a meter but have switched to my digital camera to assess exposures when I started shooting 4x5. I shoot Tmax BW negative and Velvia 50 chromes. I'm still practicing and trying to pin down a "foolproof" method. But it goes something like this.I don't use my sekonic (incident light and zoom spot reflected light) the same ways for slide film, b&w negative film, or color negative film.
All that meters do, is telling us the amount of light they sense, but that doesn't mean they are always telling us the values we should use: they give us just a base to take decisions...
An incident reading under direct sunlight is OK for slide film, but not for b&w negative film. An incident reading under soft overcast light is OK for b&w negative film, but not precise for slide film. The dome must be inside in some situations, not just for two dimensional subjects: sun can fool domes depending on its position in the sky.
IMO handheld meters tend to care about highlights for slide film, so camera's reflected light meters often recommend a bit more exposure (half a stop, two thirds...), and that's fine for negative film, both for b&w and color.
In case of color negative photography, you can give it the right light, or twice, or three times, and the resulting negative is the same, and that's not the case of slide film or b&w negative.
The problem with b&w negative film is, it's an intermediate step where people can't see their accuracy while metering, both because it's not a positive, and also because it becomes a, b, c or d after small development differences.
And, many people print from mediocre negatives all their lives, trying to stretch things while printing.
I don't talk about young students: it's common among teachers and other "experts" too.
No, never. PERIOD! The dome is aimed toward the subject from the position of the camera; that is the dome points the same way the lens does, not towards the lens. The concept is to get the same light as the subject. Take a look at the manuals, they are all consistent.
I pretty much just shoot "Street Photography, B&W neg film. I rarely use my handheld incident.I was going to say this is wrong (it is wrong) but I see now that CMoore (and Sirius Glass for similar mis-statement) is an actual, admitted mistake.
For the record, I believe that when a meter is in incident reading mode with a white dome sensor active, the best practice is to be at the subject and aim towards the camera.
I have to be careful sometimes with my Sekonic because sometimes the wrong sensor is active and it's like I took a spotmeter reading out of my ear.
Hi,Hi Juan. I have a meter but have switched to my digital camera to assess exposures when I started shooting 4x5. I shoot Tmax BW negative and Velvia 50 chromes. I'm still practicing and trying to pin down a "foolproof" method. But it goes something like this.
I frame the picture I want to shoot with the digital camera. I set the aperture on f/22 when shooting 4x5 film in Aperture priority mode. I check the histogram and "blinkies" as well as the back display of the picture.. I reduce the opening a fraction of a stop when shooting chromes to avoid clipping. I add a little when shooting negative film, to avoid too dark shadows. I seem to be getting it right most of the time. What do you think about those procedures? Any recommendations?
One that wouldn't be better with a) more exposure, b) less exposure, c) more development, d) less development.What is your idea of an ideal printable negative?
I was going to say this is wrong (it is wrong) but I see now that CMoore (and Sirius Glass for similar mis-statement) is an actual, admitted mistake.
For the record, I believe that when a meter is in incident reading mode with a white dome sensor active, the best practice is to be at the subject and aim towards the camera.
I have to be careful sometimes with my Sekonic because sometimes the wrong sensor is active and it's like I took a spotmeter reading out of my ear.
... or in similar light.===> For the record, I believe that when a meter is in incident reading mode with a white dome sensor active, the best practice is to be at the subject and aim towards the camera. <====
An unusual take on the "take a reading off of the palm of one's hand" approach.I have to be careful sometimes with my Sekonic because sometimes the wrong sensor is active and it's like I took a spotmeter reading out of my ear.
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?