learning light metering

juan said:

That's as good a way as any to begin.

Click to expand...

That's where I don't agree. If you're going to get into limited-area metering (which I would suggest is far from essential) then it has to be a lot easier to choose either the darkest area in which you want shadow detail (negative) or the brightest area you don't want to 'blow' (tranny or digi).

Cheers,

Roger

Baxter Bradford said:

Hi Sparky

This is the danger of web forums - it takes a minute to ask a question and then others out of the kindness of their hearts spend many multiples of this trying to provide answers, exaccerbated by the limitations of keyboard rather than being able to draw and explain as you go. My original post was trying to get Johannes to search the archives where I know the info has been done before saving us all time -

Your post will certainly get Johannes going, assuming that he is using B+W or Colour neg film. For transparency and more precise B+W then consideration of SBR is essential. Lack of info about film type and type of metering being used in the original post hasn't helped matters. This is such a dynamic subject with so many variables that I do not feel it sensible to expend more time on it.

Click to expand...

I think there's certainly truth in what you say - though I'd be concerned about discouraging newcomers to the field. Yes, I was assuming he was talking about B&W neg film... perhaps false. But I'd rather see someone shooting chromes by trial and error first - rather than furrowing their brow over SBR issues. Actually - if you're shooting chromes - SBR is the least of your worries - testing for the right CC filtration's going to be MUCH more of an issue IMHO. But anyway - thanks for the response... I wasn't looking for a gold star or anything... I was just trying to bolster some grass roots support for the guy and get away from all this boring zone talk.

Roger Hicks said:

That's where I don't agree. If you're going to get into limited-area metering (which I would suggest is far from essential) then it has to be a lot easier to choose either the darkest area in which you want shadow detail (negative) or the brightest area you don't want to 'blow' (tranny or digi).

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Roger - surely one can deal with these things by developing an 'eye' for them, don't you think? - much like learning to 'read' a scene in B&W instead of relying on a monochrome viewing filter as a crutch? Is learning by making mistakes such a bad thing - ? Surely - it would make one a better photographer.

juan said:

"... He simply picks out what he wants to render as mid-tone, meters that object, then sets his exposure to match..."

Click to expand...

Can't see how it's that "simple" unless he's willing to sacrifice the shadows and/or highlights.

Sparky said:

Roger - surely one can deal with these things by developing an 'eye' for them, don't you think?

Click to expand...

Possibly, but why bother? Look at the first commercially successful spot meter, the SEI, and they didn't even bother with a mid-tone index. Neg speed is keyed to shadows, so read shadows (and highlights too if you want to control contrast through development), and tranny/digi is keyed to highlights, so read highlights (or use incident, which used to be known as the 'artificial highlight' method). Mid-tones add an extra level of complication to no advantage that I can see.

Cheers,

Roger

bob01721 said:

Can't see how it's that "simple" unless he's willing to sacrifice the shadows and/or highlights.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one.

Cheers,

R.

Hi Sparky,

Baxter and Roger have already mentioned about exposure for highlights for those of us shooting transparencies. We have had several discussions on this at some length in several threads here. It would be an easy search subject. Many of us rely on the usage of a spot reading for the highlight areas and correct. Though the CC may be important many outdoor nature and landscape photographers are familiar with the transparency material and the way that it reacts for CC. For many of us the exposure correction for the highlights are more critical.

Rich

Roger Hicks said:

Possibly, but why bother?

Click to expand...

God. Whatever happened to the 'happy accident'??
What's wrong with fumbling your way around - making a chrome that has highlights blown out three stops too far - but then realizing that you really, really like it... resulting in some pretty exciting and visually satisfying explorations??

I understand that many of us here are into representational photography - which, to me, is really more of a branch of reprography (okay okay I know). And I'm sure many of you will scoff at me for being 'artsy' - but for me, this is where the payoff is. I say - why not expose the newcomers to many different ways of thinking about photography - and let them decide for themselves...?

Sparky said:

"... Whatever happened to the 'happy accident'??
What's wrong with fumbling your way around - making a chrome that has highlights blown out three stops too far - but then realizing that you really, really like it... resulting in some pretty exciting and visually satisfying explorations...?"

Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with that... as long as you realize that they're accidents that occurred because you didn't meter the subject properly. And that you don't try to pass them off as anything other than accidents. After all, it's not as though you "created" them -- they're mistakes. They may be pleasing mistakes. They may even be exciting mistakes. But they're mistakes nonetheless.

"... I say - why not expose the newcomers to many different ways of thinking about photography - and let them decide for themselves...?"

Click to expand...

Again... no problem. As long as you articulate that it's NOT a "proper technique for achieving controlled, predictable results." IMO, propriety dictates that we assume newcomers won't have any way of knowing the difference.

bob01721 said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with that... as long as you realize that they're accidents that occurred because you didn't meter the subject properly. And that you don't try to pass them off as anything other than accidents. After all, it's not as though you "created" them -- they're mistakes. They may be pleasing mistakes. They may even be exciting mistakes. But they're mistakes nonetheless.


Again... no problem. As long as you articulate that it's NOT a "proper technique for achieving controlled, predictable results." IMO, propriety dictates that we assume newcomers won't have any way of knowing the difference.

Click to expand...

I don't suppose you'd be a scientologist, would you?

So - let me get this straight - the UPSHOT of what you're rebutting is that - 'as long as you realize it is wrong - and ultimately understand that there's only one way to do photography - then it's okay...?

I think that you could make the same argument for using such a system of exposure and development as being a mistake.

Sparky said:

God. Whatever happened to the 'happy accident'??
What's wrong with fumbling your way around - making a chrome that has highlights blown out three stops too far - but then realizing that you really, really like it... resulting in some pretty exciting and visually satisfying explorations?

Click to expand...

Dear Sparky,

I can do that easily enough by taking the reading... Double checking it... and then forgetting completely to set it on the camera...

Even so -- point fully taken!

Cheers,

R.

Kodak - accurate exposure with your meter

This might help

Accurate Exposure with your meter

Matt

Sparky said:

"... I don't suppose you'd be a scientologist, would you...?"

Click to expand...

LOL! No... I'm a recovering Catholic.

"... the UPSHOT of what you're rebutting is that - 'as long as you realize it is wrong - and ultimately understand that there's only one way to do photography - then it's okay...?"

Click to expand...

No... that's not what I said at all. First, my comments were meant in the context of the thread -- metering. I wasn't speaking about photography at all. That's a much broader topic. Not sure where that came from, but I apologize for any misunderstanding about the scope of my remarks.

Also, I never used the word wrong except to say that there is "nothing wrong..." I used the words "accident" (your term) and "mistake." As I use these words, the shared meaning element is "unintended" and that has nothing to do with "wrong" or "right." It has to do with whether your results have any correlation with what you set out to accomplish.

To my mind, the raison d'être for metering is to provide predictable exposures in a controlled manner. I think there're a handful of ways to approach this, not just one. As you know, there are incident-light meters, reflected-light meters, spot meters, flash meters, there are gray cards, the "Sunny 16 Rule," there's the Zone System, BTZS... Any of these approaches can give you whatever exposure you intend.

If you choose to eschew them, I think that's fine as long as you understand that you're not metering in a way that will produce predictable exposures in a controlled manner. Rather, you'll be inviting unintended results... accidents... mistakes. If that's your intention, why meter at all?

bob01721 said:

LOL! No... I'm a recovering Catholic.
No... that's not what I said at all. First, my comments were meant in the context of the thread -- metering. I wasn't speaking about photography at all. That's a much broader topic. Not sure where that came from, but I apologize for any misunderstanding about the scope of my remarks.

Also, I never used the word wrong except to say that there is "nothing wrong..." I used the words "accident" (your term) and "mistake." As I use these words, the shared meaning element is "unintended" and that has nothing to do with "wrong" or "right." It has to do with whether your results have any correlation with what you set out to accomplish.

To my mind, the raison d'être for metering is to provide predictable exposures in a controlled manner. I think there're a handful of ways to approach this, not just one. As you know, there are incident-light meters, reflected-light meters, spot meters, flash meters, there are gray cards, the "Sunny 16 Rule," there's the Zone System, BTZS... Any of these approaches can give you whatever exposure you intend.

If you choose to eschew them, I think that's fine as long as you understand that you're not metering in a way that will produce predictable exposures in a controlled manner. Rather, you'll be inviting unintended results... accidents... mistakes. If that's your intention, why meter at all?

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Your comments, to me, sounded somewhat extreme. My take on things were - 'okay - here's this guy and he just wants to learn how to use his light meter so he can go out and make a few exposures - and develop film' - then suddenly we get a barrage of talk about properly using the zone system and btzs, etc... when the guy clearly stated he thought reading 'the negative' was a bit much for him. At any rate, I was QUITE successful at developing my first few rolls - and hell, yeah, I got some underexposures. I'm proud of it. I didn't like the results - so I was extra careful next time and did some reading up on the subject.

Anyway - I've been photographing since the late 70s. I bought the BTZS book when it first came out (83??). I went through my zone system stuff and gleaned quite a lot from that. But now I don't even bother with any of it. I think it's really good background info to know. If you understand how film reacts physically and chemically to all sorts of conditions, the better. But after awhile, one CAN take casual shots that aren't even metered and still be within half a stop and STILL get an exquisite neg. I'm just saying that I think that process, while important, isn't as important as vision. And light. As long as you're in the ballpark - you can still make stunning art. And that's what I'D like to concentrate on. In your initial response, I had the impression that you were saying that you can't possibly make a legitimate negative unless you use BTZS or some other ZS derivative. Anyway - that's that. Just my 2 cents.
Again - I appreciate the clarification.

Sparky,

Again... sorry for the confusion. Sounds like we're saying the same things.

I also make off-the-cuff estimates frequently. And night photography is pure guesswork for me. Even when I do spot metering with my 4x5, I usually end up in the Sunny-16 ballpark anyway -- unless it's a very high contrast scene. The ZS is in the back of my head, but I try not to let it get in the way of my photography.

I suppose it seemed like we were disagreeing because (again) I was thinking in the narrow context of the thread: someone learning how to meter. Like you, I think vision is more important than process -- once the process becomes second nature. For someone who has already developed his chops, I agree with everything you've said.