Light Meter advice needed.

[Alan Edward Klein]

Vivitar agrees with you. The Vivitar 45 instruction booklet was very brief, but ended the instructions with this paragraph (the italics are theirs):

The most important thing to remember is that your meter is a creative tool. By analyzing and modifying basic readings, according to lighting condition and film characteristics, you can creatively control results. It all depends on the effect you want to create. There is a wealth of information available on metering. check with you local photo dealer, bookstore or library for books on specific techniques.

The truth is I too often make mistakes metering exposure. That's why when I shoot landscapes with medium format roll film, especially chromes, I bracket +1 and -1, sometimes 1/2 stop. It's relatively cheap insurance for landscape photography, for me. Lately, I've been shooting 4x5. So I don't bracket for the most part.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That is a variant of my statements about not including the sky. One could include a little as you stated, but using a meter is always a judgement call. May people to tell me that they are not getting well exposed photographs had a marked improvement after I suggested that they avoid taking readings of the sky.

My experience is that if I don't include the sky a little, the exposure is too high and the sky is too bright. Maybe we're aiming differently.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My experience is that if I don't include the sky a little, the exposure is too high and the sky is too bright. Maybe we're aiming differently.

Yes. Different styles.

 

[wiltw]

I was referring to your post #182 where you acknowledged different reflective readings because of different angles of view. I agree with those points. We weren't talking about the color of dogs or incident readings. So which reflective meter is right? A little move this way or that gives you a different reading.

...which is exactly Ethe REASON why I suggested aiming all meters at a UNFORMLY ILLUMINATED and FEATURELESS target area (e.g. painted wall in a home) because no matter if you use a 60 degree reflected hand-held meter or a SLR with 50mm FL or one-degree spot meter, ALL will measure the identical thing, and you can directly compare readings...and ALL should have near-identical readings when properly calibrated.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You're confusing me. I thought we agreed on this. Of course, if you're measuring a blank wall to compare accuracy, the readings should be the same. However, different meters with different angles of measurement will provide different results looking at a normal scene. They're measuring different angles of view.

 

[wiltw]

You're confusing me. I thought we agreed on this. Of course, if you're measuring a blank wall to compare accuracy, the readings should be the same. However, different meters with different angles of measurement will provide different results looking at a normal scene. They're measuring different angles of view.

I agree entirely...both angles of view and/or bias built into the metering (to accentuation certain metering areas and de-emphasize other metering area), will cause different meters to lack 'agreement', because they get fooled differently by different areas of the scene.

 

[jgoody]

myLightmeter is pretty good and it is usable as an incident or reflective meter (with the little "button" on the upper right). I also have a very large Gossen Luna Pro SBC which is an excellent meter.

 

[wiltw]

My experience is that if I don't include the sky a little, the exposure is too high and the sky is too bright. Maybe we're aiming differently.

You simply want the sky to be to your level of expectation, regardless of the brightness difference between sky and ground...here in Sunny CA midwinter (cursed with a shortage of rain) Sunny 16 exposure would work outside, but the sky is between 0.9EV - 3.5EV bright than Sunny 16,depending on the angle of the shot relative to sun position.
Many of us simply want the brightness of things in the scene (not the sky) to fall at their inherent brightness (18% gray card = mid-tone gray) and the sky will fall wherever it will ...between 0.9EV - 3.5EV brighter than subject lighting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You simply want the sky to be to your level of expectation, regardless of the brightness difference between sky and ground...here in Sunny CA midwinter (cursed with a shortage of rain) Sunny 16 exposure would work outside, but the sky is between 0.9EV - 3.5EV bright than Sunny 16,depending on the angle of the shot relative to sun position.
Many of us simply want the brightness of things in the scene (not the sky) to fall at their inherent brightness (18% gray card = mid-tone gray) and the sky will fall wherever it will ...between 0.9EV - 3.5EV brighter than subject lighting.

Is that for BW film? I shoot chromes mainly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You simply want the sky to be to your level of expectation, regardless of the brightness difference between sky and ground...here in Sunny CA midwinter (cursed with a shortage of rain) Sunny 16 exposure would work outside, but the sky is between 0.9EV - 3.5EV bright than Sunny 16,depending on the angle of the shot relative to sun position.
Many of us simply want the brightness of things in the scene (not the sky) to fall at their inherent brightness (18% gray card = mid-tone gray) and the sky will fall wherever it will ...between 0.9EV - 3.5EV brighter than subject lighting.

Is that for BW film? I shoot chromes mainly.

The physics are the same for color slide, color negative and black & white negative film and all will expose properly. Your expectation level is unrealistic because the sky falls where it is supposed to and the way it is supposed to.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The physics are the same for color slide, color negative and black & white negative film and all will expose properly. Your expectation level is unrealistic because the sky falls where it is supposed to and the way it is supposed to.

Maybe if you're shooting chromes with side light and the ground is brightly lit, but even then you could overexpose the sky. Letting the sky fall where it does by metering a shadow area is for negative film, mainly BW. Even then, you wnt to know how far different the sky is as you might need a GND for BW negative film as well.

In a more severe situation as pictured below (Velvia 50 a chrome), if I exposed to capture the ground and tree details, the sky would have blown out. I had to expose for the sky and let the shadow areas fall where they may, the opposite of what you suggest.

In scenes with chromes, you often need a GND because the EV difference between the sky and ground are too many stops beyond the film's capability to capture both ends. Also keep in mind that chromes have fewer stops than negative film. So chromes are easier to "clip". Chromes are like digital cameras. You have to be careful not to clip the highlights because once they're clipped (overexposed), all you get is nothing there and the shot is ruined.

 

[wiltw]

Is that for BW film? I shoot chromes mainly.

It does not matter, shooting for inherent brightness means mid-tone color or mid-tone gray are Middle of the tonal scale, regardless of the presence or absence of a specific hue other than gray. This pair shows things at their inherent brightness (midtone gray for 4th patch in bottom row) and the presence or absence of color, as reflected in the type of film for the shot.

In your shot with sky colors, you have 'suppressed' any detail in the landscape and put them in the detailless shadows. For that shot, the detail in the landscape was totally secondary to getting the sky (and its reflection in the lake surface) represented as a highly saturated set of colors.
Had your scene contained your wife, you would have failed to capture her portrait adequately...if you had exposed for your wife's face, the sky's brightness would fall wherever it inherent brightness in the scene happens to be, and not a saturated set of colors when shooting a portrait....you would NOT be metering the shadows, per se...you would be metering ambient light to record things at their 'inherent brightness' (metering a gray card, or using an incident meter would both suggest the same exposure)

 

[grat]

In your shot with sky colors, you have 'suppressed' any detail in the landscape and put them in the detailless shadows. For that shot, the detail in the landscape was totally secondary to getting the sky (and its reflection in the lake surface) represented as a highly saturated set of colors.

Exactly. Nearly anyone else trying to capture that scene would have done the same, and the effect is pleasing. The sky, and it's reflection, was the relevant part of the exposure-- so you and Sirius claiming the sky doesn't matter just seems... argumentative.

Had your scene contained your wife, you would have failed to capture her portrait adequately...if you had exposed for your wife's face, the sky's brightness would fall wherever it inherent brightness in the scene happens to be, and not a saturated set of colors when shooting a portrait....you would NOT be metering the shadows, per se...you would be metering ambient light to record things at their 'inherent brightness' (metering a gray card, or using an incident meter would both suggest the same exposure)

But if his wife was in the foreground, then metering for her would have blown out the sky, unless he used a GND to compress the range of the scene (this is slide film after all). It's almost like you're claiming that the only thing relevant is the midtones, which isn't true.

...you would NOT be metering the shadows, per se...you would be metering ambient light to record things at their 'inherent brightness' (metering a gray card, or using an incident meter would both suggest the same exposure

But that wouldn't be appropriate for the scene. Using portraiture rules for a landscape scene is daft.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It does not matter, shooting for inherent brightness means mid-tone color or mid-tone gray are Middle of the tonal scale, regardless of the presence or absence of a specific hue other than gray. This pair shows things at their inherent brightness (midtone gray for 4th patch in bottom row) and the presence or absence of color, as reflected in the type of film for the shot.

In your shot with sky colors, you have 'suppressed' any detail in the landscape and put them in the detailless shadows. For that shot, the detail in the landscape was totally secondary to getting the sky (and its reflection in the lake surface) represented as a highly saturated set of colors.
Had your scene contained your wife, you would have failed to capture her portrait adequately...if you had exposed for your wife's face, the sky's brightness would fall wherever it inherent brightness in the scene happens to be, and not a saturated set of colors when shooting a portrait....you would NOT be metering the shadows, per se...you would be metering ambient light to record things at their 'inherent brightness' (metering a gray card, or using an incident meter would both suggest the same exposure)

grat covered it well in his last post. Just another comment. The dynamic range (DR) of chrome film is much less than either color or BW negative film. So if you want a bright sky not to be blown out, you often need a GND.

 

[wiltw]

But if his wife was in the foreground, then metering for her would have blown out the sky, unless he used a GND to compress the range of the scene (this is slide film after all). It's almost like you're claiming that the only thing relevant is the midtones, which isn't true.
But that wouldn't be appropriate for the scene. Using portraiture rules for a landscape scene is daft.

daft to a landscape photographer, but the GOAL for the portraiture photographer: the portraiture subject (and the sky be damned)_

NOT 'damning' anything...the goals are entirely different and the shot is dictated by the desires of the photographer!
If you want BOTH saturated sky and a pretty portrait, in those conditions you have the BALANCE the lighting on the portrait sitter with
A) adding supplemental lighting of the portrait sitter whose exposure settings are compatible with
B) capturing the sky with saturated colors.

 

[grat]

NOT 'damning' anything...the goals are entirely different and the shot is dictated by the desires of the photographer!

Exactly. So why are you and Sirius jumping on Alan for doing exactly that? You've both been telling him the sky doesn't matter-- Sirius goes as far as to say if you meter the sky, bad things happen.

I'm just as confused as Alan.

 

[BrianShaw]

No matter what Alan writes, it’s obvious that he really knows how to meter. His photo proves that. I seriously doubt that image was dumb luck. All the rest is about fine-tuning that understanding.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe if you're shooting chromes with side light and the ground is brightly lit, but even then you could overexpose the sky. Letting the sky fall where it does by metering a shadow area is for negative film, mainly BW. Even then, you wnt to know how far different the sky is as you might need a GND for BW negative film as well.

In a more severe situation as pictured below (Velvia 50 a chrome), if I exposed to capture the ground and tree details, the sky would have blown out. I had to expose for the sky and let the shadow areas fall where they may, the opposite of what you suggest.

In scenes with chromes, you often need a GND because the EV difference between the sky and ground are too many stops beyond the film's capability to capture both ends. Also keep in mind that chromes have fewer stops than negative film. So chromes are easier to "clip". Chromes are like digital cameras. You have to be careful not to clip the highlights because once they're clipped (overexposed), all you get is nothing there and the shot is ruined.

With over 100,000 slides I have never had the light clipped nor used a GND. Do you own stock in an GND manufacturer?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No matter what Alan writes, it’s obvious that he really knows how to meter. His photo proves that. I seriously doubt that image was dumb luck. All the rest is about fine-tuning that understanding.

I think I underexposed the shot somewhat, maybe 1/2 to one stop (for the sky). But that kept the blue colors. There was no way I was going to recover the trees and ground so I just left them be black silhouettes. I was actually shooting after sundown during blue hour but facing East away from the setting sun. I entered the shot in a local community contest. The judge liked the shot but thought I should have caught more orange in the shot.

What do judges know?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

With over 100,000 slides I have never had the light clipped nor used a GND. Do you own stock in an GND manufacturer?

Are you shooting chromes? When are you shooting? At what? What time during the day? Show us samples?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are you shooting chromes? When are you shooting? At what? What time during the day? Show us samples?

Yes shooting slides and I stated many posts ago. All times of day and night.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. It's a Velvia 50,4x5. The lighting in the sky and in the bright areas are close enough that you don't need a GND. They're in range of the DR of the film for shadows and whites; the stops are close enough.

However, look at the trees on the right. Notice how the shadow areas are dark almost black. I tried to bring them out a little by raising the Shadow slider. But all I got was noise there. So I had to leave them as they were. Had I metered for the ground to show detail in those shadow areas, I would have overexposed the other brighter ground areas and certainly blown out the sky. The shot would have been unrecoverable.
Lake Topanemus by Alan Klein, on Flickr

 

[BrianShaw]

I think I underexposed the shot somewhat, maybe 1/2 to one stop (for the sky). But that kept the blue colors. There was no way I was going to recover the trees and ground so I just left them be black silhouettes. I was actually shooting after sundown during blue hour but facing East away from the setting sun. I entered the shot in a local community contest. The judge liked the shot but thought I should have caught more orange in the shot.

What do judges know?

Sometimes the picture IS the sky…

Like yours (which is not underexposed at all) this is all about the sky and silhouette is fine. Unlike yours, this is a cell phone snappy of a framed print, now faded, that’s been on the wall since 1982. Somewhere I have the original Ektachrome. Lahaina Maui not long after an eruption of Kilauea Volcano. No filter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. It's a Velvia 50,4x5. The lighting in the sky and in the bright areas are close enough that you don't need a GND. They're in range of the DR of the film for shadows and whites; the stops are close enough.

However, look at the trees on the right. Notice how the shadow areas are dark almost black. I tried to bring them out a little by raising the Shadow slider. But all I got was noise there. So I had to leave them as they were. Had I metered for the ground to show detail in those shadow areas, I would have overexposed the other brighter ground areas and certainly blown out the sky. The shot would have been unrecoverable.
Lake Topanemus by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Once the photograph has been taken, missing information cannot be brought out.

I see nothing wrong with the dark shadow on the lower right side, the world is like that. Do you think that you could always bring out a photo of Bambi from the shade of every photo? $5 please.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sometimes the picture IS the sky…

Like yours (which is not underexposed at all) this is all by about the sky and silhouette is fine. Unlike yours, this is a cell phone snappy of a framed print, now faded, that’s been on the wall since 1982. Somewhere I have the original Ektachrome. Lahaina Maui not long after an eruption of Kilauea Volcano. No filter.

That's a nice shot. With pictures like that, you're pretty much left to silhouettes which are fine.

Here's the original of my earlier shot. I think you can say the sky is a little underexposed. It was really dark about then. This is when it pays to bracket. But with 4x5s I now shoot, I'm too cheap. If I was shooting medium format gear, I would have bracketed +1 and -1 and had a better selection to work with.