Light meters with reflective, incident and spot metering

138S said:

But please see next reasoning about why spot metering (in combination with notes ) is also a very powerful resource when starting.

Click to expand...

I did not start LF photography with a spot meter and I would recommend not using a spot meter when starting LF. Instead concentrate on composing, focusing, general exposure, then tilts and shifts. Once one is comfortable with those, then consider using a spot meter if and only if one wants to use some form of the Zone System. I, myself, only use the Zone System to get deeper shadow detail and I have found with the modern films available that I do not have the need of the N, N+1, N+2, N-1, N-2, ... . That may make me work harder in the darkroom, but I am happy with that.

BradS said:

@138S There's just simply no need to make it so complicated...and there is no need for 'surgical precision'.
Get out of the theoretical academic minutia and get into the field. Make some photos. It is really quite easy and satisfying.

Click to expand...

It is not about complicating, it is about simplifiying. If you had the sky toasted (velvia) and your notes say that it was at +2.5 local overexposure then next time you point up and see +2.5 you know exactly what you'll get.

What complicates the situation is not knowing how much overexposed was sky when you have a toasted sky in the slide. After learning that you know exactly what Graded ND you have to use, and you nail every shot.

Sirius Glass said:

I would recommend not using a spot meter when starting LF. Instead concentrate on composing, focusing, general exposure, then tilts and shifts.

Click to expand...

IMO, first you have to control in LF is exposure, if not you record a crap after the other. In LF first one has to learn is that before shutter release you have to know what you a are doing. Contrary to rolls, sheets have a way higher cost and effort, so it's a no sense going to advanced matter if not mastering the basics. If you are not able to nail the exposure of a shot then return to school before manipulating a view camera.

Both composition and exposure can be learned in roll formats at way lower cost, what I recommend is having solved those concerns with roll film.

LOL, if toasting a 8x10 velvia because one is not able to expose finely.

BradS said:

@138S There's just simply no need to make it so complicated...and there is no need for 'surgical precision'.
Get out of the theoretical academic minutia and get into the field. Make some photos. It is really quite easy and satisfying.

Click to expand...

Agree very strongly. The people who make a whole silly performance out of metering are usually those who are most fundamentally incompetent at it. What I find much more amusing is that (if you use pre-1960 speeds with most neg films), the Sunny 16 rule is usually closer to a well calibrated meter than most of those folk would dare to acknowledge.

bonk said:

Thanks for the encouragement everyone. I am very well aware that the best way to learn is to actually take photographs and make mistakes and it is important to have fun in the process.
I can assure you that I am having fun and I am already shooting LF quite frequently whenever I get the chance to borrow the gear for it (usually a Linhof Technicardan S 4x5 and a Sekonic L-478D using mainly incident light measurement, btw). But mistakes should not be the only way you learn and I really I have fun to see how others work and I made the experience it helps to improve my own skills a lot.

Regarding the gear: I am currently in the process to select my first own LF gear. My goal is to select something that will make me happy for many years to come without having to buy something new for as long as possible. I've had situations where I would have wished that I had a meter with a reflective mode and sometimes even a spot meter. So if there would have been a halfway decent meter that has all three, I might have considered it because it would have reduced the amount of stuff that I need to carry (and maybe even the €€ I have to pay).

As the camera I think I will chose the Chamonix C045-F2 btw.

Click to expand...

FWIW - I think you are on a good path.... The Chamonix should serve you well. I explored the groundglass metering idea (using a GG adapter) that was mentioned and found myself chasing my tail as with my gear, it proved inconsistent. Perhaps I could have mastered it but initial trials/fails had me moving on from it. I tend to mainly rely upon incident metering and experience combined with general knowledge of my materials and gear and seldom seem to go too far astray.

Ansel Adams with an ancient spot meter:



And with a "modern" spot meter. (of course he also used incident...)



Taking notes and spot metering, a refined way to get an accurate prediction, even for a master like him (lachie, take a lesson):

michael_r said:

Particularly after you get some practice and experience, it becomes pretty straight forward to just average a scene and compensate depending on how much dark or light there is etc. You can judge it by eye.

Click to expand...

Yes - and it's very straightforward to sweep the scene with a 1o meter & find the highest & lowest LV's you want detail in, (or take a shadow & highlight incident reading) & arrive at a useful exposure in a couple of seconds. The IRE scale on some spot meters makes checking the available range for narrow latitude materials very easy - put highlights you want to hold on IRE 10, see if shadows you want detail in drop below 1, if they do then add fill or ND grads etc, adjust exposure to compensate. IRE 1 is also pretty much spot-on for placing a shadow keyed exposure for neg films.

michael_r said:

As I said earlier, I really don’t think exposure metering is a complicated thing, and it gets quite intuitive pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

I'd go so far as to say that if it isn't rapidly intuitive, you're probably doing something majorly wrong - like metering the wrong tones, and/ or the wrong things. That said, a meter that reads out in LV/ EV does make it easier for people to understand the contrast range, rather than using TTL meters of various sorts & trying to compute from there.

michael_r said:

I don’t know, my favourite images by Adams come from before there were spot meters, or even meters that were any good.

Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, the famous Moonrise was taken with no meter, as he lost it...

Still a question arises... how many shots did he take ? How many are popular ? Did accurate metering increase the chances a shot was well exposed ?

Metering accurately an scene increases the chances that the image will be well exposed. There is nothing wrong in knowing the local over/under exposures of the different subjects in the scene from spot metering, this is quite a useful information. Also there is nothing wrong in using alternative incident or Sunny 16... if knowing what we are doing...

When moving from rolls to sheets, a need we "usually" find is exposing more accurately than we were used. IMO, when learning, the question is if having spot metered (and having notes) the different subjects in the scene allows a better feedback, as we can make a better diagnostic about would may have failed... or been succesful.

What tells if some shadows will have detail is its spot metering, not the averaged reading. What tells if some glares will be printable is its spot metering vs N+/-

There is a quite followed rule: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, if we want to use that rule then we should take the local spot exposures. Of course we may not want to follow that rule, or we may want to use it for some kind of scene... YMMV.

But, to me, the more we rely in that rule the more we are pushed to use spot metering

michael_r said:

find your shadow and your highlight and you’re done. I would even say under the majority of circumstances you don’t even need to meter the highlight.

Click to expand...

I'd perhaps tighten my definition to state that people should meter for the highlight that they want to retain detail in and likewise for the shadow values they want to retain detail in - which may not necessarily match the absolute values of the scene. And that they should refrain from metering midtones (which will be defined much more by development time etc) unless they have to match a specific tone scene-to-scene (which the IRE scale is designed to enable). They should also refrain from metering any specular sources, no matter the temptation to do so. All this can also be done with a couple of incident meter readings, pretty much just as easily - especially once people realise that the hypothetical situations that might not work with that approach are vanishingly small. And I agree about often not needing to meter the highlight on neg stocks - so much more of this is about getting a sufficiently exposed neg that offers a range of printing choices, rather than some hypothetically 'perfect' neg - which often have all sorts of problems, usually traceable to exposures that aren't based on shadow values and too much 'N-' development flattening the midtones.

138S said:

It is not about complicating, it is about simplifiying. If you had the sky toasted (velvia) and your notes say that it was at +2.5 local overexposure then next time you point up and see +2.5 you know exactly what you'll get.

What complicates the situation is not knowing how much overexposed was sky when you have a toasted sky in the slide. After learning that you know exactly what Graded ND you have to use, and you nail every shot.




IMO, first you have to control in LF is exposure, if not you record a crap after the other. In LF first one has to learn is that before shutter release you have to know what you a are doing. Contrary to rolls, sheets have a way higher cost and effort, so it's a no sense going to advanced matter if not mastering the basics. If you are not able to nail the exposure of a shot then return to school before manipulating a view camera.

Both composition and exposure can be learned in roll formats at way lower cost, what I recommend is having solved those concerns with roll film.

LOL, if toasting a 8x10 velvia because one is not able to expose finely.

Click to expand...

I just started 4x5 this year. So I kept the Velvia 50 in the freezer and practiced with 10 Tmax 100 and 10 Tmax 400 before shooting the Velvia. Out of a box of twenty Velvia, I think I totally ruined 4, and half the rest were still not exposed right. But I got three I'm happy with. I did better with the BWs. But many of the shots were also ruined because of bad focus and not seeing the image too clearly or upside down.

michael_r said:

There might have been a little less guess work under more complex circumstances, but probably not much. If it is a tricky situation, you bracket, spot meter or not. That’s what everyone does if they are smart. Anyone with a spot meter who tells you they make a single, accurately metered exposure every time, is BS-ing you.

Click to expand...

Michael, in that concern I follow John Sexton's "advice", I shot two exactly matching shots of the same scene with same exposure, but no bracketing. For an (personally) important shot what (presonally) I want is having a backup negative, not two unaccurated tries with none on spot.

Still, if one does not control well the workflow then best way is bracketing, so we have several opportunities, one or the other may be acceptable...

Nothing wrong in bracketing if one is not able to predict the result in a situation, personally I trained myself by anotating the predicted densities I will get in the negative before shutter release, later I check if the prediction ((https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/)) was accurate (after scheduled custom processing of the sheet) for feedback, to know if I have to refine my pre-shot (rapid) calculations.

In that way I got a fair control about the result, being now able to pick the exposure and the development for the Visualization I made in front of the real scene. Still I find bracketing useful in some situations (LIRF), but by routine (personally) I never bracket, what I do is taking a backup shot with same exposure.


This is explained in this series of (four) videos by Sexton, I'm grateful because what I "learned" in those fantastic videos changed the way I enjoy LF, they "communicate" a true wisdom prescription drug dose. I would recommend to watch those videos to anyone not having viewed them, nail (fast) the accurate technical work, then focus on the magic. With that teaching (presonally) I realized a bit what can that magic be about. Of course many treasure that wisdom yet, still it's quite wonderful to see how John teaches that.

michael_r said:

With respect to “metering accurately”, .... find your shadow and your highlight and you’re done. I would even say under the majority of circumstances you don’t even need to meter the highlight.
Well, that’s why I don’t think people should follow that rule under most circumstances. I would say expose for the shadows.

Click to expand...

I disagree... Have you strong highlights you want to print (its texture) or not? If you scan then no problem, even +2.8D is not a problem for the scanner+hybrid, but it can be a problem in the darkroom.

With an evenly lit subject you don't even need to meter the shadows, isn't it ? The same with highlights... if you have strong highlights then meter that if not wanting a surprise. No highlight no problem...

...to not say what happens with very linear films+processing, with density easily skyrocketing to unprintable levels, requiring a HLM mask to not make a botched job from a crazy burning....

If you have strong highlights and you want print that texture then better you advance what you'll get before shutter release. If bracketing, what you'll barcket ? one stop ? After metering accuratelly your highlights you may pick a processing that will easily trim 3 stops the highlights, two stops from reduced development and one additional stop from reduced agitation, while conserving shadow detail. The -1 bracketed shot to preserve highlights may destroy shadow detail, from -2.5 to -3.5 you have quite a detail destruction.

Of course one may not want at all the Zone System or any variation, there are other ways...

I mostly practice ZS and I'm happy with it, ZS is about spot metering, you spot the zones. Any averaged system is manfestly lower in control, still it may be enough. But before spendind a 8x10 sheet (two, with the backup) what I want to know is the exact +/0/- exposure I have in each spot, and what will result after the planned custom development, including custom agitation pattern. No doubt that some scenes are simple to meter and process, others require quite an effort...

On any doubt, John Sexton also practice Zone System... this is the plate on his car:

michael_r said:

with Lachlan above -

Click to expand...

Sorry, I have Latchan Young ignored, he always is provocating me with indirect (or direct) insults or disqualifications...

Here (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-and-spot-metering.180410/page-3#post-2360830) he qualifies me (unprovovated) as "fundamentally incompetent"

He is pathetic but I get a lot of fun with him !!!! Still not a surprise he is all day bracketing, (take it with humor) this comes both from covardice and from flawed metering

_______________________________

Anyway... we all have our own way to meter and to print and every way makes sense in a way or other, sometimes personally I use Sunny 16.... but IMNO knowing the spot reading of important places in the scene only enriches the quality of our decision, provide we can spend some 10 seconds in exploring the scene in spot mode...

Still, I have to say that before I had a shutter tester bracketing made more sense...

Even a late model shutter (when new ) speed could vary by 1 stop. Shutters were sold with a +/-30% accuracy and no warrantee could be applied with a 30% error. An allowed +/-30% error says that 1/30 can be in fact 1/20 or 1/40, and this is a full stop range !!! Then consider the low CLA ancient shutters most of us have !!!

Well, let me rectify a bit my (personal) recommendation:

> With shutters tested, accurate spot metering, and some experience: don't bracket, if wanting to spend two sheets then shot an exact backup (if the image is potentially worth).

> Not having a shutter tester, not having an spot meter or time to use it, not wanting to meter accurately (or to learn that), then bracket for important shots.

But if one wants... test shutter speeds, spot meter accurately, train to nail results from predictions, and shot an exact backup (for important shots). This quite a proficient way.

michael_r said:

If it is a tricky situation, you bracket, spot meter or not. That’s what everyone does if they are smart. Anyone with a spot meter who tells you they make a single, accurately metered exposure every time, is BS-ing you.

With respect to “metering accurately”, I think barring extreme situations I would largely agree with Lachlan above - find your shadow and your highlight and you’re done. I would even say under the majority of circumstances you don’t even need to meter the highlight.

Click to expand...

So far, in my adventures with film, I have pulled the dark slide at the wrong time. I have used the wrong cable port on a press shutter. I have been unhappy with my composition, I have second-guessed myself on focus. I've tried to hand-hold when a tripod was required.

But if I use a spot meter for shadows and highlights, and pick a median EV for exposure, my exposures are spot on.

My shutters are "close enough" in that their error is a small fraction of a stop-- so any error there is more than compensated for by the latitude of B&W and color negative film. I'll let you know when I get up the nerve to do positive film.

After reading horror stories about how difficult metering is, I was confused the first time I used a spot-meter-- it was not only easy, it was intuitive, and obvious. I find actual EV numbers so easy to work with, I seriously thought I'd done something wrong. With time and experience, I expect I'll need the meter less, but for now, as a beginner with film, it's such a simple, and fantastically useful tool, I can't comprehend recommending someone not bother.

I've been doing photography for 20+ years-- but all digital, and mostly aperture priority. I find I get the worst results when I start with something like sunny 16, and then start changing aperture, film speed, and shutter speed-- when I juggle all three in my head, I tend to lose (or gain) a stop or two, largely due to lack of practice.

grat said:

But if I use a spot meter for shadows and highlights, and pick a median EV for exposure, my exposures are spot on.

My shutters are "close enough" in that their error is a small fraction of a stop-- so any error there is more than compensated for by the latitude of B&W and color negative film. I'll let you know when I get up the nerve to do positive film.

Click to expand...

It's easier still if you can index for shadow or highlight exposure - does your meter have an IRE (Institute of Radio Engineers) scale indicated anywhere? If not, marking it for IRE 1 (detailed shadow index - usually a pretty optimal exposure for neg films) and IRE 10 (highlights with details - usually optimal for transparency) is very simple. This is how the Pentax meter enacts it (scale closest to bottom of image). Unless you are doing specific tone-matching shot-to-shot for film/TV, you don't really need the intermediate numbers

grat said:

After reading horror stories about how difficult metering is, I was confused the first time I used a spot-meter-- it was not only easy, it was intuitive, and obvious. I find actual EV numbers so easy to work with, I seriously thought I'd done something wrong. With time and experience, I expect I'll need the meter less, but for now, as a beginner with film, it's such a simple, and fantastically useful tool, I can't comprehend recommending someone not bother.

Click to expand...

I have no idea either why people want to make metering into some sort of lengthy masochistic performance - other than that they're no good at grasping the basics of what to point the meter at!

michael_r said:

Nice to see some John Sexton appreciation. He was one of my earliest influences. I eventually had the opportunity to take one of his workshops and it was a great experience for me. I’m also lucky enough to own some prints. You might already be aware but I’ll add Anne Larsen (who is married to John) is also a wonderful photographer and superb printer. At the time I did the workshop her license plate was AG PRINT.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I would like to have had such a privilege... I've some envy. Yeah... there are many styles in LF... but we have some powerful references out there, John an a few more are like a VOR for aerial navigation, their work allows others to understand were they are and how to reach the place they want to go...

I only have the Places of Power book, but I've been told that his prints are magnificient.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I just started 4x5 this year. So I kept the Velvia 50 in the freezer and practiced with 10 Tmax 100 and 10 Tmax 400 before shooting the Velvia. Out of a box of twenty Velvia, I think I totally ruined 4, and half the rest were still not exposed right. But I got three I'm happy with. I did better with the BWs. But many of the shots were also ruined because of bad focus and not seeing the image too clearly or upside down.

Click to expand...

You have been always quite proficient exposing velvia yet... with velvia sheets you may simply use exactly the same exposure than with an SLR with a prime lens (plus bellows compensation), still LF mechanic shutters are not as accurate as in modern SLRs so for Velvia a shutter tester is specially interesting because half an stop counts.

Regarding focus... sure you are able to nail focus, I've no doubt, but be aware that after inserting the holder tripod has to return to the same direction (!). Tripod can be "elastic" retourning to the original direction, but it cannot have "hysteresis". When you use movements, if after inserting the holder the camera direction (optical axis) changed then the (inclinated) plane of focus also moves a lot, placing subjects in the OOF. This is a common issue... just check if the focus problem was specially dominant in tilt/swing shots, if the case this would suggest a problem in the tripod.

You may place a toy laser pointer in the front standard to see if the laser spot returns to the same point after inserting the holder, also this will tell if your tripod is steady under wind ...and the time you have to wait after inserting the holder until vibration stops, if vibration stops in some 1 or 2 seconds then you are in the safe side.

138S said:

Any averaged system is manfestly lower in control, still it may be enough.

Click to expand...

I especially like this tidbit of wisdom that was embedded in a lot of other wisdom. One needs to discern when average is okay and when it isn’t. All metering approaches have value.

BrianShaw said:

I especially like this tidbit of wisdom that was embedded in a lot of other wisdom. One needs to discern when average is okay and when it isn’t. All metering approaches have value.

Click to expand...

Fine grained control is far from always a good thing.
The reading off an incident or reflective meter should always be taken as a starting point.

Lachlan Young said:

It's easier still if you can index for shadow or highlight exposure - does your meter have an IRE (Institute of Radio Engineers) scale indicated anywhere? If not, marking it for IRE 1 (detailed shadow index - usually a pretty optimal exposure for neg films) and IRE 10 (highlights with details - usually optimal for transparency) is very simple. This is how the Pentax meter enacts it (scale closest to bottom of image).

Click to expand...

It does-- although it's labeled "10" to "100" (with bars of decreasing thickness), and the indicator point I use to select an EV on the dial (it's the side-mount dial, similar but not identical to the older Pentax) is at the "50" mark. To be honest, I've somewhat ignored those markings, and just use a 5 to 7 stop range mentally.

michael_r said:

Fair point, but we should also understand the limitations and/or “gotchas” that make spot metering quite a bit less precise or accurate than people think. Flare, for example, wreaks havoc with the precise measurements and placements (Zone System terminology) we think we are making. There’s a good amount of slop in the process.

Click to expand...

Of course we have some "gotchas"... IMO this is a different chapter... but let me say my view on that.

>> We may meter with a probe in the back, so we account the flare and the aperture calibration...

>> Modern lenses do no generate flare in the lens, uncoated lenses do but Multi-coated glass doesn't. Single coated glass have some influence that it is mostly irrelevant in the metering.

>> Still we have flare generated in the bellows from excessive illumination circle, if we use a Sironar-N 300 (425mm circle, IIRC) for 4x5 then only 7.5% or the light goes to the sheet and 92.5% goes to the bellows. A compendium shade would prevent that this 92.5% of the light enters in the camera... Problem comes when bellows are too compressed to extended... A LF shooter should be aware of that, flare is not much a problem for the metering if contained in the suitable way the situation commands, or if we account it correctly, perhaps from feedback.


Yes... we have next, most can be solved:

> Flare from the bellows we don't address: address it accordingly, or use a spot meter probe in the back

> Aperture calibration: Check it. (Shutter replaced? Right scale?) or use a spot meter probe in the back

> Shutter accuracy: consider actual speeds from the shutter tester.

> Lens fall off (short focals) in the corners: Learn how owned lenses work, use center filter or use a spot meter probe in the back


Then we have other slop sources in the processing like developer strength, temperature, agitation... But IMO these ones are less critical, if making some effort to get a consistent processing.

_____

>>> Of course we may add some "safety factor" to make sure our shadows are well recorded, the more accurate we are the smaller the safety factor, it can be half an stop for a well controlled workflow, after some feedback.

>>> Regarding processsing, we may shift even two or three N points. IMO it is not much relevant if we shift 1.8 or 2.2 N points, also for a N development it is not critical if we make a N-0.1 or N+0.2. What is important is that we make highlights printable when we need that, later in the printing we have the opportunity to adjust the print, what is important (IMO) is departing from a negative allowing easily the output we may want.

In this regard I see two different strategies for contrasty scenes. One is a linear negative that is very flexible but commanding a great effort in the printing. The other strategy is making a negative that is to print easily like we visualized, at the cost of allowing less flexibility in the result.

Hmmm, nailing a sound pure optical print for sure requires some masterliness (that I'm trying to learn), bending curves in Photoshop is quite straighter , but a well crafted optical print is pure gold!

All spot-meter metering is guessing. You have to guess at the object or shadow in the scene that will be the minimum value you want rendered on the negative. The meter does not tell you this. Your instructor can help teach where to point the spot meter you if you do a class or workshop with someone that knows how to make a good negative. Reading books can help too.
Comparing readings with incident, gray card, reflected average and spot-evaluations of the entire range of values in the scene will all contribute to one's knowledge of the values and help one decide what exposure might make the best printable negative.

It will always be hard for the beginner and can seem effortless to the experienced LF photographer.

138S said:

Of course we have some "gotchas"...

Click to expand...

All metering methods have some gotchas. If one doesn’t know and understand them, then more study is required because that knowledge is fundamental.

ic-racer said:

All spot-meter metering is guessing. You have to guess at the object or shadow in the scene that will be the minimum value you want rendered on the negative. The meter does not tell you this. Your instructor can help teach where to point the spot meter you if you do a class or workshop with someone that knows how to make a good negative. Reading books can help too.
Comparing readings with incident, gray card, reflected average and spot-evaluations of the entire range of values in the scene will all contribute to one's knowledge of the values and help one decide what exposure might make the best printable negative.

It will always be hard for the beginner and can seem effortless to the experienced LF photographer.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of "information" I'd encountered before I picked up a spot-meter-- it was because of this type of over-complication of the basic concepts that I actually thought I was doing something wrong when I started doing metering manually. It seemed too easy-- after all, metering is this vast, complicated monstrosity of a topic where you have to know the Zone system, and then you have to learn Beyond the Zone system, followed (or preceded) by the Sunny 16 rule, the Looney 11 rule, the OCD German Technika Rule, center-weighted, matrix, spot and evaluative techniques so you can build up your negative photon by photon via arcane thaumaturgy....

... and then you find out it's really not that complicated. All these concepts are trying to get the same end result: Use the Mk I EyeBall plus a modest set of consistent tools to "map" your scene into the dynamic range of your light sensitive medium.

You might even paraphrase it as "There is more light in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than can be apprehended by your emulsion".

Now, I have a fair amount of experience with digital photography (yeah, yeah...), and as a result, I can look at a scene with an eye towards picking out the shadows and highlights that I want-- but that's less a photography skill, and more of a creative ability. It's a very quick hop from metering those two values to picking a midpoint (and yes, some judgement may be required), and as long as the dynamic range of the scene is within the capability of your film, you've got a solid negative.

I realize printing imposes further restrictions that aren't present with scanning-- but that doesn't make metering "guesswork", it merely adds another factor that has to be considered. The IRE scale Lachlan mentioned in an earlier post also removes some guesswork from the equation-- although quite by accident, I'd already settled on a technique which produces equivalent (nearly identical, in fact) results.

Ultimately, find the technique that works best for what you do-- Landscape, you'll probably want a spot meter. Portrait work, an incident meter may work better. If you're out in the field shooting sports photography with a speed Graphic, you're probably using Sunny 16 or a variant thereof, and you're crazy anyway.

And while they're definitely not analog, there are smartphone apps that do all three to varying degrees.

grat said:

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of "information" I'd encountered before I picked up a spot-meter-- it was because of this type of over-complication of the basic concepts that I actually thought I was doing something wrong when I started doing metering manually. It seemed too easy-- after all, metering is this vast, complicated monstrosity of a topic where you have to know the Zone system, and then you have to learn Beyond the Zone system, followed (or preceded) by the Sunny 16 rule, the Looney 11 rule, the OCD German Technika Rule, center-weighted, matrix, spot and evaluative techniques so you can build up your negative photon by photon via arcane thaumaturgy....

... and then you find out it's really not that complicated. All these concepts are trying to get the same end result: Use the Mk I EyeBall plus a modest set of consistent tools to "map" your scene into the dynamic range of your light sensitive medium.

You might even paraphrase it as "There is more light in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than can be apprehended by your emulsion".

Now, I have a fair amount of experience with digital photography (yeah, yeah...), and as a result, I can look at a scene with an eye towards picking out the shadows and highlights that I want-- but that's less a photography skill, and more of a creative ability. It's a very quick hop from metering those two values to picking a midpoint (and yes, some judgement may be required), and as long as the dynamic range of the scene is within the capability of your film, you've got a solid negative.

I realize printing imposes further restrictions that aren't present with scanning-- but that doesn't make metering "guesswork", it merely adds another factor that has to be considered. The IRE scale Lachlan mentioned in an earlier post also removes some guesswork from the equation-- although quite by accident, I'd already settled on a technique which produces equivalent (nearly identical, in fact) results.

Ultimately, find the technique that works best for what you do-- Landscape, you'll probably want a spot meter. Portrait work, an incident meter may work better. If you're out in the field shooting sports photography with a speed Graphic, you're probably using Sunny 16 or a variant thereof, and you're crazy anyway.

Click to expand...

You are correct. It is not that complicated, but the Zonistas like to make it a drawn out pseudo religious procedure that includes endless testing and very invasive body probes.

BrianShaw said:

All metering methods have some gotchas. If one doesn’t know and understand them, then more study is required because that knowledge is fundamental.

Click to expand...

Yes... IMO we may consider one matter is Metering and another one is Exposing.

"Metering" is measuring light power, different ways...

"Exposing" is taking an elaborated decision considering the information we have from the scene and the graphic output... different intentions

When engaging LF, if one is not proficient in the diverse kinds of metering then better if he spends some rolls to practice, because understanding well the scene is the keystone in the whole workflow.

One may shot sheets as if they were rolls, no problem, but LF offers additional resources and it has drawbacks, if not being able to take advantage from thoseadditional resources then the drawbacks come to prominence...

Personally when started in LF I found that I had to reinforce my understanding about the light power and distribution, for me Beyond The Zone Sytem by Phil Davis was the solution. After the first book half (and having made a film calibration) one knows what practical sensitometry is. The second half tells how different metering strategies work, how the same is evaluted from different points of view, and what information nature is presented to photographer. I'm quite grateful to Davis.

Sirius Glass said:

You are correct. It is not that complicated, but the Zonistas like to make it a drawn out pseudo religious procedure that includes endless testing and very invasive body probes.

Click to expand...

If you say that probably ZS, is not well understood by you...

The most important factor in the ZS is Visualization. This is about art.

Provide you are Michelangelo and you are to make La Pietà... That block of stone allows you to make any sculpture that fits inside. "Michael" said that the sculpture was inside and he only removed the stone layer on it !!!!

This is Visualization...

Before the first hammer hit on the boulder Michael knew how La Pietà had to be, he had the visualization of the final Art. You may have a problem if starting to hit a boulder without about idea of what you want to obtain...

ZS is not obscure, you have a table and an easy recipe, made to teach rookies, this is the table:



Anything obscure in that table? Nothing new !!! it only tells the film nature (of classic films, specially).

ZS prompts the photographer to visualize the final print he wants before shutter release, in that way you may expose/process to have it. If not the many variables the in the workflow may deliver an aleatory result, nothing wrong with lomography, but if you want to nail depth in the final image then you should understand scene, you should know what you want and you have to play the path between the two things.

> Today raw ZS has two problems, first in 1960 exposure was shifted by one stop, so the "zones" vs meter have that shift

> "Modern" Linear films are less suitable for ZS recipes because the extreme zones are not compressed (S shape curve) like the table suposes, so on the paper we have natural clipping instead natural compressions, commanding additional techniques when the scene range overruns the paper range.

Ansel "discovered" Visualization (divine inspiration ) when shooting the Half Dome with the crappy Adon he had by then, but Visualization is in the creative process of Artists since humanity was painting in the caves, as Michael explained to all 5 centuries ago.

ZS is not obscure, it is pure common sense: at -4 you have black in the print !!!

Today we have new tools: linear films, good variable contrast paper, advanced techniques. Still the "common sense "core concepts" of ZS are still in force, because ZS is about common sense.