Light meters with reflective, incident and spot metering

138S · Dec 30, 2020

ic-racer said:
All spot-meter metering is guessing.

IMO it's the counter, and this is seen when metering a challenging scene, let's see a "relatively challenging" scene.

https://www.nickcarverphotography.com/art/prints/

Incident meter: Total failure, we have a total brick in the hand, we cannot measure incident light on subjects. We have to guess the exposure. No river in the middle this time, still we can go inside the shop to meter, then climbing to reach the sign and later walking to the car...

Averaged meter: What overexposure we'll have in the shop ? in the sign ? will the sign get toasted if a Velvia shot? What detail in the shadows ? We have to guess all that !!! the gues may work... or not... then better if we bracket...

Spot meter: We may adjust -1 for the ground under the shop, then we may inspect the shop and the sign, also the car and the deep shadows to know their local exposure, perhaps we would rectify the manual exposure to balance well the exposure to get the subjects on spot. We know if we are to toast something and up to what amount, we now how the shadows will be. We were able to take a wise decision from precise information.

ic-racer said:
It will always be hard for the beginner and can seem effortless to the experienced LF photographer.

My 10 years old daughter exposes in spot mode, it took me 15 min to make her undestand it with the DSLR.

If someone if not able to nail an exposure from spot readings better he spends 15min in learning that before going to LF, with a DSLR or even with an smartphone one learns that instantly, then a film roll should be shot to see how under/over exposed levels in an spot results... taking notes.

At all, not saying that one has to use a metering mode or other, this is personal... only saying two things:

> In LF, if not knowing how a metering way works... then learn it... this is very basic knowledge, sheets are expensive and one has to know what he does... If possible, one has to be proficient in incident, averaged and spot, later use what you want.

> In some situations you may need the spot reading of some subject, if we don't have it then we can take some risk making a guess.

Craig75 · Dec 30, 2020

You dont bracket dinner and make 3 of them when you have a kitchen full of measuring equipment.

radiant · Dec 30, 2020

Craig75 said:
You dont bracket dinner and make 3 of them when you have a kitchen full of measuring equipment.

If you cannot see or taste the end result - and you can make three dinners - you should probably do it.

BMbikerider · Dec 30, 2020

The Minolta Autometer 3 will do all three function providing you can get the attachments to fit over the sensor. I was lucky and bought the as a bundle. The meter has a memory function as well and have yet to find it anything but very accurate. The spot-meter is actually a 5 degree meter rather than the normal 1 degree, To be totally honest, I cannot see that it makes any significant difference.

Craig75 · Dec 30, 2020

michael_r said:
It’s not the same thing, Craig.

Measuring things be it light or ingredients and turning some dials be it on oven or camera.

Its the exact same process

Craig75 · Dec 30, 2020

Craig75 said:
Measuring things be it light or ingredients and turning some dials be it on oven or camera.

Its the exact same process

michael_r said:
It’s not really. Measuring light is more complicated than measuring ingredients, with more uncertainty. Although in the end what saves us in both cases is latitude.

The darkest area you want shadow detail is the darkest area you want shadow detail. Measure that area and turn the dials.

Or you want skin tone. Measure that and turn the dials.

Or you want a highlight and devil take the rest. Measure that.

You dont become the thief of fire when you have a spotmeter - its fraction more complicated than any other measuring device be it scales, rulers, compasses or what have you.

138S · Dec 30, 2020

Craig75 said:
Measuring things be it light or ingredients and turning some dials be it on oven or camera.
Its the exact same process

Bracketing makes sense in several situations...

> It is a powerful tool when learning a film new to us, or for a new situation. You spot meter well and take notes, after bracketing you check how each subject is depicted at different exposure levels.

> It is also useful when result cannot be predicted accurately like in night photography, and the effect of LIRF may be temperamental.

> When you have a doubt in the aesthetics from the exposure

> When having a doubt on suitable development for the scene

> When you have a doubt about the reliability of the shutter

Still, bracketing with 35mm film is cheap, in LF not. A

35mm Portra 160 frame (Today B&H) costs $0.22 while a 8x10 sheet is $15.5, so the additional shot is (sadly) 68 times more expensive in the LF case, to not mention the case in the UE. A Portra 160 8x10" sheet costs 26.8€ which is $33. (I blame Alaris and I hope they collapse ASAP, to see if Eastman does something different, who knows?)

But the case is that the second LF shot costs around 70 times more than in 35mm. As a result we experiment in 35mm, and think twice before bracketing in LF, favouring wiser decisions that should nail what we want without destroying sheets.

Some people have been always smart enough to not even consider much bracketing, as mentioned Sexton uses to play a second shot just to have an identic backup.

Nothing wrong in bracketing if shot is worth and we don't feel self confident, anyway the more control we sport the less we need to bracket.

michael_r said:
Making exposure measurements is uncertain. It’s not that the process or device is more complicated than scales, rulers etc. It’s the uncertainty. You can measure a shadow multiple times and get the same number, and set the dials correctly, but you ultimately cannot be certain about how much exposure that shadow gets (where exactly it ends up on the characteristic curve). You can’t measure the effect of flare, and you can’t control it.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t use meters. I’m saying there is uncertainty and we don’t always get what we think we are getting (to paraphrase Stephen Benskin).

Michael, speaking about people mastering well the view camera usage, IMO pitfalls come not much from exposure. Camera direction may move after holder insertion... vibration effect from wind is erratic... composition could be better... focus plane could be better tilted... the image has no thrill...

In my particular case I feel that I nail exposure perfectly, still I have all sorts of other problems and pitfalls, and I'm not much beyond rookie level.

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 30, 2020

BMbikerider said:
The Minolta Autometer 3 will do all three function providing you can get the attachments to fit over the sensor. I was lucky and bought the as a bundle. The meter has a memory function as well and have yet to find it anything but very accurate. The spot-meter is actually a 5 degree meter rather than the normal 1 degree, To be totally honest, I cannot see that it makes any significant difference.

I have the same meter and have used it for years. However, the 5 degree is for the IV. The Autotmeter III uses a 10-degree spot. The 5-degree attachment is not recommended. You might want to check. In any case, I aim the 10-degree spot for an "average" looking area. (I mainly shot chromes with it). Then I bracket a stop or half stop. Medium format is relatively cheap and bracketing is cheap insurance that adds only seconds to do.

Today, I've been shooting 4x5. I'm trying my P&S digital micro 4/3 and sticking the scene into the histogram while looking at the screen to see if the exposure looks right. I'll favor the blacks or whites depending on if I'm shooting BW negative film or chrome. But I'm not bracketing as I'm shooting 4x5 now. It's become too expensive and laborious with film holders.

I still am working on using the histogram to figure out my exposure settings. I haven't gotten it down yet. But I'm hoping for the best using it.

Craig75 · Dec 30, 2020

michael_r said:
Making exposure measurements is uncertain. It’s not that the process or device is more complicated than scales, rulers etc. It’s the uncertainty. You can measure a shadow multiple times and get the same number, and set the dials correctly, but you ultimately cannot be certain about how much exposure that shadow gets (where exactly it ends up on the characteristic curve). You can’t measure the effect of flare, and you can’t control it.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t use meters. I’m saying there is uncertainty and we don’t always get what we think we are getting (to paraphrase Stephen Benskin).

Where is the uncertainty coming from?

The shutter, the thermometer, the mysterious k factor, a loss in speed of film from being measured in factory to coming into yr hand might all change the tone to a degree but then you just compensate for that in the same if the recipe says bake for an 1hr at 200f and you do it but its undercooked you give it another 10 mins.

I cant see where else the uncertainty is going to come from

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 30, 2020

Craig75 said:
Where is the uncertainty coming from?

The shutter, the thermometer, the mysterious k factor, a loss in speed of film from being measured in factory to coming into yr hand might all change the tone to a degree but then you just compensate for that in the same if the recipe says bake for an 1hr at 200f and you do it but its undercooked you give it another 10 mins.

I cant see where else the uncertainty is going to come from

I don't develop my own film. So what do I do? (True - I can get the lab to push and pull.)

138S · Dec 30, 2020

michael_r said:
I cant see where else the uncertainty is going to come from

Main uncertainty is the aesthetic impact from different versions at different exposures. You may find two different exposures that are both formally correct but sporting a different depiction, and possibly showing different depth (3D) sensation. Also you may bracket the filtration (Red vs Orange Vs Green filter), or the N+- processing.

Or you may use a long exposure to smooth water in a river, but shadows under the rocks may show LIRF behaviour (lower "intensity") and you loss detail there. Also each film reacts with a different factor to color filtration, depending on particular film spectral sensitivity and light nature...

So for sure we have uncertainties. The question is how well we control our tools. A true artist is a master of his tools, it's the indian, not the arrow.

BrianShaw · Dec 30, 2020

Ahem... in today’s lexicon that would be “native indigenous person”. LOL.

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 30, 2020

138S said:
Main uncertainty is the aesthetic impact from different versions at different exposures. You may find two different exposures that are both formally correct but sporting a different depiction, and possibly showing different depth (3D) sensation. Also you may bracket the filtration (Red vs Orange Vs Green filter), or the N+- processing.

Or you may use a long exposure to smooth water in a river, but shadows under the rocks may show LIRF behaviour (lower "intensity") and you loss detail there. Also each film reacts with a different factor to color filtration, depending on particular film spectral sensitivity and light nature...

So for sure we have uncertainties. The question is how well we control our tools. A true artist is a master of his tools, it's the indian, not the arrow.

Sometimes when I bracket, the ones that came out let's say underexposed, showed me that was the better shot. The "right" exposure was wrong. I then found burying the shadows in deeper blacks, creating more contrast, actually makes the picture better. Pre-visualization only goes so far. You can't see what you can't see. Sometimes post-visualization provides new insights. It's not an all or nothing thing.

138S · Dec 30, 2020

BrianShaw said:
Ahem... in today’s lexicon that would be “native indigenous person”. LOL.

Sorry, in my country we still view your oldest westerns

138S · Dec 30, 2020

michael_r said:
Flare is the main variable. Using Zone System terminology, flare affects where your placements actually fall.

Yes... flare may benefit a rise in the shadows at Z-3 , but it has a null effect in the mids or highlights. Zones increase light geometrically, the flare addition in Z-5 is irrelevant as at that light power level it may represent 1/10 of an stop, while the same light on a Z-3 are may represent 1/2 stop.

Flare does not shift the entire Zone scale, it only has an impact in the lower zones.

Personally I meter with an SLR, I found the flare being the same than in the view camera when a shade is used. To me flare is no practical problem in the metering. Still, if having problems we may use a probe in the back

IMO, not necessary using it always... but it can be interesting to learn the flare effect.

IMO, most of the flare we have is from then ultra large illumination circles of some lenses, like when I'm using the Sironar N 300 for 4x5 without a shade.

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2020

138S said:
If you say that probably ZS, is not well understood by you...

Actually I understand it well, but with the modern films, their wide latitude of exposure and variable contrast paper, there is very little is any need for the expansion and contract using N+i or N-i development and if ever needed a little darkroom technique can replace it. The Zonistas love the never ending testing, it gives their lives meaning.

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2020

Craig75 said:
You don't bracket dinner and make 3 of them when you have a kitchen full of measuring equipment.

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2020

ic-racer said:
All spot-meter metering is guessing.

Only for those who do not have any idea of what they are doing. The rest of us use it without a problem.

Lachlan Young · Dec 30, 2020

138S said:
Personally I meter with an SLR

This is a major part of why you are continuing to make and repeat the same mistakes - you are not properly indexing the readout from the camera's spot meter (only the Olympus OM-3 and OM-4 can do this) for highlight or shadow keying, which are essential to any semblance of using a spotmeter as anything other than a limited area averaging meter of questionable worth. If you must insist on using a TTL camera spot meter, at least do the following: meter the darkest shadow you want detail in with - 2 2/3 exposure compensation dialed in, and you'll actually be in with a chance of keying exposure on neg film correctly. + 2 1/3 compensation and meter the brightest highlight you want detail in for transparency. That's it, no need for dozens of readings of irrelevant stuff.

Craig75 · Dec 30, 2020

michael_r said:
Flare is the main variable. Using Zone System terminology, flare affects where your placements actually fall.

But theres not much you can do about that apart from suck it up.

Its not like its adding multiple stops on top. The only time its going to come into play in measuring is if yr scene contrast is at the limits of the film range.

Just like 200f on yr oven isnt going to be 200f in reality or that measuring jug isnt going to actually measure 100ml of liquid all you can do is measure it shoot it and see.

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
This is a major part of why you are continuing to make and repeat the same mistakes - you are not properly indexing the readout from the camera's spot meter (only the Olympus OM-3 and OM-4 can do this) for highlight or shadow keying, which are essential to any semblance of using a spotmeter as anything other than a limited area averaging meter of questionable worth. If you must insist on using a TTL camera spot meter, at least do the following: meter the darkest shadow you want detail in with - 2 2/3 exposure compensation dialed in, and you'll actually be in with a chance of keying exposure on neg film correctly. + 2 1/3 compensation and meter the brightest highlight you want detail in for transparency. That's it, no need for dozens of readings of irrelevant stuff.

Wow, you really know how to take something simple and make it complex and a real burden. With your approach it would take two days to start a car. When using TTL or for that matter any reflectance meter, meter without the sky. Gee so simple. Then if you find that you want more shadow detail open the aperture half or one f/stop.

AND by the way Olympus is not the only camera that can index off the camera's spot meter, Nikon, Canon and many other can too.

grat · Dec 30, 2020

BrianShaw said:
Ahem... in today’s lexicon that would be “native indigenous person”. LOL.

Might be native, but not indigenous-- their ancestors (and one of mine, if you go back a couple generations) came across the Siberian land bridge thousands of years ago.

Lachlan Young · Dec 30, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
Wow, you really know how to take something simple and make it complex and a real burden. With your approach it would take two days to start a car. When using TTL or for that matter any reflectance meter, meter without the sky. Gee so simple. Then if you find that you want more shadow detail open the aperture half or one f/stop.

AND by the way Olympus is not the only camera that can index off the camera's spot meter, Nikon, Canon and many other can too.

My advice would be for 138S to get a proper handheld meter - but it was a suggestion as to how to get a more useful result from his insistence on spotmetering with a Nikon F5 for large format!

And as fast as I know, no TTL spotmeters on 35mm cameras other than the OM-3 and OM-4 allow you to meter a highlight or shadow, then automatically index an exposure off that such that the highlight or shadow has the correct value. The only immediate equivalent is the 'Zone' mode on the Hasselblad 205TCC/FCC system.

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2020

grat said:
Might be native, but not indigenous-- their ancestors (and one of mine, if you go back a couple generations) came across the Siberian land bridge thousands of years ago.

And the Aboriginals crossed an land bridge from Asia to Australia 65,000 years ago and they are still called indigenous. So you point missed the mark.

grat · Dec 30, 2020

michael_r said:
Agreed. My point is simply that there is less precision than some people think when it comes to ZS spot metering, and that from an exposure decision perspective it provides less information that we might assume.

There is sufficient precision to achieve repeatable results, which you have repeatedly implied isn't true. My shutter speed might be off by a fraction of a second-- but it's going to be less than 1/3 of a stop in most cases. Finding a scene that exceeds the 7 stops of range for B&W is difficult, so exposing for the midpoint will typically give a reliable exposure. Color is slightly trickier at only 5 stops of range, but still, as long as your scene doesn't exceed that, you're OK-- and if it does, you can shift the midpoint depending on whether you want to emphasize shadows or highlights.

The zone system has use, but I don't need to be able to visually distinguish zone 3 from zone 4 in order to make reliable exposures with modern emulsions.

Metering is observation plus measurement, resulting in your exposure settings. If your process is consistent, your results will be as well. If you document the process, you can tune your results to your liking. All else is marketing and mysticism.

Light meters with reflective, incident and spot metering

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency