Light meters with reflective, incident and spot metering

[grat]

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.

Not entirely-- "native" and "indigenous" are nearly identical terms in this usage. So much so that I literally flipped a coin to pick one term to argue about.

 

[138S]

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.

Lachie, please, don't quote my posts, I ignore you, please do the same.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachie, please, don't quote my posts, I ignore you, please do the same.

It's because you very clearly showed why you are making metering so difficult for yourself - and trying to make it difficult for others, by insisting they must follow your approaches.

Once you understand why indexing to highlights or shadows matters for getting a useful result out of a meter (spot meters in particular), you will rapidly understand that metering is not complicated and doesn't require more than a couple of readings at most (and only then when you are severely restricted in reproducible contrast range).

 

[138S]

The effect depends on the flare factor, which depends on the subject. Illustrative diagram of the effect:

Thanks, great graph.

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.

IMO, most of the times we have more precision than the one we require, even if not using a probe in the back.

Negative film has much more latitude in the highlights side than in the shadows, shadows are way more critical. From the real ISO speed calibration we know that we have 0.1D (over fog+base) at 31/3 stops underexposure, at this point we have nothing...

Or course this is the place were we need the safety factor, depending on our accuracy we should add 1/3 or 1/2 stop to our metering. Usually this is enough. Shadows alone may determine our exposure.

Regarding highlights we may do with a coarser evaluation, at the end highlight metering will determine development, we usually pull or push full stops, we may make a N-1 or a N-2, not a N-1.43. We have to locate the highlights we want with texture and pulling enough to make ithem more printable. With a really contrasty scene, possibly we won't be able to pull enough to allow a direct print of the highlights, anyway we'll have to preform some printing manipulation, the question is to have a criterion to determine the N modification that makes sense.

The great thing of Zonal spot metering is that we make sure we get our shadows recorded, and at the same time it allows to pick the best N+/- to allow our highlights printed in the easiest possible way, still it may not be easy because what can we pull has limitations.

____

You know, Velvia is a different animal, critical metering is in the highlights... blowing away Velvia highlights it's quite straight !!! Here our main tool is graded ND filters to get the sky while recording well terrain... There is no doubt that here spot metering nails the right exposures and determines perfectly the GND we need, and here flare does not mess.

 

[MattKing]

Metering is easy.
Deciding where to point the meter, and then deciding what to do with the reading - that is where it gets trickier.
In the real world, some times it can be helpful to bracket a bit. That can give you the chance to revisit some of your in field decisions.
Of course, bracketing with big, expensive pieces of film is a lot more painful than with little bits of roll film.
Does that cover it?

 

[138S]

Of course, bracketing with big, expensive pieces of film is a lot more painful than with little bits of roll film.
Does that cover it?

As I'm still learning a lot, and I meter with an SLR, what I do sometimes is shooting two 35mm frames with the same film than the sheet. One is shot at the same exposure than the sheet to find if they are matching, the other one with an alternative exposure to get at least some feedback.

 

[BMbikerider]

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.

The book of 'destructions' that came with the meter stated that it was 5 degree and I neve queried it. When I look through the eyepiece all I see is a circle where I take the reading from. 5 or 10 degree who knows, it works perfectly well. Why should it not work with the model 3? Is it a different bayonet fitting?

 

[138S]

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.

As mentioned, with modern linear films you easily get unprintable highlights for darkroom printing (no problem with hybrid/photoshop) abit this requires a modification of the ZS, rather a bare compression you need more a compensation. You need that anyway, with or without ZS rules because when scene range overruns the paper range you need a compression, like we do in Ps when bending the curve to an S shape...

Again ZS is common sense, you try to do the same than in Photoshop with the S, if not wanting to clip shadows/highligts, which is always an option...

So with linear films, when you apply ZS or the same common sense with no name, you do the same.

The Zonistas love the never ending testing, it gives their lives meaning.

Again, don't look the ZS trees, see the ZS forest.

The core concept is Visualization, just visualize the final print when you are in front of the scene. If you are not to get that visualization... then collect all things and plant your tripod in another place.

If you can Visualize your print then you get Self Awareness, you feel the subject and then you find the way to approach to it. You end making a print that has a soul...

What else ZS says ? that beyond -3 you don't have detail ? that you may have to pull development when you want to print highlights that are at +6 ? the right exposure for a caucasian skin?

In the ZS what is not Visualization is bare common sense, call it ZS or the name you want, you'll end doing it in a way or another....

The important thing is Visualization. Visualizing the print in advance, this is the creative path for the mind, like Michelangelo when he visualized the sculpture inside the boulder before starting to hit it.

This is the ZS good recommendation. Visualize the art you want to do. This worked when we lived in the caves and today, our mind is what makes the art. Visualization distinguishes an artist from a shooter.

 

[BradS]

reminds me of the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

 

[Craig75]

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.

ahh for sure

personally I think if you add up shutter inaccuracies, thermometer inaccuracies compared to the film company, potential speed losses between measuring fresh film vs whatever it could be when it arrives at me, aperture inaccuracies, developer measuring inaccuracies etc etc - one is never going to be "that" accurate - im very much a "in the ballpark" person and its not unheard of for me to give a bit extra for "luck". I think my definition of measuring might be a lot less rigorous than other peoples!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lachie, please, don't quote my posts, I ignore you, please do the same.

Duh, iffen you are ignoring his posts, exactly how would you know that he quoted your? Interested readers want to know!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Negative film has much more latitude in the highlights side than in the shadows, shadows are way more critical.

No, that depends of the toe and the shoulder which are different for each film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

reminds me of the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Duh, iffen you are ignoring his posts, exactly how would you know that he quoted your? Interested readers want to know!

Sirius, as you are discovering it's very difficult to completely ignore someone whose understanding of film exposure is so errant and overcomplicated that his posts are starting to play the Laurel & Hardy theme...

On a more serious note, the sort of behaviour he engages in is potentially very damaging both to this community (why do you think the forum sponsors seem to engage so little these days?) and those who rely (via Google search results) on the knowledge base here to learn important aspects of technique etc - like the usage of different types of meter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, as you are discovering it's very difficult to completely ignore someone whose understanding of film exposure is so errant that his posts are starting to play the Laurel & Hardy theme...

On a more serious note, the sort of behaviour he engages in is potentially very damaging both to this community (why do you think the forum sponsors seem to engage so little these days?) and those who rely (via Google search results) on the knowledge base here to learn important aspects of technique etc - like the usage of different types of meter.

If he was not so damaging to the website and interfering with people learning, I would find him funny.

 

[138S]

No, that depends of the toe and the shoulder which are different for each film.

Negative film has always 3.33 stops latitude for the shadows, this comes from the ISO calibration norm. What negative pictorial film has less than 3.33 stops latitude for highlights ?

We may discuss if monodisperse CMS 20 microfilm can be a candidate... but beyond that possible exception you probably won't be able to point a single pictorial Negative film (BW or color) not sporting a well higher highlight latitude than shadow latitude, if shot at ISO speed.

Tell me one... you won't be able.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Negative film has always 3.33 stops latitude for the shadows, this comes from the ISO calibration norm. What negative pictorial film
We may discuss if monodisperse CMS 20 microfilm can be a candidate... but beyond that possible exception you probably won't be able to point a single pictorial Negative film (BW or color) not sporting a well higher highlight latitude than shadow latitude, if shot at ISO speed.

Tell me one... you won't be able.

I live in Southern California where it is common to have a Subject Brightness Range of 8 to 14 f/stops. I have gotten up to 14 f/stops on black & white and color film. The problem is not with the film, the details are there. It takes skill to get the range of the film on to paper which has 7 f/stops at best. That takes darkroom skill and done without the expansion or compression of the Zone System.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The book of 'destructions' that came with the meter stated that it was 5 degree and I neve queried it. When I look through the eyepiece all I see is a circle where I take the reading from. 5 or 10 degree who knows, it works perfectly well. Why should it not work with the model 3? Is it a different bayonet fitting?

I made a partial mistake. It cannot be used with the II. However, with the III and IIIF, you have to adjust the setting by 1.2 stops. See link of Minolta instructions.
https://www.cameramanuals.org/minolta_pdf/minolta_autometer_viewfinder.pdf

 

[138S]

I live in Southern California where it is common to have a Subject Brightness Range of 8 to 14 f/stops. I have gotten up to 14 f/stops on black & white and color film. The problem is not with the film, the details are there. It takes skill to get the range of the film on to paper which has 7 f/stops at best. That takes darkroom skill and done without the expansion or compression of the Zone System.

Ok, now you admit that Negative films have more highlight latitude than shadow latitude... rectification wellcome.

Of course linear films are less suitable for a raw ZS treatment, but ZS practitioners address linear film usage in several ways.

First, let me mention that "Mr Zone" John Sexton worked with Kodak to develop T-Max film, which is essentially linear in nature, being he both a ZS amazing 1st rate teacher and a T-Max defender, having crafted a top quality body of work with ZS and his linear TMX.

Let me reiterate that ZS "workflow rules" are simple common sense. The spot meter serves to ensure shadows have enough exposure and that highlights don't reach excessive densities after development, common sense... ZS adds nothing to what any fine print maker would do

But the important thing is that Spot metering also helps you in the print visualization. You locate the zones in the scene and so you can realize how the print will be. The important concept is VISUALIZATION. This helps your creative process.


http://www.alanbrockimages.com/blog/2015/5/30/how-to-meter-using-the-zone-system

_______

Now, if you want we may explore several ways we have to process/print extreme highlights from linear film... several may by used additionally.

1) Silver Chloride paper sporting a long Toe which prints the "film shoulder", what was AZO, now Lodima or Lupex.

2) Pyro + Variable Contrast paper. The stronger proportional stain selectively blocks more blue light of the enlarger in the highlights, selectively printing highlights with a lower contrast grade, performing a selective highlight compression or compensation.

3) Compensating development, low/minimal agitation and/or compensating developers.

4) Burning manipulation

5) HLM masking

6) etc...


None of those is in favor or aganist ZS, today we don't have to play the 1940 ZS as a dogma. While basic rule (Visualization) has not changed, in those 80 years the ZS way has incorporated every technical advance happened in those 8 decades, being "Mr Zone" himself a powerful drive in that evolution, and THE main promotor of linear film.

Look, today ZS way is mostly about taking the spot meter to acknowledge the scene so we can Visualize the print we'll get. Making the scene dynamic range fit in the paper is the same problem than in 1940, today we have other materials and new techniques. It is irrelevant what technique we use. The important thing is how we map the scene scale to the paper scale, the ample light range of the scene to the reduced density range in the paper.

ZS is about that, how we paint a rock with shades of gray to make it look 3D (for example), and how we Visualize the print before shutter release, usually after exploring the scene with an spot meter, locating the zones helps the Visualization.

Watch those 4 videos by Mr Zone Sexton...

Let me point that again:



Anyone machinegunning ZS may have a problem... if wanting to put a print in the same wall than Mr Zone .

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ok, now you admit that Negative films have more highlight latitude than shadow latitude... rectification wellcome.

Of course linear films are less suitable for a raw ZS treatment, but ZS practitioners address linear film usage in several ways.

First, let me mention that "Mr Zone" John Sexton worked with Kodak to develop T-Max film, which is essentially linear in nature, being he both a ZS amazing 1st rate teacher and a T-Max defender, having crafted a top quality body of work with ZS and his linear TMX.

Let me reiterate that ZS "workflow rules" are simple common sense. The spot meter serves to ensure shadows have enough exposure and that highlights don't reach excessive densities after development, common sense... ZS adds nothing to what any fine print maker would do

But the important thing is that Spot metering also helps you in the print visualization. You locate the zones in the scene and so you can realize how the print will be. The important concept is VISUALIZATION. This helps your creative process.

View attachment 262620
http://www.alanbrockimages.com/blog/2015/5/30/how-to-meter-using-the-zone-system

_______

Now, if you want we may explore several ways we have to process/print extreme highlights from linear film... several may by used additionally.

1) Silver Chloride paper sporting a long Toe which prints the "film shoulder", what was AZO, now Lodima or Lupex.

2) Pyro + Variable Contrast paper. The stronger proportional stain selectively blocks more blue light of the enlarger in the highlights, selectively printing highlights with a lower contrast grade, performing a selective highlight compression or compensation.

3) Compensating development, low/minimal agitation and/or compensating developers.

4) Burning manipulation

5) HLM masking

6) etc...


None of those is in favor or aganist ZS, today we don't have to play the 1940 ZS as a dogma. While basic rule (Visualization) has not changed, but in those 80 years the ZS way has incorporated all technical advances happened in those 8 decades, being "Mr Zone" himself a powerful drive in that evolution, and THE main promotor of linear film.

Look, today ZS way is mostly about taking the spot meter to acknowledge the scene so we can Visualize the print we'll get. Making the scene dynamic range fit in the paper is the same problem than in 1940, today we have other materials and new techniques. It is irrelevant what technique we use. The important thing is how we map the scene scale to the paper scale, the ample light range of the scene to the reduced density range in the paper.

ZS is about that, how we paint a rock with shades of gray to make it look 3D (for example), and how we Visualize the print before shutter release, usually after exploring the scene with an spot meter, locating the zones helps the Visualization.

Watch those videos by Mr Zone Sexton...

Let me point that again:



Anyone machinegunning ZS may have a problem... if wanting to put a print in the same wall than Mr Zone .

Ok, now you admit that Negative films have more highlight latitude than shadow latitude... rectification wellcome.
...
Let me reiterate that ZS "workflow rules" are simple common sense. The spot meter serves to ensure shadows have enough exposure and that highlights don't reach excessive densities after development, common sense... ZS adds nothing to what any fine print maker would do

Yes, if I set the shadows in Zone 2, 3, or 4 I can safely assume that the high end will still be safely captured. Whereas in the 1960's that would not be assumed.

First, let me mention that "Mr Zone" John Sexton worked with Kodak to develop T-Max film, which is essentially linear in nature,
The tabular grain films are admirably linear and have strong reciprocity, however I choose to use traditional grain film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Sirius Glass The other thing the Zonies seem to happily ignore is that the Zone System inherently screws around with the midtone gradient - quite severely so in many cases.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Sirius Glass The other thing the Zonies seem to happily ignore is that the Zone System inherently screws around with the midtone gradient - quite severely so in many cases.

A major reason I do not use all the system. I only use the best and most practical part. Besides the compression and expansion are not practical for roll film even 6x6 on 120 film.

 

[Bill Burk]

... at this point we have nothing...

Or course this is the place were we need the safety factor, depending on our accuracy we should add 1/3 or 1/2 stop to our metering. Usually this is enough. Shadows alone may determine our exposure.

In average lighting, flare brings exposures that you think are at the speed point up in density as if they had received 0.4 greater exposure (about 1 1/3 stop).
This is "previewable" on a spotmeter. You can also think it through, walk up to a car on the street and meter the light underneath. Then walk away from the car and meter the same light underneath the car. From where you are now, the new reading will be higher due to flare.

Here's a demonstration on a Pentax Spotmeter V where you can watch the needle move:

I meant to explain that by this, you can decrease exposure to 1/3 to 1/2 stop less that film's rated speed when you are metering carefully, and you will get excellent results.

Where you need the safety factor is when you are casually averaging and you walk into a scene that's backlit and don't compensate.

 

[138S]

Yes, if I set the shadows in Zone 2, 3, or 4 I can safely assume that the high end will still be safely captured. Whereas in the 1960's that would not be assumed.

Probably we could find ancient films having an early shoulder, but Tri-X and Super XX were made by 1940... of course both had an evolution and in modern times highlight latitude has been enhanced to insane levels... but I see no limitation from film latitude in the images of the masters of that era.

...anyway highlight latitude has been very easy to obtain, specially for relatively fast films. At the end manufacturing small halide crystals and not boosting its sensitivity is the easiest thing in the world, (problem is making them grow properly). I throw simply throw that slow stuff in the DIY Dry Plate emulsion "coupage" to have extended highlight latitude ! Of course manufacturers do that in a very refined way...

 

[138S]

Here's a demonstration on a Pentax Spotmeter V where you can watch the needle move:
..................
I meant to explain that by this, you can decrease exposure to 1/3 to 1/2 stop less that film's rated speed when you are metering carefully, and you will get excellent results.

Bill, thanks, this is a very interesting video...

IMO it shows that the spot meter also takes flare, so if the camera system has the same flare then no correction is needed, but a view camera may have a larger flare from light bouncing a bit in the bellows, as we may have a large circle... Also the field view of the meter can be well different than the meter one...

I understand that when you recommend 1/3 to 1/2 stop less, you are pointing that the view camera may have 1/3 to 1/2 stops more than the spot meter flare, at (say) Z-3, probably from the large illumination circle in the view camera... A compendium shade may make both flares match...

I can attach a SLR in the back (with no lens in the SLR body, or course), I'm to check it that way...

Where you need the safety factor is when you are casually averaging and you walk into a scene that's backlit and don't compensate.

I agree, of course... having not metered shadows directly we have no idea about if the average point places those shadows at -2 or at -4, having to overexpose more to make sure we record the shadows, and thus moving up the highlight density a lot.

... in a contrasty scene we have to nail the shadow exposure with some local metering in the shadows, if not the safety factor can be very high. Most convenient tool for that is spot metering, no doubt.

Still we have to reduce the slop we have in every step, for example we have to learn the right filter factors. A red filter has different effects depending if our film is a bit more or less orthopan...

Feedback counts