Reflective vs. incidence meter reading??

[Mike1234]

That's often said, but never quite true.

The thing is that you do not learn anything about the reflectivity of any part in a scene when you point a spot meter at it. You just get a reading.

You, noone else, will have to work out how much of the incident light that particular part of the scene reflected. Your meter will not tell you, unless it is either aimed at a reference surface, or it is able to perform an incident light reading too.

The "accuracy" you get using a spot meter is in how it is able to tell you how the relative reflective properties of different parts of the scene compare.
But point a spot meter at anything, and it will always say the same thing: grey, grey, grey, ... What will be white, what black, what middle gray is up to you (and noone or nothing else) to decide.

And that's the hidden bit in those ubiquitous 'spot metering is more accurate' thingies. You can use that same accurate 'computer' - your judgement - to decide about those thingies in incident light metering as well.

I said precisely that in other words and I never said to use the reading from the spot meter without exposure and development adjustment. Take a reading of the darkest important shadow detail area and adjust exposure to place that tonal value where you want it on the final print. Adjust development and perhaps tone or intensify to attain proper highlight placement/detail. This understanding of tonal value placement and development control with use of a spot meter is the most accurate method of metering. I really can't see how anyone can argue to the contrary. Other metering methods have their place but they're simply not as accurate.

There are many metering shortcuts such as BTZS but they are not as accurate as direct reading of the object and knowing how to adjust exposure/development to place those values where you want them on the final print. BTZS still doesn't read the actual brightness of the object... just the light falling on it... whether in shadow or sunlight.

 

[markbarendt]

Where does that back of the person then end up on the curve?

Cute question.

Real answer.

Consider a sunset, put a person between the camera and the sunset.

Use your incident meter, as you would a reflective meter, by pointing it at the sunset from the camera.

Shoot.

The back of the person creates a silhouette so you find the "back" of the person "reflected/illuminated" in the shadows somewhere at the lower end of the curve.

Before anybody tries to nit-pic this response by saying light can't shine through the person and that the person will be underexposed, I want you to know that you are right, but ONLY in a technical sense.

This technique is an artistic use.

As photographers/artists we get to decide what is important in a photo.

If I wanted a silhouette, and I got great shadow detail instead, the negative sucks, even if technically it might be considered "better".

 

[Chuck_P]

I skimmed this thread and I don't think anyone has mentioned the BTZS method for using an incident meter which is what I use now.

Jerold,

I mentioned it in my post #39, but thanks as I never really knew how the incident meter was ultimately used in BTZS, I only knew it was used. However, even based on what you described, the ZS, to me, appears to be so much more fluid in the thought process. But we are obviously both bias! . Both are excellant tools, we've all seen some beautiful photographs from competent practioners of each system.

 

[Chuck_P]

And that's the hidden bit in those ubiquitous 'spot metering is more accurate' thingies. You can use that same accurate 'computer' - your judgement - to decide about those thingies in incident light metering as well.

Are you implying that the use of a spot meter means that the photographer does not have to think as much or rely on his judgment as much about exposure as the user of an incident meter. This would be entirely false if that is what you mean----I'm sure I have read more into it than what you mean, but thought I would ask any way.

 

[Mike1234]

Cute question.

Real answer.

Consider a sunset, put a person between the camera and the sunset.

Use your incident meter, as you would a reflective meter, by pointing it at the sunset from the camera.

Shoot.

The back of the person creates a silhouette so you find the "back" of the person "reflected/illuminated" in the shadows somewhere at the lower end of the curve.

Before anybody tries to nit-pic this response by saying light can't shine through the person and that the person will be underexposed, I want you to know that you are right, but ONLY in a technical sense.

This technique is an artistic use.

As photographers/artists we get to decide what is important in a photo.

If I wanted a silhouette, and I got great shadow detail instead, the negative sucks, even if technically it might be considered "better".

Fill reflectors and/or flash.

 

[Q.G.]

Are you implying that the use of a spot meter means that the photographer does not have to think as much or rely on his judgment as much about exposure as the user of an incident meter. This would be entirely false if that is what you mean----I'm sure I have read more into it than what you mean, but thought I would ask any way.

I was suggesting just the opposite.
Or rather, opposing the suggestion that spot metering is more precise.

The suggestion was that a spot meter is more accurate, because (basically) you point it at something, and then you know something about that.
You don't.
You will have to use your judgement, look at the bit you have pointed the meter at, and then decide what the meter reading actually means.

Using a spot meter, you can get relative readings from different parts of the subject, and that with a suggested great accuacy. But what to do with those readings is up to the photographer.

Making use of the same know-how, the same 'user input', incident light metering is easily as accurate.
But it is more, because it is unaffected by reflective properties of the subject, giving you an accurate, 'objective' starting point, without needing guesswork, whereas the spot meter (or any other reflective light metering) does not. Reflected light metering always needs (preferably) educated guesswork.

 

[Q.G.]

Cute question.

Real answer.

Consider a sunset, put a person between the camera and the sunset.

Use your incident meter, as you would a reflective meter, by pointing it at the sunset from the camera.

Shoot.

That works for a sunset.

But not very much else (if anything) you want to silhouette.

 

[2F/2F]

Certainly; If you want to take an averaged reading for the entire composition, point the meter back at the camera...

...however, my point is: Why would you ever want to take an averaged reading for the entire composition? How could it ever help you? It defeats most of the benefits of using a stand-alone light meter...such as giving you the information to help you take fine control over your exposures by allowing you to point the thing at things other than what appears in the camera's viewfinder. In other words, the ability to meter independent of composition.

As I have said, the times I would accept an averaged reading for the entire composition is if, due to the quality of the light, I know I would get the same exact reading no matter where I point the meter. (1:1 staged ratios, flat days, etc.) I have said this a few times in the thread; that the "at the camera" method will work in certain situations...but not because it is at the camera. Simply because in all practicality, "at the camera" will give the same reading as "at anything" in that particular light.

I am interested in measuring the average amount of light that is falling from the light source I choose to meter, totally independent of composition. I am not interested in measuring the average amount of light that is falling on the composition. This information would do me less good than my alternative.

If I want to meter specific elements within a composition, then I want to measure reflected values, and I do so. When I use incident meters, it is simply to measure the amount of falling light from a particular source, composition aside.

BTW, I am not recommending to point the meter at a backlight to get an exposure for the front of a person. Not at all. That would be ridiculous. (I said to do that if you want a silhouette.) In this situation, the backlight may be the strongest light present, but that does not mean it is the main light. Not one bit. The definition of "main light" is not simply "the brightest light". It is the brightest light that is illuminating the part of the subject that will be photographed. (This means that in a totally silhouetted situation, with no exposure at all from the person, there is no main light; only a backlight.) Outdoors, where the Sun is the backlight, the main light on the person is reflecting onto the person from other objects, such as the sky, the ground, structures, etc. Due to the quality of this sort of light, this is likely one of the situations in which "at the "camera" will work fine.

 

[markbarendt]

Fill reflectors and/or flash.

Detail kills the silhouette.

The intent is to let the person in that example drop nearly to black.

 

[Chuck_P]

Reflected light metering always needs (preferably) educated guesswork.

I see what you mean for the most part. But have to disagree with the above in terms of a spot meter. I never have to guess anything with the use of my spot meter. However, using a 30 degree wide area reflective meter(like my Luna Pro F with the dome slide to the side) or in-camera center-weighted metering I would have to agree with you.

But using the incident requires intelligent "guesswork" as well , IMO. It does not provide the user with an idea of the strength of those individual "reflective properties"; I consider that vital since the film records the intensity of reflected light and not the intensity of the incident light. But these are user-specific arguments and don't mean much beyond that, IMHO, good works are produced from both means, it's what one finds best for them.

 

[markbarendt]

That works for a sunset.

But not very much else (if anything) you want to silhouette.

Well let me start a list with two possibilities.

1 - High key studio work uses the incident/flash meter behind the subject pointed at the background to make sure the light reaching the back of the subject is right. What this controls is a halo effect. Too much and you get a halo that interferes with a portrait, not enough and the subjects hair looks flat.

One fun thing to do with this high key background is to leave the main lights off or very low. This is a setup used regularly for High School Senior Portraits and sports shots.

2 - Take a look at much of the work of Phil Borges. Many of his environmental portraits that at first glance appear to be full sun shots (from all over the world in some pretty wild looking areas) have used off camera strobes and I'm betting from the flatness of the light a nice size soft box or similar. The shadows in the backgrounds and the catch-lights in the subjects eyes are dead giveaways.

To do that Phil had to meter behind his subjects somehow (the camera position and subjects in a fair number of his shots appears to me to be in shade) and then he would place that exposure in the zones he liked finally he would light the subject with the lights.

If I were doing my final setup for these shots I'd be pointing my incident meter at the background, not the camera.

There are a lot of magazine covers being shot using techniques similar to what I've just described here.

---

So there really are regular mainstream everyday uses where pointing the incident meter at the background makes sense.

 

[Mahler_one]

I agree with Dr. Jerold. I had recommended the BTZS book as well as being the single best summary of incident and reflective metering that I am aware of. His suggestion as to reaching the SBR in a given scene is the same that I use, and has the advantage of being easy to use, and even easier to apply. Of course, in order to take full advantage of a given SBR one would like to have one's film curves available. Before any here start rolling their eyes, realize that such data is very easy to obtain, is simple to use, and if one wants to obtain such information, the costs are not at all prohibitive. Simply get in touch with Fred Newman at The View Camera Store who can provide information about the "BTZS film service" he supplies. One might obtain similar information from other experts including perhaps, Mr. Ritter in Vermont,and in Europe, perhaps from RHDesigns (if not from Dr. Ross, then perhaps from his associate? ). If one desires to obtain such information oneself, then there are detailed and easy to follow instructions in the BTZS text by the late Mr. Phil Davis. Other standard texts on the zone system and its applications would also have information as to obtaining one's personal film speeds and film curves, but I believe that Beyond The Zone System has an approach that is easiest to apply. Best of luck. Let me know by PM if more information is needed.

Disclaimer: I have no business relationships with any of the services or firms mentioned in my post.

 

[jeroldharter]

Jerold,

I mentioned it in my post #39, but thanks as I never really knew how the incident meter was ultimately used in BTZS, I only knew it was used. However, even based on what you described, the ZS, to me, appears to be so much more fluid in the thought process. But we are obviously both bias! . Both are excellant tools, we've all seen some beautiful photographs from competent practioners of each system.

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, I tend to glaze over after 5 posts so #25 is far beyond my attention span. But I agree with you and Mahler One about using the incident meter for zone system work.

At first, I read through the BTZS stuff in the incident system and blew it off as eccentric and not something I wanted to waste time with. However, I gradually had some frustrations with spot metering and decided to try the incident meter. It is so easy that it is almost disappointing. I am working up the nerve to sell my spot meter but I have a strong attachment to gear that I will never use! I have not used my Sekonic spot meter for the past year since switching over.

 

[markbarendt]

I have a strong attachment to gear that I will never use!

I have the same ailment Doc, when you find a cure let me know ...

 

[John Koehrer]

It seems like opinions vary a little bit doesn't it?
I think metering methods may be as bad as religion when it comes down to belief in your system is best. You can evangelize all you want but you're not going to make a lot of conversions.
I've used both & prefer incident, spot metering was just too much futzing around and was reflected was OK but I'm lazy.

 

[Mike1234]

When you're metering: Gray matter is more important than a gray card. Or if your gray matter turns to neutral gray as mine is... it doesn't matter anymore. It'll be time for a point-and-shoot.

 

[Chuck_P]

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, I tend to glaze over after 5 posts so #25 is far beyond my attention span. But I agree with you and Mahler One about using the incident meter for zone system work.

At first, I read through the BTZS stuff in the incident system and blew it off as eccentric and not something I wanted to waste time with. However, I gradually had some frustrations with spot metering and decided to try the incident meter. It is so easy that it is almost disappointing. I am working up the nerve to sell my spot meter but I have a strong attachment to gear that I will never use! I have not used my Sekonic spot meter for the past year since switching over.

I'm a spot meter guy myself when using the ZS, I find it a very fluid instrument to use. I was acknowledging that an incident meter is the tool of choice in the BTZS way of doing things, only that I wasn't sure in what manner it was used until someone clarified in a later post.

I would hold on to that spot meter----you never know.

 

[Chuck_P]

I've used both & prefer incident, spot metering was just too much futzing around...........

How?

I hear this all the time---but for the life of me I don't understand it.

 

[2F/2F]

A bit off topic:

Just tested my Brockway Norwood Director meter against a brand new Sekonic Studio Deluxe last night. They agreed within what appeared to be about 1/6 stop. (It was definitely not as much as 1/3 stop.) I imagine that the 1/6 stop less light read by the older one was due to the yellowing of the dome over the past 55 years or so.

The Brockway is a 1950s predecessor to the Sekonic Studio incident meters, made in Japan by Sekonic and sold under the Brockway name. They have kept the casing of the meter identical all these years.

At under $200 brand new, and anywhere from $5 to $20 for an old Brockway, I can't think of a good reason why everyone does not have one of these. I even got three spares for parts on E-Bay for $25, and got extra cases, high slides, discs, grids, etc.

I have come across a stash of almost 30 Pentax Spotmeter Vs and 1/21s in teh back storage room of a school where I work. Two of them still work properly. Such a shame.

 

[Mike1234]

How?

I hear this all the time---but for the life of me I don't understand it.

I don't understand your lack of understanding of misunderstanding.

 

[2F/2F]

How?

I hear this all the time---but for the life of me I don't understand it.

When someone says that, it means that they just want a direct-reading meter...as do I most of the time.

As I have said, I always use both when I have the time, but rarely a spot meter alone. I use incident alone often.

 

[John Koehrer]

How?

I hear this all the time---but for the life of me I don't understand it.

Gee, I guess you just don't have to understand it, do you?
It's called an opinion and it doesn't have to be justified.

 

[2F/2F]

Gee, I guess you just don't have to understand it, do you?
It's called an opinion and it doesn't have to be justified.

Wanting to understand an opinion is different than wanting it to be "justified."

Wanting to understand an opinion means that one wants to know why the opinion is held.

Wanting to have an opinion "justified" means that one wants the opinion proven reasonable.

 

[Chuck_P]

Gee, I guess you just don't have to understand it, do you?
It's called an opinion and it doesn't have to be justified.

I can see how you would take it that way, but no offense intended----------it's seems a commonly held opinion (at least it feels like I see this a lot) that the spot meter is somehow a troublesome tool to use. That's all. Feel free to help me understand what you mean.

 

[John Koehrer]

Perhaps I took it wrong. But I also don't wear tight jeans any longer, I like a little room.
1)They're bulky. To me.
2)I don't read shadow & highlight to obtain contrast range
3)I Don't use sheet film or the Zone system.
4)I don't have a Sinar F.
5)I can eyeball exposure closely enough if I need to compensate for deep shadow
or bright highlight if I need to.
6)My negatives are good enough with an incident meter.
7)I wear hiking boots year round.
8)I don't wear long johns in the summertime.
9)I like boxer briefs.
10)I also find a RF easier to focus in dim/dark areas.

I don't think they're troublesome to use. For you. Just not my thing.