Reflective vs. incidence meter reading??

[stradibarrius]

It seems that the 30deg. field for my meter would be narrowed the closer I got to the subject? So "it seems" that if I get very close and take the reading it is primarily reading just the area in front of the sensor. Of course I would have to be careful not to block any of the light.
My idea may be totally wrong.....

 

[Chuck_P]

Here are 4 shots off the same roll with my RB. Neopan 400 in XTOL 1:1
neg scans.

First two are reflective the second two are incident. I am not sure that I can really see a lot of difference????

IMO, if you really want try and see a difference between the two meters, you should photograph the same scene with each, not different scenes. It makes for easier analysis of the negative as long as they are both developed the same.

 

[markbarendt]

It's only applicable IMO if you can get close enough to meter just the area you desire, it can be a reasonable simulation.

This is the issue. If you get close enough to meter just the neck of a violin with an incident meter, the meter's shadow is probably affecting the reading, if the shadow isn't in the way the meter head is probably tilted such that the reading would be goofy anyway.

 

[Chuck_P]

It seems that the 30deg. field for my meter would be narrowed the closer I got to the subject? So "it seems" that if I get very close and take the reading it is primarily reading just the area in front of the sensor. Of course I would have to be careful not to block any of the light.
My idea may be totally wrong.....

Not wrong at all.

 

[Mike1234]

The above are correct... a wide view reflective meter measuring the entire scene in that situation will likely overexpose the violin. Moving in close to read only the violin will only give you a reading for the entire object.... maybe you can estimate where you want exposure but it won't give you an accurate contrast range even if you move in very close to read small areas. You also risk affecting the light with your physical presence near the object. An incident meter will get you close enough for a printable neg but it can't tell you how to adjust film development for contrast control. Too, watch out for your presence affecting the light hitting the meter dome.

Spot Meter: How dark is the part of the violin to want to meter and do you actually want that tone to appear as middle gray on print? Are there darker areas that will lose detail if you use that exposure? How do you think the client sees his/her beloved violin? It may be an emotional thing to them. Do they want it darker showing its age and "character" or do they want its beauty to shine through and glow. Side note: Set your lighting to produce the affect they want. Is the metered area reflecting any specular light? A violin probably is so keep that in mind. I'll say for the millionth time... see the scene, in this case the object, as a whole. Find the darkest important shadow area and meter there, decrease exposure to place that tone at Zone 2 or 3 or 2.5.... wherever you think it belongs. Then meter the brightest area for which you want to retain a least some detail.... everything brighter is specular reflection. Adjust development to place that tone at Zone 7 or 8 or 9 or 8.5... whatever... depends on your processing/printing techniques and quality of the materials you use.

Of course, you could do a low-key image against black or a high-key image on white.

 

[stradibarrius]

Of course in the shop/studio I can always just use my digital as a poloroid and shoot and look until it is right then set my "real" camera, LOL, with that exposure but I am to stubborn to do it that way. I want to be able to shoot my RB without a crutch.

 

[Mike1234]

Of course in the shop/studio I can always just use my digital as a poloroid and shoot and look until it is right then set my "real" camera, LOL, with that exposure but I am to stubborn to do it that way. I want to be able to shoot my RB without a crutch.

Personally, I see no problem with "chimping". It's just the high-tech version of a Polaroid... just as you stated. I'll be carrying a point-and-shoot digital with my LF gear everywhere I go because I happen to like chimping.

Of course, this still won't give you the precise readings you need but it'll give you an idea of what the final image will look like especially the overall lighting and composition.

 

[Q.G.]

And it will still not teach you how to use a meter.

Polaroid wasn't meant to approximate exposure by guessing your way towards something that may look o.k. when shot on real film. It was too expensive for that to begin with.
Digital isn't expensive. But still, it's the worst way to go about it. Only slightly better than phoning aunt Mable and ask her what she thinks you should set.

 

[Chuck_P]

Of course in the shop/studio I can always just use my digital as a poloroid and shoot and look until it is right then set my "real" camera, LOL, with that exposure but I am to stubborn to do it that way. I want to be able to shoot my RB without a crutch.

Come on------break loose from the ties that bind!

 

[Mike1234]

What I'm suggesting is he learn to use a spot meter properly and learn to develop for the best negs possible in a given situation. Chimping can give him instant feedback if he shoots on MANUAL with NO AUTO COMPENSATION other than setting white balance. It's a quicker way to learn than shooting/developing/printing over and over again. All he really needs is to UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT of metering and development. Chimping (manual/no auto compensation) can help speed along the learning process. Once he understands then he can forego the digi and tweak his metering/exposing/processing with confidence.

I'll be using a digi p-n-s for compositional purposes... for awhile anyway. It's now nearly 26 years since I've composed on GG so my skills are probably degraded. We'll see...

 

[stradibarrius]

I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with "chimping" but if I can learn to do it the "old school way" first I would be happier with my old man education project!!!

 

[John Koehrer]

Now ya gotta go buy a spotmeter.

 

[Q.G.]

People should only buy a spotmeter if and when, and only if and when, they feel they cannot do without.
And if they did, almost noone would have, or want to get, one.

 

[markbarendt]

Now ya gotta go buy a spotmeter.

No.

Better off spending the money on enough film and chemicals to practice with to really understand what your current meter is telling you.

 

[eddym]

Stradibarrius, your life would be so much simpler, and this thread so much shorter, if you would just do two things:
1) Take an incident meter reading.
2) Take the picture.

 

[stradibarrius]

I guess I tend to go the way Mark is suggesting. Questions can only get you so far but then you have to go through the process. I just try to minimize the amount of money and time possibly going in the wrong direction.
Hopefully some others have also learned something from this thread.

 

[Mike1234]

See?? You ask what's seemingly a simple question and you get a million different confusing opinions. The one thing you definitely did learn though is, as you just stated, "you have to go through the process". We learn much more from doing than by asking. You get ideas by asking and gain real skills by doing. Try all the techniques and choose for yourself.

 

[2F/2F]

I suggest that you use digital to find your exposures for films only if you find less-than-ideal exposures acceptable.

Now, if there was a digital "exposure preview unit" that you could manually program in a detailed manner to match the technical characteristics of a number of different films, and program different developments as well (preferably by scanning test filmstrips with the unit itself), it would be a lovely device to use for this...but this is not what a digital camera does. A digital camera takes a picture in one way, and that one way is different than the one way any one film would take the same picture. What you see on your camera's screen is a jpeg, and you can set your camera to make the jpeg different than the original capture, just like you can change films or exposure and development to do the same...however, the controls are too rough to be precise. There is no good way to match any in-camera preview exactly to the known characteristics of the film you are using. Therefore, digital cameras are not only less than ideal for use as light meters when using film, but are actually harmful to your exposures. More harmful than an educated/practiced guess? Depends on how educated/practiced you are! However, never more harmful than a properly-used light meter.

 

[gr82bart]

Is it normal for the two types of reading to be different?

Yes

Which will or should be more accurate?

Incident

Or maybe the question should be when there is a discrepancy which would you choose?

Incident

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

See?? You ask what's seemingly a simple question and you get a million different confusing opinions. The one thing you definitely did learn though is, as you just stated, "you have to go through the process". We learn much more from doing than by asking. You get ideas by asking and gain real skills by doing. Try all the techniques and choose for yourself.

There are indeed a lot of opinions. Only a few are correct and factual.

Regards, Art.

 

[Mike1234]

No disrespect intended but I disagree, Art. A spot meter in the right hands cannot be bested by any other type meter. And, again... no disrepect intended, but yours is not the only correct opinion. I consider the arguement against use of spotmeters to be quite inaccurate. One who has truely mastered the use of a good spot meter is better capable of making correctly exposed/developed negs... just my opinion, of course.

 

[gr82bart]

No disrespect intended but I disagree, Art. A spot meter in the right hands cannot be bested by any other type meter. And, again... no disrepect intended, but yours is not the only correct opinion. I consider the arguement against use of spotmeters to be quite inaccurate. One who has truely mastered the use of a good spot meter is better capable of making correctly exposed/developed negs... just my opinion, of course.

Sure. I'll stick to incident metering.

Regards, Art.

 

[baachitraka]

These are not real good negative scans but the point is conveyed---some examples of this point about incident metering.

There is obviously more light than dark in this subject. But when composing the third shot, I made sure the center-weighted meter of the camera was influenced more by the dark shaded area. The meter's outer, less sensitive regions were also a factor in determining the exposure, just not as much, but ultimately gave a more satisfying result.

Taking an incident reading in the sun and then the shade could have been done and then expose for the average reading. That would probably be the better use of an incident meter IMO, since it does take into account acutal reflective values at both the dark and the light end of the range. It actually attempts an average exposure rather than letting the reflective meter alone try and average the scene, which can lead to some pretty poor exposures if the scene is nowhere near average.

Sorry to dig the old thread.

Well, this is excatly we will expect with incident reading i.e., middle-gray rendering of metered area(shadow and highlight in this case). Since dome will only see the world as five stops so an adjustment of one or two stops(without considering flare) is required.

 

[markbarendt]

Since dome will only see the world as five stops so an adjustment of one or two stops(without considering flare) is required.

Actually, no.

The meter has no idea at all about what it is being pointed at, nor how wide the range of tones is in its field of view, absolutely none. Think about it, if your view of the world was through the meters translucent dome you wouldn't either. The meter simply measures how much light gets through the dome and using the EI/ISO number we give it, suggests a camera setting and in some cases gives us a number that tells us how much light there was.

Duplexing, using two readings and averaging, is one good way of finding an appropriate camera setting, as is the classic direct reading method. Both methods are reliable and do not require any other offset.

 

[craygc]

Sorry to dig the old thread.

Well, this is excatly we will expect with incident reading i.e., middle-gray rendering of metered area(shadow and highlight in this case)

But providing a middle-gray rendering of a metered area is not what incident meters do. They are keyed to the highlights and nothing else - great for transparencies and digital. With negative film, being keyed to the highlights doesn't guarantee anything about shadow detail, which is what you really want to be controlling at exposure time. Incident meters are certainly convenient and quick but for negatives, and having time to meter, cannot beat a spot meter for getting a desired exposure.