Fair enough.
Yes, I see now where the futzing around part factors in, a switch to regular briefs might help.
Reflective vs. incidence meter reading??
-
A
- Thread starter stradibarrius
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon FM kit
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
Forum statistics
Fair enough.
Yes, I see now where the futzing around part factors in, a switch to regular briefs might help.
Boxer briefs?
Regular briefs?
Youze guys are far too formal.
Regular briefs?
Youze guys are far too formal.
OP
OP
WOW...when I asked the question I had no idea it would cause such a "dust up"!!! But I have learned form the back and forth. I would think form all of this it is obvious that some people like chocolate, some like strawberry and some like vanilla.
I think that if you have a method that works for you...it is the correct one.
I only asked the question because at this point I don't have a method. I have had better luck using the meter in a reflective mode but that is subjuct to change as I learn more about how to use a hand held.
I think that if you have a method that works for you...it is the correct one.
I only asked the question because at this point I don't have a method. I have had better luck using the meter in a reflective mode but that is subjuct to change as I learn more about how to use a hand held.
OP
OP
A talent for asking questions that get everyone worked up??? If I only had a talent for photography!
So Barry,
How did your test go?
Enquiring minds want to know.
How did your test go?
Enquiring minds want to know.
A talent for asking questions that touch 'the heart of the matter', i'd say.
Keep it up!
Agreed.
OP
OP
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????
Attachments
Firstly... nice images.
Secondly...those all have an overall normal range of tones (more or less) in relatively even lighting.
Thirdly... did you scan them all at the same settings and/or adjust them in PS? Some overexposure is basically harmless and is easily corrected.
Are they scans of prints made at a 2 or 2-1/2 filter at the normal printing time for the film, and then adjusted in a computer to look just like the actual print? Have you already tested your film to determine its appropriate developing time for normal contrast?
Since we can't look at the negs in person, if not all these things I named above, what do they really tell us?
To me, they all look very flat. This is probably due to the flat lighting in your shop, first and foremost. However, it is hard to judge negative exposure and contrast from a positive unless it is printed at a known-standard time and grade.
As with your past violin pix posted here, I have to say that the biggest problem in my eyes is the lighting, not the film or exposure.
Since we can't look at the negs in person, if not all these things I named above, what do they really tell us?
To me, they all look very flat. This is probably due to the flat lighting in your shop, first and foremost. However, it is hard to judge negative exposure and contrast from a positive unless it is printed at a known-standard time and grade.
As with your past violin pix posted here, I have to say that the biggest problem in my eyes is the lighting, not the film or exposure.
OP
OP
No PS and yes they were all scanned at the same settings.
Well then the subject matter was "normal" and "flat" enough to render very similar results with reflective or incident readings. This is certainly NOT always the case. Again though, I like the pics. 
BTW, just guessing by the slightly lighter rendition of the wooden table top that the ones of the fiddle were incident readings.
BTW, just guessing by the slightly lighter rendition of the wooden table top that the ones of the fiddle were incident readings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Barry, next time you do any testing, try the same scene with both methods, and try challenging ones with strong highlights and shadows. The light seems to be very even, flat.
Well then the subject matter was "normal" and "flat" enough to render very similar results with reflective or incident readings. This is certainly NOT always the case. Again though, I like the pics.
I do think the first two look underexposed compared to the last two. Since they were scanned at the same settings, all we can do is judge them against each other, not against a commonly-accepted standard for exposure.
Yes, and pick subjects that differ in overal brightness... the old charcoal or snow cliche'. Take shots just as the refected meter indicates (middle gray) then adjust exposure to -1, -2, -3, and -4 for the charcoal (or other very dark subject) and +1, +2, +3 and +4 for the snow (or other very bright object). Also take incident readings and just go by what the meter says. Do the same for a scene with a very wide contrast range but meter for the textural shadows and take a -0, -1, -2, -3 and -4 exposures. Then use the incident meter again with this scene.
Compare unadjusted scans first. Then fiddle withe PS curves to get the best overall detail from each neg. Pay close attention to shadow and highlight detail.
Please post your results.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
I am planning on shooting this violin this evening for the customer. I always shoot violins on a table with a black drape and two hot lights. I will shoot both digital for the customer and film for me.
With a black drape, by all means use incident metering.
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 525
- Format
- Multi Format
A question to add to the confusion: in a studio setting, like on a tabletop, if I use reflective metering really close to the subject, pointing directly towards the part of the subject I wanna expose according to, can that reading be used and placed in the zone system? (provided I know what area I'm measuring..)
E.g;
[refer to the attached pic] I meter the tailpiece really close and the meter gives me a reading of EV 8, I place it in zone III, the upper bout gives me a reading of EV 10, which then will fall in zone V which is consistent what what I have visualized.
Will this work with an ordinary reflective meter or do I have to have a spot to this metering? Does the metering at close range get influenced by light fall off etc.?
E.g;
[refer to the attached pic] I meter the tailpiece really close and the meter gives me a reading of EV 8, I place it in zone III, the upper bout gives me a reading of EV 10, which then will fall in zone V which is consistent what what I have visualized.
Will this work with an ordinary reflective meter or do I have to have a spot to this metering? Does the metering at close range get influenced by light fall off etc.?
Attachments
OP
OP
Excellent question!!! I was thinking the same thing and plan to try that very thing.
Yes.
In this studio setting, you are able to use your wide area reflective meter just like a spot meter as long as you are able to get close enough to meter a specific area. So, "placing" the tail piece on zone III and then reading the upper section to see where it "falls" in relation to it, is the ZS procedure to use. Then development would be decided by where that highlight falls, if you wanted the Zone V reading to be higher in final print value, then you could try an N+1 development, or some percentage of time increase in development.
Last edited by a moderator:
No.
To do what you are asking a spot meter is required.
A more typical use of the incident meter is to meter for each light separately.
Main light, by itself, will be turned on and metered, the the same for the fill light. The ratio (right to left) controls how flat or dramatic the shadows are. These are some I found on Flickr, this http://www.flickr.com/photos/hansreitzema/2678708663/ is an example of flat, equality right to left. This http://www.flickr.com/photos/hansreitzema/2966526537/in/set-72157604200914669/ is an example of dramatic, inequality right to left.
I agree with CPorter. You can use a wide area meter the same as a spot meter.
Because of the wide receptor you will have to be a little more careful in taking your reading.
A spot meter would make life a little easier when you measure something as small as the tailpiece though.
CP. See I can be cooperative
Spot meters are Very useful tools.It's only applicable IMO if you can get close enough to meter just the area you desire, it can be a reasonable simulation. It certainly does not take the place of a spot meter. The spot meter has the great advantage of being able to read small areas from the camera position.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |