Using an external meter by choice

[Craig]

I had recently asked in a zone system thread if anybody had compared zone system with matrix metering in practice and based on the responses I got an impression that none had.

I have. I went through the whole film testing regime of the BTZS. Did all the densitometry, ran everything through the computer program and have the charts of contrast, effective film speed, developing times etc. Bought the app for my phone, and it can accommodate two ways of metering: incident and spot.

As a test, I picked a scene that had a full range of tones from deepest shadow to a white fence and did it near noon on a cloudless day where there was constant light. Metered according to the way the BTZS system tells me, and entered it into the app. Metered both ways, using two different hand held meters (incident and spot), and then as a check used the Nikon F6 matrix metering. It exactly agreed with the other ways of metering, but obviously is much quicker. It basically does the same thing as finding the scenes' brightness range, but also goes further such as ignoring an extra bright highlight like a reflection off water or chrome.

I've shot many rolls of E6 through the Nikon and the metering has never let me down. The best part is it's smart enough to detect colour as well, so knows when I'm taking a photo of snow for example. My hand held meter doesn't know that, so I have to guess at the reflectivity of the snow and estimate the compensation in my head. As you said Drew, for 8x10 E6, I'd rather know, than guess. With a hand held, I'm forced to guess.

Sure, the matrix metering an algorithm, but so is the zone system. The margins as you call it comes from film testing, including the metering system. It all plays a harmonious part in getting the correct exposure on film. I've done enough testing now to know the F6 will get it right in every type of scene I photograph.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thank you for saying this! Incidentally I had recently asked in a zone system thread if anybody had compared zone system with matrix metering in practice and based on the responses I got an impression that none had.

When I use the Zone System I take one reading with the spot meter, set the exposure for that reading in that Zone. Therefore I only takes slightly longer than a matrix reading. But most of my photographs are done using the matrix reading, then Zone readings and last Incident readings.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have. I went through the whole film testing regime of the BTZS. Did all the densitometry, ran everything through the computer program and have the charts of contrast, effective film speed, developing times etc. Bought the app for my phone, and it can accommodate two ways of metering: incident and spot.

As a test, I picked a scene that had a full range of tones from deepest shadow to a white fence and did it near noon on a cloudless day where there was constant light. Metered according to the way the BTZS system tells me, and entered it into the app. Metered both ways, using two different hand held meters (incident and spot), and then as a check used the Nikon F6 matrix metering. It exactly agreed with the other ways of metering, but obviously is much quicker. It basically does the same thing as finding the scenes' brightness range, but also goes further such as ignoring an extra bright highlight like a reflection off water or chrome.

I've shot many rolls of E6 through the Nikon and the metering has never let me down. The best part is it's smart enough to detect colour as well, so knows when I'm taking a photo of snow for example. My hand held meter doesn't know that, so I have to guess at the reflectivity of the snow and estimate the compensation in my head. As you said Drew, for 8x10 E6, I'd rather know, than guess. With a hand held, I'm forced to guess.

Sure, the matrix metering an algorithm, but so is the zone system. The margins as you call it comes from film testing, including the metering system. It all plays a harmonious part in getting the correct exposure on film. I've done enough testing now to know the F6 will get it right in every type of scene I photograph.

I have never had a camera's meter reading give me a bad exposure for slides, all the way back from1966 with the Minolta SR-7 with a meter on the camera body to present. I would say that is a pretty good record.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I have. I went through the whole film testing regime of the BTZS. Did all the densitometry, ran everything through the computer program and have the charts of contrast, effective film speed, developing times etc. Bought the app for my phone, and it can accommodate two ways of metering: incident and spot.

As a test, I picked a scene that had a full range of tones from deepest shadow to a white fence and did it near noon on a cloudless day where there was constant light. Metered according to the way the BTZS system tells me, and entered it into the app. Metered both ways, using two different hand held meters (incident and spot), and then as a check used the Nikon F6 matrix metering. It exactly agreed with the other ways of metering, but obviously is much quicker. It basically does the same thing as finding the scenes' brightness range, but also goes further such as ignoring an extra bright highlight like a reflection off water or chrome.

I've shot many rolls of E6 through the Nikon and the metering has never let me down. The best part is it's smart enough to detect colour as well, so knows when I'm taking a photo of snow for example. My hand held meter doesn't know that, so I have to guess at the reflectivity of the snow and estimate the compensation in my head. As you said Drew, for 8x10 E6, I'd rather know, than guess. With a hand held, I'm forced to guess.

Sure, the matrix metering an algorithm, but so is the zone system. The margins as you call it comes from film testing, including the metering system. It all plays a harmonious part in getting the correct exposure on film. I've done enough testing now to know the F6 will get it right in every type of scene I photograph.

Thanks for the detailed and insightful response.

 

[wiltw]

Thank you for saying this! Incidentally I had recently asked in a zone system thread if anybody had compared zone system with matrix metering in practice and based on the responses I got an impression that none had.

From earlier in this thread
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-an-external-meter-by-choice.189044/page-2#post-2504748
...effectively Matrix metering vs.the Zone System exposure placement of a key tone at its inherent brightness (which is Zone V)

 

[markjwyatt]

I have. I went through the whole film testing regime of the BTZS. Did all the densitometry, ran everything through the computer program and have the charts of contrast, effective film speed, developing times etc. Bought the app for my phone, and it can accommodate two ways of metering: incident and spot.

As a test, I picked a scene that had a full range of tones from deepest shadow to a white fence and did it near noon on a cloudless day where there was constant light. Metered according to the way the BTZS system tells me, and entered it into the app. Metered both ways, using two different hand held meters (incident and spot), and then as a check used the Nikon F6 matrix metering. It exactly agreed with the other ways of metering, but obviously is much quicker. It basically does the same thing as finding the scenes' brightness range, but also goes further such as ignoring an extra bright highlight like a reflection off water or chrome.

I've shot many rolls of E6 through the Nikon and the metering has never let me down. The best part is it's smart enough to detect colour as well, so knows when I'm taking a photo of snow for example. My hand held meter doesn't know that, so I have to guess at the reflectivity of the snow and estimate the compensation in my head. As you said Drew, for 8x10 E6, I'd rather know, than guess. With a hand held, I'm forced to guess.

Sure, the matrix metering an algorithm, but so is the zone system. The margins as you call it comes from film testing, including the metering system. It all plays a harmonious part in getting the correct exposure on film. I've done enough testing now to know the F6 will get it right in every type of scene I photograph.

The only issue I see is that if the ISO number you put in is not the correct one (say you just accept box speed), then all the algorithms and matrix metering will still be wrong. So in that sense you probably still have to you probably need to go through at least part of the zone system process and determine for a specific camera/lens/film/development method what ISO number to put in. The matrix metering system has no way to know if the ISO number is correct. That being said, I have heard the F6 metering system is pretty amazing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In my experience, I can spend a whole bunch of time making spot readings, calculating zone system placements and finally coming up with an approximate exposure ( by which time the light has changed anyway because the sun went behind a cloud while I was futzing about taking a hundred million readings with my hand held meter), or I could just use the matrix meter in the F6 and get the correct value in a fraction of a second. Transfer it to the LF camera and press the shutter. Done. Correct every time.

I assume you're setting the digital cameras exact settings. Do you check clipping at either end? How do you deal with it if there?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Now that I started shooting LF I don't bracket. But when shooting MF 6x7, bracketing is cheap insurance especially in quick changing light when shooting chromes. At least with MF, two extra shots cost little compared to the other costs of traveling to the shoot, time, etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Anything centered on Zone V is de facto averaging. It's the midpoint, meter-wise, but NOT necessarily the center of the subject contrast scale. So the key in contrasty situations is to understand exactly where shadow gradation begins, and highlight texture ends, with any given film curve. Whatever Zone V is or isn't, is a lot less important then the endpoints when shooting and printing black and white media.

However, in color photography, it is helpful to know how specific hues saturate in relation to the midpoint, because we're not talking about just an abstract gray scale. But still, there are boundaries where is all falls apart; and these are also important to determine, either by direct readings or sheer experience and memory, unless the lighting balance is artificially controlled in a studio. Often around here, our fog acts like a natural softbox, and does wonderful things making color photography easier.

With black and white, the boundaries can be extended quite a bit, but still cannot be tackled generically because you have choices of film, developer, and variables like development time. So just how many years do you want to spend reprogramming matrix algorithms to merely simulate what can be done better in a few seconds with a handheld spot meter? Several times a year I go out with a Nikon and do comparative readings and shots TTL vs handheld meter, and every time, the handheld method comes out more consistent, with less wasted frames.

Of course, I don't like all my eggs in one basket, and still practice with alternate metering methods to better understand how to tweak internal metering to its best advantage in minimal gear snap-shooting situations, cause that's all I use 35mm for. Anything serious is going to involved a larger format system and generally a tripod, and hand metering exclusively. Like Allen, when I want to stretch my chances just to see what happens, I too resort to affordable 120 film rather than more expensive sheet formats.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The only issue I see is that if the ISO number you put in is not the correct one (say you just accept box speed), then all the algorithms and matrix metering will still be wrong. So in that sense you probably still have to you probably need to go through at least part of the zone system process and determine for a specific camera/lens/film/development method what ISO number to put in. The matrix metering system has no way to know if the ISO number is correct. That being said, I have heard the F6 metering system is pretty amazing.

And over the edge you go into the abyss of endless useless testing cycles until the twelfth of Never, thus never taking a photograph ever. You feel off the cliff and you are DOOMED!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now that I started shooting LF I don't bracket. But when shooting MF 6x7, bracketing is cheap insurance especially in quick changing light when shooting chromes. At least with MF, two extra shots cost little compared to the other costs of traveling to the shoot, time, etc.

Then one day it will dawn on you that you only have to be +/- half an f/stop and you will relax and start enjoying photography again.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Anything centered on Zone V is de facto averaging. It's the midpoint, meter-wise, but NOT necessarily the center of the subject contrast scale. So the key in contrasty situations is to understand exactly where shadow gradation begins, and highlight texture ends, with any given film curve. Whatever Zone V is or isn't, is a lot less important then the endpoints when shooting and printing black and white media.

However, in color photography, it is helpful to know how specific hues saturate in relation to the midpoint, because we're not talking about just an abstract gray scale. But still, there are boundaries where is all falls apart; and these are also important to determine, either by direct readings or sheer experience and memory, unless the lighting balance is artificially controlled in a studio. Often around here, our fog acts like a natural softbox, and does wonderful things making color photography easier.

With black and white, the boundaries can be extended quite a bit, but still cannot be tackled generically because you have choices of film, developer, and variables like development time. So just how many years do you want to spend reprogramming matrix algorithms to merely simulate what can be done better in a few seconds with a handheld spot meter? Several times a year I go out with a Nikon and do comparative readings and shots TTL vs handheld meter, and every time, the handheld method comes out more consistent, with less wasted frames.

Of course, I don't like all my eggs in one basket, and still practice with alternate metering methods to better understand how to tweak internal metering to its best advantage in minimal gear snap-shooting situations, cause that's all I use 35mm for. Anything serious is going to involved a larger format system and generally a tripod, and hand metering exclusively. Like Allen, when I want to stretch my chances just to see what happens, I too resort to affordable 120 film rather than more expensive sheet formats.

Drew: Please expand on your point in Bold repeated here:
Whatever Zone V is or isn't, is a lot less important then the endpoints when shooting and printing black and white media.

However, in color photography, it is helpful to know how specific hues saturate in relation to the midpoint, because we're not talking about just an abstract gray scale.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Half an f-stop off might as well be ten miles off if color chrome film is involved. But I like to be precise, regardless, or else casual precedents become bad habits. Of course, if the scene contrast itself is mild, then we can take advantage of that. But skating on the edge, nope. If often out in extreme 12-stop scenes where it's difficult to get any film to handle it without disappointing compression or minus dev nonsense, so even with a long scale film like TMax, I meter the shadow values especially carefully. Under soft box conditions of morning fog under the redwoods and old growth firs, there's more contrast than one might initially think, but nothing like when the sun comes out and there's a maximum differential between deep shade and sparkly bare twigs - I love the challenge, but it is a challenge.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Then one day it will dawn on you that you only have to be +/- half an f/stop and you will relax and start enjoying photography again.

You might need 1/3 of stop with chromes as I usually shoot Velvia 50.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Then one day it will dawn on you that you only have to be +/- half an f/stop and you will relax and start enjoying photography again.

You might need 1/3 of stop with chromes as I usually shoot Velvia 50.

Now you are getting the program.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan, the priority in color photography is identifying which color in the picture are most important to you, and how to best expose them for sake of optimal hue saturation itself. For example, brilliant sunlit green foliage often saturates about a stop above the 18% midpoint, deep forest greens about a stop below. Take something like a MacBeth Color Checker Chart, and compare the actual middle neutral gray reading to those of all the actual color patches and you'll note quite a range. Of course, actual colors in nature don't behave quite like printed color patches. But the concept of saturation of specific colors is all-important to color photography itself.

Velvia is especially good at differentiating certain kinds of green hues, but only if you're within a tight range, exposure-wise. Otherwise, the specific character or flavor of the hue is going to be lost down in the abyss of mere darkness, one direction, or become bleached out and un-saturated the other direction.

But that is not important in b&w photography except as it is pertains to the panchromatic gray scale itself, as well as how we alter the values in the scene using colored contrast filters. Middle gray is just a meter centering index in that case. But the printable endpoints, both in the shadows and in the highlights, are really what is most important to measure instead, especially outdoors under varying natural rather than controlled studio lighting conditions.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, the priority in color photography is identifying which color in the picture are most important to you, and how to best expose them for sake of optimal hue saturation itself. For example, brilliant sunlit green foliage often saturates about a stop above the 18% midpoint, deep forest greens about a stop below. Take something like a MacBeth Color Checker Chart, and compare the actual middle neutral gray reading to those of all the actual color patches and you'll note quite a range. Of course, actual colors in nature don't behave quite like printed color patches. But the concept of saturation of specific colors is all-important to color photography itself.

Velvia is especially good at differentiating certain kinds of green hues, but only if you're within a tight range, exposure-wise. Otherwise, the specific character or flavor of the hue is going to be lost down in the abyss of mere darkness, one direction, or become bleached out and un-saturated the other direction.

But that is not important in b&w photography except as it is pertains to the panchromatic gray scale itself, as well as how we alter the values in the scene using colored contrast filters. Middle gray is just a meter centering index in that case. But the printable endpoints, both in the shadows and in the highlights, are really what is most important to measure instead, especially outdoors under varying natural rather than controlled studio lighting conditions.

Maybe I'm missing something. Regarding chromes, I don't see how worrying about hues helps much. What control do I have? I'm trying to get the right exposure. Isn't that the setting once determined? Then the colors fall where they fall. If it's the wrong scene for Velvia, well, I can't control that except not take the picture. But I can't change the exposure, can I?

Regarding BW, since I don't use the zone system or push or pull (maybe I should). I'm looking to capture the full range from black to white if possible. So I;m using the histogram and clipping points to determine mid range. . I might add a 1/2 stop more exposure just for good measure. Suggestions?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan - "Right" depends on the specific hues in the scene you're prioritizing on, as well as the overall range you hope to bag. Regardless, Velvia doesn't have much wiggle room unless the scene is softly lit.

I won't go into histograms here. Unrelated and elliptical. If that is how you are comfortable working, fine. And what "full range" in black and white means all depends on the kind of film and development involved, for which there is no one-shoe-size-fits-all formula. But otherwise, yes, when in doubt when shooting b&w, and you want to protect shadow values, give a bit extra exposure.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

OK Thanks.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have never had a camera's meter reading give me a bad exposure for slides, all the way back from1966 with the Minolta SR-7 with a meter on the camera body to present. I would say that is a pretty good record.

There is something about knowing ones light meter well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is something about knowing ones light meter well.

For one, do not include the sky in the light meter reading.

 

[Alan Gales]

For one, do not include the sky in the light meter reading.

 

[Alan Gales]

I can't afford to have a camera matrix program guess for me. I need to know the specifics before I pop the shutter. Go out and buy a box of 8X10 color film these days, and a big wide roll of color paper, then compute what you're time is worth, and if you're ever going to able to replicate a particular shot, and most likely not - and then you'll start to think just like me. Then in black and white applications, standing at the edge of a shimmering ice field and needing to know exactly where those high values are going to land on the film curve, and at the other extreme the deepest shadows - and what the heck good is TTL matrix metering in those cases?

Or course, the digi crowd would tell you to just resort to HDR for handling high contrast, and the Zonie darkroom practitioners would advise you to resort to serious minus or pull or compensation development. But not all of us like soggy pancakes, watered-down coffee, or blaaah images with most off the life and sparkle stomped out of them. I'd rather skate right to the edges of the rink of linear film response; and therefore it's important to establish exactly where those boundaries are.

I used to own a Pentax 645Nll medium format camera. I was amazed at the matrix meter in it. Later on I shot Nikon D cameras for sports photography. I loved the matrix metering. I think it's great for 35mm too.

Shooting 8x10 is expensive just like you said. I use a Pentax digital spot meter for my 8x10



HDR is photography's version of Autotune for singers. It's just not real to me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm. I can't even remember when I last used the TTL meter on my Pentax 6x7. In fact, I have to pause to remember which 6x7 body has the meter prism and which the plain one. Pentax 645's are somewhat different animals because they were marketed to the wedding crowd to a certain extent, who often needed those quickie exposure bells n whistles. Journalism, spots, and wildlife photography is often analogous, though I suspect digital has largely taken over in all those categories. Wish I had a small convenience roll film camera with me today just driving around town a for scheduled minor chores like the bank and picking up some C41 developed film; the light was fantastic.

I stopped subscribing to Natl Geo once the pictures started getting patently digitish, including HDR, and the editorial content got just too predictably politicized. Don't want to see and hear it all again there too. The combination of flat versus glossy paper made it even worse. They've never been much in terms of serious "art" photography, but at least the pictures in the past matched the journalistic stories reasonably energetically. Now the look resembles week-old soggy milk toast.

 

[CMoore]

You might need 1/3 of stop with chromes as I usually shoot Velvia 50.

Just curious............i have only shot Provia. It is fine for my needs.
Do you prefer Velvia quite a bit more.?
Thank You