What would Hollywood do?

[BrianShaw]

Gosh... I don't know how all this gets so complicated. I use the same spotmeter and method for people as for a rock or tree and have never
botched an exposure, even in bright sunlight, and even given the fact that this neighborhood is one of the most ethnically diverse in the entire
continent. Just use the meter you are accustomed to.

I feel the same way. just with an incident meter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How is this all that different from shoot wedding photographs with a bride's very bright white dress and the groom's black on black tuxedo outside in the Sun?

 

[BrianShaw]

Same. Same.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

What's this thread about?
In hollywierd, it'd be an incident meter.
No one in hollywood really uses spot meters any more except for reading lamp shades or when lighting green screen. A DSLR has become the preferred tool when lighting for film, even when lighting for digihell because the "monitor" is essentially held in the cameraman's hand and not off the set in a tent somewhere.

That's because Hollywood is dumbed-down just like the rest of this country.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

How is this all that different from shoot wedding photographs with a bride's very bright white dress and the groom's black on black tuxedo outside in the Sun?

It's NOT... but that's wedding photography. When one has the ability to control exposure and development to make a fine INDIVIDUAL image then they should... if they have the skills. Wedding photography does NOT lend itself to this type of individualistic CONTROL over every image.

 

[Dismayed]

Reflective readings are crucial for the Zone System. For average-contrast scenes, generally just use incident.

Your example of all light or dark-skinned subjects is a bit different. You want sufficient detail in darker tones with the later, so additional exposure could be warranted. Light-skinned perhaps a bit less exposure. A mix of complexions? Incident. Or use flash to raise the darker tones.

 

[David Lyga]

Reflective readings are crucial for the Zone System. For average-contrast scenes, generally just use incident.

Your example of all light or dark-skinned subjects is a bit different. You want sufficient detail in darker tones with the later, so additional exposure could be warranted. Light-skinned perhaps a bit less exposure. A mix of complexions? Incident. Or use flash to raise the darker tones.

Thus, Dismayed, finally I am not dismayed because you speak of, confirm, what I try to say.

In the extreme circumstance I originally imparted, there must be a compromise of the two metering systems. The reflectance reading will be too 'polarized' and the incident reading will be too 'egalitarian'. There has to be a difference in exposure for the two scenes even although both scenes are lit identically. But this difference has to be attenuated, lessened, because they ARE, after all, lit identically.

I think that such compromise will produce the best negatives, negatives which are generous with shadow detail and also not too contrasty. Thus, EV 10 for the Africans and EV 12 for the Scandinavians. - David Lyga

 

[cowanw]

Thinking of this thread, I came across this image.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/dec/24/best-portraits-of-2014-in-pictures#img-3
I think this is an example of the deepness of shadow and black that you reference.
Firstly, let me say, I have no experience with this type of subject.
However, looking at this young man's face on the left side, our right side, there is basically textureless dark. Even the lit side of the face is (on his extreme right face) tectured black.
This young man's face really is only modelled by the reflection of specular light, which is difficult to read with a meter.
His shirt is not over (or extra) exposed, so I expect this was shot equivalently to a incident meter or perhaps reflectively off of a grey card sort of metering.
The whole idea of metering is so interpretive, I expect that I would need to see prints of the different options, but I don't see that giving this scene more exposure (based on the blackness of the face) would improve it.
(And yes I know the whole image is not real to us. Please pretend.)

 

[cowanw]

See here, especially Ole's post.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Truzi]

If I only focus on the question of "What would Hollywood do?" I'd say they wouldn't meter or even control the lighting. Instead, they'd create the entire scene with CGI - even if it cost more and did not look realistic.

(Good thread, though. I'm taking notes, as my best friend's pasty-white sister adopted a couple African American children, and this will be useful when photographing them together. Though, to be honest, we love the kids, so would meter them correctly and not care if her sister was blown out, lol.)

 

[David Lyga]

Thinking of this thread, I came across this image.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/dec/24/best-portraits-of-2014-in-pictures#img-3
I think this is an example of the deepness of shadow and black that you reference.
Firstly, let me say, I have no experience with this type of subject.
However, looking at this young man's face on the left side, our right side, there is basically textureless dark. Even the lit side of the face is (on his extreme right face) tectured black.
This young man's face really is only modelled by the reflection of specular light, which is difficult to read with a meter.
His shirt is not over (or extra) exposed, so I expect this was shot equivalently to a incident meter or perhaps reflectively off of a grey card sort of metering.
The whole idea of metering is so interpretive, I expect that I would need to see prints of the different options, but I don't see that giving this scene more exposure (based on the blackness of the face) would improve it.
(And yes I know the whole image is not real to us. Please pretend.)

This is a very effective portrait: nothing is lost through underexposure and the personality does come through boldly. I just do not like the apparent shorter focal length, making the shoulder too large and protrusive. - David

 

[David Lyga]

If I only focus on the question of "What would Hollywood do?" I'd say they wouldn't meter or even control the lighting. Instead, they'd create the entire scene with CGI - even if it cost more and did not look realistic.

Truzi, in practical, pragmatic terms you are correct: technology to the rescue.

I meant theoretically, however, given only standard means of metering available within one's arsenal. - David Lyga

 

[mopar_guy]

What they would actually do on a movie set would be to change the lighting to something that works by using artificial light.