Wide vs Narrow Field Metering

I have a difficult time of it convincing myself
that narrow or spot metering is the way to go.
Years ago a Weston metered many of my shots
and don't recall any difficulties encountered other
than those when spot metering.

I recall Phil Davis espousing the use of incident
metering. Nothing more wide field than that. May
be that some who have gone wide will make some
suggestions. Wide again? Dan

It is possible to get good results in most situations both ways, but in some situations one method works best.

If the lighting where you are standing is very different from the light falling on a distant subject, then spot metering is ideal.

In the studio, where you usually are photographing objects that reflect light in a normal way and you don't have to balance, say, the shade of a tree with bright clouds, you can use incident readings to determine the lighting ratio and exposure.

In the studio you can control contrast by controlling the light. In the field, where you usually can't control the light except by waiting for it, you've got the Zone System, BTZS, and similar approaches.

I prefer an incident meter. Not that I've abandoned reflective. They are all tools that get you where you want to go when used properly. Sometimes I study a scene with a spot and an incident meter.

A spot meter is useful for measuring the brightness range of the subject, helps to avoid suprises (ie blocked shadows/blowen out highlights).

dancqu said:

I have a difficult time of it convincing myself
that narrow or spot metering is the way to go.

Click to expand...

I think it is a matter of the degree of control one desires when it comes to their materials and their own processes.

It is the way to go if you want to be in complete and total control of the how the the most important shadow value and the most important highlight value in the scene are rendered on the negative in terms of negative density values.

IMO, it boils down to how much control you wish to maintain. With a wide field reflective reading, say, 30 deg that I would get from my Luna Pro F, IMO, you have less control over the actual negative density values from important reflective surfaces and thus less control over the final print values of those surfaces. Yes, I know there are things like dodging and burning to control print values. But, since I have learned the ZS (I'm sure BTZS methods are good for those who use that), I have found it is so completely true that a most satisfying negative is one that gives you your final desired result without too much difficulty in the dodging and burning stages. I find no glory in successfully printing a poorly executed negative; in fact, I find it a pain in the ass. But I find complete elation in seeing my negative, with all the important detail where desired and in the densities I anticpated. IMHO, the spot meter gives me a high degree of control to achieve that.

In my photographic experiences, I have exposed more film using wide field reflective readings than I have from using a spot meter. But I have many more satisfying images from the use of a spot meter than I have from the use of the other. I feel, ultimately, it is because I have more control over my processes and materials since I have learned to use a spot meter effectively.

Chuck

Chuck1 said:

the spot meter gives me a high degree of control to achieve that. . . I have more control over my processes and materials since I have learned to use a spot meter effectively.

Click to expand...

Dear Chuck,

Seconded, with a rider. Just as using ANY meter enables you to guess exposures better as you gain experience, so does using a spot meter help you to guess brightness ranges better, sooner.

This in turn means that with any reading, even incident, you learn how to 'fudge' the reading in order to get the result you want -- though of course, you can learn the same with any other meter over time.

I use a spot meter less than I used to, because I can get a lot closer than I used to with any meter I use, even an in-camera meter. For ultimate accuracy, though, I totally agree a spot meter is unbeatable.

Allegedly, AA himself said that when he got a spot meter, he found himself averaging a stop more exposure on the majority of his pics; but I cannot find the origin of that assertion.

Of course, all this is for negative only, where exposures are keyed to the shadows. For slides, where exposures are keyed to the highlights, incident ('artificial highlight') metering is usually (though not always) quicker and easier.

Cheers,

Roger

Does anyone use an incident meter to (grossly) measure scene brightness range?

I was doing some shooting out in the mountains yesterday, and as I saw it there were two discrete types of illumination -- sunlit and shade, and both had a reasonably narrow brightness range internally.

So I took an incident reading in sunlight, a second incident reading in shade, and it allowed me to pick an intermediate exposure value. I figured the readings in sunlight and shade were the same near me as they were on the distant landscape features, because it was the same light source and the same source of shadow (clouds and trees).

This was on 8x10 slide film, so I wanted to protect both highlights and shadows, and I wasn't intending to use a zone system approach.



For subjects in full sunlight, when I'm shooting slide film, I don't meter anymore. My incident meter always gives me 1/125 at f/11 -- and it always seems to work. So I'll adjust those settings for equivalent EV if I need to, or adjust them for a different ISO speed. But I usually know that that's my starting point with slide film in sunlight.

DrPablo said:

I figured the readings in sunlight and shade were the same near me as they were on the distant landscape features, because it was the same light source and the same source of shadow (clouds and trees).

Click to expand...

Dear Paul,

Except that the distant brightness range is smaller because of atmospheric haze (aerial perspective). Dunn gives an example on pp 181-183 of Exposure Meters and Practical Exposure Control, The Fountain Press, London 1952, with a 4x (two stop) difference in shadow readings at 180 feet, 60 feet and 6 feet.

This will not affect highlights significantly, so it doesn't really matter much with tranny, but with neg, obviously it could matter a lot.

The narrow ranges within two separately lit areas are, as far as I recall, addressed elsewhere in the book and described as 'double lighting'. If you can find a copy it's a fascinating book, which taught me more about exposure theory than anything else I have ever read.

Cheers,

Roger

With enough experience and consistency you can do well with either system. For myself however, I shoot transparencies. I use a spot meter to measure highlights of the hottest "spot(s)" and to then correct my exposure by about 1 1/2 stops to hold detail.

Rich

[QUOTES=Roger Hicks;517471]
"Seconded, with a rider. Just as using ANY meter enables
you to guess exposures better as you gain experience, so
does using a spot meter help you to guess brightness ranges
better, sooner."

ANY meter. Well there is a concession to wide field metering.
The discussion so far I believe is slanted towards sheet film use.
Roll film users are less preoccupied with SBR. How could they
be otherwise with often little more than a point-and-shoot
way of exposing the film to light?

"Of course, all this is for negative only, where exposures are
keyed to the shadows." Cheers, Roger

That's what I was doing; shadow detail is two or three stops
down. My last roll was metered differently. Using an old was
Hg powered Sekonic eight degree Zoom I looked for those
important Zone 5 +/- expanses. Remindful of center
weighted metering!

As you've mentioned improved guessing and I might add improved
assessing come with experience. Dan