Metering through filters, exposure comensation

[steve simmons]

from Jorge

"According to what I read on Hutchings book the filetr factor does not change according to the light temperature or time of day, so how is really that this method takes into account the color of the subject?"

this is what Isaid

"They take into account the reflective surface and color of the subject as well as the color of the light at the time of day the photograph is being taken. "

The factordoes not change. What does change is the meter's reading at through the filter at different times of the day as the color temp of the light changes and the meter's reading changes also depending in the color of the reflective surface which is also somewhat influenced by the color temp of the light. It is a very fluid system that takes into account the changing variables that photographers working outdoors encounter all of the time.

again from Jorge

"...and guess this is why Mr. Simmons does not like tabular films, because he does not know how they work and the spectral response they have."

This is Jorge trying to pick a fight. He is completly misrepresenting my position in this matter. As I have stated many times I do not like the T-Mazx films becasue I do not get the tones I like, especially in the mid values. I also find that they are fussy and the people who do the best with them mechanically process the film so they have rigid control over time and temp and agitation. I prefer to process my films in trays.

As Kirk Gittings stated above Gordon has done extensive testing and his methods work. Jorge is a known antagonist to people who do not follow his dogma and can become abusive and insulting to people who disagree with him. This is my last post. If Jorge wants to try and fan the flames he can do it on his own. There are other successful methods beyond what he preaches.

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

"In contrast take my method of testing filter factors. I meter a gray card, get an exposure recommendation and add the manufacturer's recommended filter factor."

I did this similarly for 20 plus years and found Gordon's method (with my caveat about shadow placement) much more accurate. As a rule though I never try and make meter readings off of strongly colored areas if I can help it, red or otherwise. But, I never found manufacturer's recommended filter factor to be accurate and neither did Gordon and that what drove him to devise his method.

Although I always shoot two negatives of a scene, that is for insurance against my occasional stupid processing mistakes or dust. I have not found the need to bracket exposures on either color or b&w negatives in years when in constant lighting conditions. In rapidly changing lighting conditions I do bracket for obvious reasons.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I did this similarly for 20 plus years and found Gordon's method (with my caveat about shadow placement) much more accurate. As a rule though I never try and make meter readings off of strongly colored areas if I can help it, red or otherwise. But, I never found manufacturer's recommended filter factor to be accurate and neither did Gordon and that what drove him to devise his method.

Well, apparently you did not read all of my post. I said I used the manufacturer's filter factor as an initial baseline, the final factor is determined by the exposure and development that gives me a negative with a density of 0.65 developed to an average gradient of 0.67.

Regardless of the shadow placement your meter cell color bias is influenced by metering through the filter. Not so in my case.

There are other successful methods beyond what he preaches.

Yep, and there are other methods which are more accurate and successful if one understands the science part of photography. I posted the metering through the filter never worked for me, and have subsequently posted my reasoning and methodology for all to see....you, on the other hand only post "it works for me" although you do not know why nor can you explain the basis of your statements.

Seems to me the one who gets upset about someone posting other methods other than what you preach is you Mr. Simmons.

[Brian Ellis]

I've never found any system of adjusting exposure for filter factors that works perfectly all the time. I've tried taking a reading through the meter, using filter factors , and taking a reading through the meter and then adding additional exposure based on the numbers in a table that was published in View Camera magazine a few years ago (I'm not familiar with Gordon Hutchings' method, maybe this table was based on his method). The latter system worked the best of the three methods with an in-camera averaging type meter but it didn't work as well for me with a spot meter.

I think there are too many variables involved to get everything right every time - differences between the film's response and the meter's response, the fact that few scenes contain only a single color, the different responses of different films to different colors (Jorge's point about Tmax sensitivity to blue skies is absolutely correct, that's one I learned the hard way), etc. Fortunately the latitude of b&w film usually makes up for these variables and I'm able to get good negatives most of the time just using the filter manufacturer's factors.

One thing I've learned (and unfortunately have to periodically re-learn) is that it's a very bad idea to put a filter on the lens, take a reading, and then forget to adjust the reading for the filter. That isn't a good system at all.