Spot Meter of Shadows from a distance

[Paul Kierstead]

Any flare from the "ambient light", atmospheric haze, flare, etc, that appears in the spot metering stage should be fairly closely replicated by the taking lens at the same distance, presuming the lens in the spot meter has semi-similar charactaristics as the taking lens, (both being multi-coated, etc.)

Hooding would generally differentiate them, I think. My spot meter at least has "glass" at the very front; almost all my lenses use *some* amount of recess, though admittedly not much. But generally I shade a lens or use a hood if light is shining directly on it. No so on my meter.

[Steven Barall]

That atmospheric haze will be part of the photo so a light reading that includes it would be the correct reading? Is this correct?

If it bugs you that much, like someone else said, just take a reading from the shadow on the ground next to you. Good luck.

[Chuck P.]

All shadows are not created equal. The intensity of any shadow is relative to the height off the ground of the object or objects that are creating the shadow--------shade created by low objects is darker than shade created by higher objects. A point to keep in mind.

[jeroldharter]

Another source of potential error is that the spot in the spotmeter might not be the precise spot that is metered. So you might get an errant reading of a very small spot. Of course, you should shield the spotmeter from flare, perhaps by using a lens hood like you would with any other lens.

Other than that your only choices are to bracket around your estimate or try to simulate the distant shadow with a reading of a similar near shadow. I do this using an incident meter and it works well. Easier to simulate shadows than distant bright sun though.

[ki6mf]

Good comments all! I do meter shadows not in the scene with my Pentax V. I think bracket a backup or 2nd negative is the way to go!

[Michael Wainfeld]

One of Fred Pickers Zone VI videos shows him walking up close to the area he wants to meter and taking a reading from one or two feet away. So you don't necessarily have to meter from the camera position. But I suppose that's not practical if the spot is hundreds of feet away.

[Thebes]

Going up to a shadow, you risk tracking up your foreground and that might be an issue (as with snow or sand, etc).

My (stock and seen better days) Soligor flares pretty badly, I choose similar shadows as I can. Often light can change too quickly to walk up to the shadow area if its not close.

[Arne Croell]

Hooding would generally differentiate them, I think. My spot meter at least has "glass" at the very front; almost all my lenses use *some* amount of recess, though admittedly not much. But generally I shade a lens or use a hood if light is shining directly on it. No so on my meter.

I actually have hoods on my spot meters; at least the Pentax V and Pentax digital, the Gossen Ultraspot, and the Sekonic L-778 allow the attachment of filters and hoods. It is only a problem to do that with the multifunctional meters like the Gossen Starlite etc.

[timbo10ca]

I have noticed I get higher readings when metering shadows at a distance and end up underexposing the negs. I asked a couple knowledgable people about this and they told me to either get closer to the shadow or meter off my own shadow/something nearby. Same can be used for BTZS. The problem I was having is that at a distance, not everything within the one degree spot is shadow- there are highlights there as well. Once I started getting closer, my negs stopped being underexposed. If I can't get closer or meter off my own shadow, I place shadows with detail on zone4 instead of 3 and it works pretty well. This takes a little bit of guessing though, depending on the subject, the shadows and the light. It's usually pretty easy to find something nearby that is in the same shadow as your subject....

[mandoman7]

A half a stop discrepancy in a distant shadow will not ruin a composition, yet fiddling with meter readings for 10 minutes will help you lose some shots.

Like so many aspects of photography, it seems likely that a few tests would produce the answers needed. If you 've shot in a light haze (atmospherically, not mentally ) and taken notes about the shadow readings, and then made notes about the resulting look in prints, you begin to develop an understanding of your meter's behaviour and how to work with it.

IMO, precision is found in the understanding and familiarity we have with our equipment, along with the experience of having shot in similar lighting before. In a lot of instances, it seems like workers purchase expensive equipment to help them avoid some useful trial and error. Its me on my soapbox again, but when I think of the work I admired in my early career, very little of it was accomplished with sophisticated meters.