Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Incident metering: Hope my confusion will be resolved with this.

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Durango CO
    Posts
    627

    Re: Incident metering: Hope my confusion will be resolved with this.

    Dunn and Wakefield, Exposure Manual
    You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. ~ Mark Twain

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Durango CO
    Posts
    627

    Re: Incident metering: Hope my confusion will be resolved with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leigh View Post
    If your gray card differs significantly from an incident reading, you're not using the card correctly.
    A direct reading of the gray card is not Intended to be the camera setting, it's just a reference point.

    Don't have it handy but the Kodak instructions have an offset for the gray card so that you can figure out the camera setting.

    Most any surface can be used as long as the offset is known and the target is used consistently.
    You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. ~ Mark Twain

  3. #13

    Re: Incident metering: Hope my confusion will be resolved with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Nicholls View Post
    Hi baachitraka, are you actually using the BTZS [system] as intended - full paper test and full film test and exposure carried out based on the data provide and then the film developed as per the tests conducted with your film developer combination that has been exposed to the recommended camera settings using either a spot or incident meter? If not you are very much trying to ram a hexagonal peg into non existent round hole. It may be Mark that has information on a book using 2 incident readings in general photography and that could be very helpful to you but you cannot pick and choose info from BTZS and expect much more than confusion. The book Mark suggests may initially offer more help. BTZS is not confusing in the least. It does however have a steep initial learning curve as you jettison many old habits.

    When metering with digital incident meters they must in most cases be set to 100 iso to give correct EV readings.

    If none of what I have written is applicable please ignore.
    I am still learning this method and the initial confusion was this discrepancy. So, I was thinking to sort this out first. Atleast for me it will take some more time to understand it very clearly.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    5,310

    Re: Incident metering: Hope my confusion will be resolved with this.

    Instead of worrying too much about "resolving" the issue mentally, how about just metering, take notes, bracket, and then see which negative prints the best. Issue will then be resolved for all your personal factors (meter, how you use it, developer type, development method et al)!

    I know, I know -- too simple...

    Vaughn

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Durango CO
    Posts
    627

    Re: Incident metering: Hope my confusion will be resolved with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by baachitraka View Post
    I am still learning this method and the initial confusion was this discrepancy. So, I was thinking to sort this out first. Atleast for me it will take some more time to understand it very clearly.
    Part of the confusion may be that, as I understand it, the ISO standard isn't an absolute. The standard is actually a range.

    Adams complained about the K factor along these lines too.

    In many systems there are "black boxes" that we sometimes need to accept on faith. I work on industrial engines and Caterpillar uses electronic boxes that they won't tell you how they work. All you can get from them is what to expect out of it with a certain input. Similarly I don't know how my Sekonic meter does its thing.

    Vaughn's suggestion is, at it's essence, the same suggestion Steve is making. Do the testing.

    The suggested methods are very different but the result is the same. The testing calibrates you and the system you use. If you change the system you need to retest.

    Part of this is that you do certain things intuitively, you don't even know your doing them but they affect the result.

    Agitation methods are an example, yours and mine are different without question, that effects the results/density we each get at different points on our curves.

    Temperature differences are another. How we round our readings.

    Our lenses are different so flare affects your shots differently than mine.

    What we take pictures of is different and what we want them to look like is different.

    The list is long and these factors all weigh on how we decide on exposure settings.

    You need to burn film and build experience with any system to be able to "get it".
    You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. ~ Mark Twain

Similar Threads

  1. Incident metering advice
    By welly in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19-Mar-2012, 08:50
  2. Transparency Film and Incident Metering
    By mdm in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2011, 09:44
  3. Incident Metering Again. BTZS.
    By Sinar-Man in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 31-Aug-2010, 22:13
  4. Talk me off the incident metering cliff
    By Chris CS in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 30-Aug-2010, 20:03
  5. Metering confusion
    By coops in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 3-Aug-2009, 15:45

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •