Spot Meter of Shadows from a distance

[ki6mf]

i am looking for how you read shadows from a distance. I get the impression the ambient light is throwing my meter readings off when the shadows is several hundred feet/meters away. Any thoughts on what adjustments? I know i can shoot a backup and adjust exposure or change ISO readings to tweak the reading. Anything else I can do?

[mikebarger]

I measure shadows from the shooting position and, so far :), haven't had a problem. I make enough other mistakes though.

Mike

[Louie Powell]

I would expect that the error introduced into a spot reading by ambient light and/or glare would be so random that there is no way to do a precise compensation.

So the best you can do is bracket. Do one exposure based on the indicated reading. Then, if you are concerned that the reading was biased by ambient light, expose one or more additional sheets with increased exposure.

The issue of ambient bias is a good argument for a 1 degree spot meter, and is also why Fred Picker offered special versions of both the Pentax and Soligor meter that were modified with improved baffling to reduce ambient bias.

[mikebarger]

I think Wally was using a spotmeter.

Mike

[photographs42]

In most cases you can measure a similar shadow that is close to you. Remember that the shadow value is a combination of science and judgment. The numbers don’t lie, but you have to make a judgment call on what value you want the shadows to be. Light falloff isn’t a factor when dealing with the sun. If something close to you is receiving the same light the shadows should measure the same.
Jerome

[Paul Kierstead]

I get the impression the ambient light is throwing my meter readings off when the shadows is several hundred feet/meters away.

Some good suggestions above, but I am wondering what gives you that impression? Certainly I could see that some spot meters (assuming you are talking about spot meters) could have flare problems if you were facing a very bright light (eg. sun). You could try taking a reading, then shading the lens of the spot meter and taking another and seeing if there is a difference, or even fashioning a quick hood (just as an experiment) to see if your particularly meter is prone to this.

[Jim Michael]

Atmospheric haze can be a factor as particulate matter reflects light and increases in quantity with distance.

[Sevo]

Atmospheric haze and in-meter glare should not alter the light intensity any more than on the camera image - a spot meter effectively is a SLR with a CdS or silicone cell in place of the film.

Even on the Sekonic ViewSpot, which is somewhat less complex than other dedicated spot meters, the meter does not deflect any different if I point a very bright light at its lens - for practical purposes that should be good enough. YMMV when it comes to directional attachments for regular meters, if only because they have very vague spot boundaries.

Sevo

[Jim Michael]

My point was that as your distance changes the reading of the shadow may change due to the contribution from haze, i.e. the contrast changes.

[Mark Sawyer]

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.)

There might be some differences when using a spot meter with an uncoated lens, but taking with a coated lens, or vice-versa, or if you're using lenses with diffusion properties, numerous uncoated air-glass surfaces, etc. That's why I use a special spot meter with interchangeable lensboards so I can meter through my taking lens. It accepts up to 9" square lensboards so I can meter through the really big Petzvals, then switch them to my studio camera for the exposure...

...okay, no, not really. :rolleyes:

[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.

[philipmorg]

It's pretty easy to make a lens shade for your spot meter (http://www.philipmorgan.net/11/pentax-digital-spot-lens-hoodshade/).

I have done this with my Pentax digital spot (the same design works with the analogue Pentax spot meter) and believe that it was worth the effort.

I've had more potentially good negatives messed up by underexposure than any other technical issue. Reducing flare in my meter by using a lens hood helps avoid metering errors that would lead to underexposure, especially in high-flare or backlit situations.

I use a masked compendium shade (http://www.philipmorgan.net/323/a-new-compendium-for-my-sinar-norma/) on every exposure, and so I believe the low flare of my camera is pretty well matched to the low flare of my meter.

http://philipmorgan.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/p1040569.JPG

[Robert Hughes]

Even better, use a tripod leg. But then the camera would fall over... never mind.

[Frank Petronio]

Hell use a full roll of TP, kill two birds with one stone.

Could letting the shadows fall half a stop up or down the scale ever really matter? If you look at a variety of near and far shadows you should be able to interpolate/guess at a value.

[philipmorg]

"Could letting the shadows fall half a stop up or down the scale ever really matter?"

In +2 or +4 development situations it can matter. In a N development situation, it can probably be compensated for during printing unless the half a stop down created blank film where slight texture was intended.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah but if you're doing that big a push in that extreme lighting, the wisest choice is to shoot a bracket anyway ;-)

[philipmorg]

"the wisest choice is to shoot a bracket anyway"

Agreed! Film is inexpensive compared to lost opportunities.

[Barrie B.]

"the wisest choice is to shoot a bracket anyway"

Agreed! Film is inexpensive compared to lost opportunities.

One degree angle of a SPOT Meter will read a much smaller area ten feet away than 100 feet away or 400 feet away ; it will also depend upon the SHADOW size ;

I would think with the same sun in the sky making the shadow that reading a shadow area near the camera position would be better and more accurate. None the less a good lens-hood on the meter would help.
...........Cheers Barrie B.

[Robert Hughes]

This thread exposes the tendency of some people to major in minors. Perhaps we're getting too old for this. :D

A failing of young photographers is they take so many bad shots; a failing of older, experienced photogs is they spend so much time fiddling and second-guessing themselves they miss the shot.

[Ken Lee]

If there were one of these shades, in a collapsable form, at a reasonable price, I would get one.

Faithful meter reading is why we get a 1-degree meter in the first place. Why bracket when you don't need to ?

[Robert Hughes]

Here's a collapsable drinking cup. Perhaps something like this could be repurposed:
http://image.lehmans.com/lehmans/Images/products/large/1022680.jpg

[Ken Lee]

Here's a collapsable drinking cup. Perhaps something like this could be repurposed:
http://image.lehmans.com/lehmans/Images/products/large/1022680.jpg

Great minds thing alike !

I used cups like that as a boy, when camping in the woods. (At least I had to carry one).

Reflective paint aside, is it narrow enough ? Phillip's design is really... baffling. By that I mean, it really baffles. By that I mean, it really shields the meter.

Although I have to admit, Frank's TP solution does kill 2 birds with one stone.

Plus, it has all the right attributes: It's available everywhere. It's small, light, affordable - even recyclable ! In an era when it's never been more true that good ideas don't grow on trees, the TP... does !

Joking aside, I'd still use one if they were available.

[philipmorg]

"Why so long a tube?"

To fully shade the lens. The shade I use is not my own design. It is a copy of the design that John Wimberley uses.

--Philip.