Talk me off the incident metering cliff

[Chris CS]

I bought an Sekonic L-398A to use with my new 4x5 camera. My previous experience being medium format and digital with built in meters.

The incident meter works as I'd expect indoors or outside in shade. I'm having problems when it comes to sunlit subjects outdoors (what I almost always shoot as a street photographer)

I made some example pictures today to illustrate the problem (excuse the digital/test images ;p)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51377663@N02/4781506801/
First I metered the scene as I understood incident meters are to be used

[Rick A]

Incident metering is normally done by holding the meter in front of the subject being photographed and pointing it back toward the camera, exposing the photocell to the same light falling on the subject. If thats not possible, then hold the meter in approximatly the same light as the subject and take the reading. I've been using an L-398 for years, its one of the finest meters on the market. Have you read the instruction manual for it, its very explicit on how to meter for all situations. If your subject is in bright sun, but you cannot get next to it to meter, just hold the meter out in the bright sun and take a reading. This will give you the correct exposure. If its in shade, try to get a reading in the same approximate lighting, once again, correct exposure. I will assume you know when to insert the "high" slide, as well as using the lumidisc or other accessories.
BTW, I dont see any images on your post(just the little red x in a box)

[Chris CS]

Clicked 'Submit' instead of 'Preview' then my internet connection failed and it was too late to edit.

Here are the images. This was an winter afternoon in New Zealand. About 2:30pm with the sun somewhat low but still intense.

I used the 'high-slide' and metered like so. Meter says 320 foot-candles/15EV.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4781506801_acdbd3b6bb.jpg

Set the 'H' mark to 320 gives us F16, 1/125 at 100iso.

Results appear badly underexposed.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4781506215_bd6574e0c4.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4782142444_4e6705cbb5.jpg

[Chris CS]

Bracketed exposures for comparison.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4781506351_0e700d1299.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4781506379_167c3c211f.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4782142694_be4ca932a6.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4782142730_6bdc39424a.jpg

[Chris CS]

This is how the EOS 40D's reflected light meter reads the scene. Overexposed, but easy to correct for as it's expected.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4781506629_75227c2508.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4781506651_fbcaf3bf87.jpg


What am I doing wrong with the L-398? I just want accurate/consistent exposure. F11 looks true to the scene. Why is my metered result so under-exposed?

Any help much appreciated :)

[Walter Calahan]

With 100 ISO film, and exposure of 1/125 @ 16 in bright sun would an 1/3 of a stop underexposed. Your exposure should be 1/100 @ 16; thus your 1/125 @ 13 is a more accurate exposure.

If using the sunny 16 rule, you must use the reciprocal of the ISO as your shutter speed. 100 ISO film shot at 1/125 with the sunny 16 rule will result in the slightly under exposed image.

[ki6mf]

Color, Colour in the kings English! Film has a latitude like similar to black and white. The incident meters give you a reading that is calibrated to an 18% gray card. The issue you have is how may stops higher or lower are your highlights. In Color film you usually, but not always, worry about highlights. The trick is to judge what the highlights are. the range of Color film is usually, but not always around 5 stops. A stop is one full click of a shutter, the EV Scale on a meter, or aperture and lets in half or double the amount of light from the previous stop.

With this background in mind and given that it looks like you do not have a spot meter to check highlights and shadow to determine tonal range there are a couple of things you an do.

1. Take the incident meter reading in the brightest light available highlights will be two stops more. Shoot a couple of negatives changing one stop at a time. Print the negatives. This bracketing is like moving the histogram to the right in digital to get highlights correct. Over time you will develop a sense for where highlights and shadows are.

2. Get a spot meter, practice to become familiar with its use and check for tonal range.

3. Bracket your exposures and don't worry about all the testing.

4. Use a digital camera as a light meter. If you do this option I would spend some time testing the digital camera with you hand held meter. Shoot in even light. Over time you will recognize the characteristics of the light you are in and can use the incident meter and interpolate what the exposure should be.

5. While testing make sure to carry a note book and record notes on exposure shutter time of day etc. Take Notes on everything! time of day quality of light direction of light aperture and shutter etc. This is mandatory to help your figure out how to do your corrections.

One final thing if you use your digital camera the vertical lines on the LCD are equal to one full stop of exposure and if your highlights are in the middle of the 2nd to the last field you are 1.5 stops away from getting the proper highlights. Keep in mind that you may need to also change the ISO reading in your meter from what the camera ISO reads to get the same reading. I would take a meter reading with the digital camera then vary the ISO reading on the meter to "calibrate" the Digital Camera and the Meter.

This technique also works for getting shadows where you want them. In this case you would be exposing to the left on a digital camera.

Consider getting graduated neutral density filters to bring you highlights "down" into the range of your shadows to get as much tonal range as the film will allow.

[Ken Lee]

"Get a spot meter"

Exactly !

You might find this brief article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#SpotMeter) helpful.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I never did get a wrong reading with mine. I am strictly doing B&W, so one stop off must not necessarily show up though.
All what can happen is that your highlights blow out or your shadows drown (or both of cause) if you find higher contrasts in the scene than your film can manage. The middle tones alway should be okay. You did check whether the needle is adjusted to zero?

Ulrich

[Tim k]

I am assuming that your underexposed example is a film scan.

It appears to me that what you did was correct. ( of course I don't know what I'm doing )

Perhaps the issue is with the scanning process.

Edit; Or was this an all digital test?

[Mark Barendt]

Results appear badly underexposed.


If you want more shadow detail adjust the ISO setting on the meter to an EI of 50 instead of 100.

If you just want the picture to look right you need to adjust the contrast of the file to match the scene.

On the attached file all I did was slide the highlight adjustment in curves to the left.

This is essentially like using plus development or a harder paper to match the media to the scene.

[Mark Barendt]

This is how the EOS 40D's reflected light meter reads the scene. Overexposed, but easy to correct for as it's expected.
What am I doing wrong with the L-398? I just want accurate/consistent exposure. F11 looks true to the scene. Why is my metered result so under-exposed?

Any help much appreciated :)

You are not doing things wrong, there is just more going on here, it's not the meter.

The 40D is processing your shot in camera and adjusting the contrast. Go into the menu and set your 40D to it's lowest contrast setting and it will look more like the raw scan from the 4x5.

Negative film is a low contrast media and it needs to be worked to look right. The narrow histogram hump is normal.

[Juergen Sattler]

OP said it was all digital capture.

One thing I found is that I had to calibrate my incident meter. Mine was off by about 1/2 stop - which seems to be the same case with yours. Once you know the quirks of your meter, it is easy to adjust mentally.

[Mark Barendt]

OP said it was all digital capture.

One thing I found is that I had to calibrate my incident meter. Mine was off by about 1/2 stop - which seems to be the same case with yours. Once you know the quirks of your meter, it is easy to adjust mentally.

Missed that, thought it was a 4x5 scan.

Chris will still need to match the meter to what he gets from the film rather than what the 40D shows.

[D. Bryant]

Go into the menu and set your 40D to it's lowest contrast setting and it will look more like the raw scan from the 4x5.



There is no contrast setting on the 40D or any other digital camera that I know of. He can adjust the shutter speeds by 1/3 of a stop,

The OP is metering correctly.

He just needs to practice with real film and adjust his metering technique and/or ISO settings.

For B&W negative materials a shadow reading can be made by shading the meter with ones hand or body.

Don Bryant

[ic-racer]

Calibrating incident meters can be difficult without a reflective standard. Using a digital camera is an interesting alternative. The sun works also.

I couldn't tell if you are shooting transparency, negative or digital with the 4x5. In each case you may need a different calibration.

[jeroldharter]

Any meter is a measuring device that must be calibrated to your specific situation. But the meter should be consistent. So if you are just starting and you see that the meter is consistently 1/3 stop under/over exposed, then simply adjust the meter ISO setting to +/- 1/3 stop and everything will fall into place.

A spot meter is not a panacea. Spot meters have much more room for user error than an incident meter and still need to be calibrated for your situation. I used a spot meter for years doing zone system work in B&W and color transparencies. Now I almost always use an incident meter because it is faster, easier, smaller, lighter, cheaper. I find only a few situations where a spot meter would work better for landscape work.

[Mark Barendt]

There is no contrast setting on the 40D or any other digital camera that I know of.

Yes there is, for the 40D see page 63 in the owners manual (at least it's page 63 in the PDF I found online). Right there with the saturation and sharpness and tone adjustments.

Nikons can do the same thing. My daughters little Olympus P&S does the same too.

The contrast setting can even be automatic by choosing a certain camera "modes". This auto mode may even be the default as delivered on many cameras.

[Juergen Sattler]

But the OP shot RAW - there is no in-camera adjustments for RAW files.

[Mark Barendt]

But the OP shot RAW - there is no in-camera adjustments for RAW files.

Sure there are, the camera settings are embedded right in the raw file by the camera, there are even jpegs saved "as-shot" by the camera inside Raw files. There are even various utilities that can even extract the as-shot/camera jpegs.

If Chris happens to use the Canon software on the computer it will even display, at first, using the as-shot settings for contrast, sharpness, etcetera... (Nikon follows the same basic thought when Capture NX2 is used. This is one of the reasons I use NX2 as my primary Raw processor.)

When using third party software like Lightroom/ACR things are a bit different, the camera settings may be ignored and the image processed by any preset the user chooses to set as the default.

It wasn't always the case but Adobe has come a long way toward reading and using the as-shot info and applying that when first viewed.

All the Raw processors can ignore the embedded as-shot settings if told to use something else but raw data without any settings isn't viewable as a picture, it's just 1's and 0's.

One way or another before any Raw image can be viewed it has to be rendered using either the camera settings or some other user controlled setting/preset. Contrast settings are always rendered right in.

[D. Bryant]

Yes there is, for the 40D see page 63 in the owners manual (at least it's page 63 in the PDF I found online). Right there with the saturation and sharpness and tone adjustments.

Nikons can do the same thing. My daughters little Olympus P&S does the same too.

The contrast setting can even be automatic by choosing a certain camera "modes". This auto mode may even be the default as delivered on many cameras.

Those are Picture Style modes which affect JPG only. Additionally Picture Styles can be applied to the RAW with Canon's DPP software during post if one wishes.

So for RAW capture there are no contrast settings.

[Mark Barendt]

So for RAW capture there are no contrast settings.

If you get a utility that can read what's in the Raw file you will find all the information is there.

Even if it were not, the software on your computer would have to fill in the blanks.

A user defined or default contrast setting has to be applied and rendered in before a Raw image can be viewed as more than 1's and 0's.

Just because we can change the settings in the computer and the file gets re-rendered to show the changes does not mean that there are no settings, it simply means that we can ignore the original settings.

My point with regard to the OP is simply that negatives and scans of negatives are low in contrast and require adjustment (we have to apply a set of settings).

Digital pictures are always viewed after a certain set of settings, including a contrast setting, have been applied.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think the simple answer is that your first example photo is not under exposed. There's plenty of shadow detail, and that's the only thing you should be looking at if you're trying to judge exposure. Brightness and contrast issues only confuse matters. Until you expose some film based on the exposures indicated by your metering, you won't be certain.

I finally sold my spot meter when I accepted that for me, incident metering is more accurate and consistent. I think your meter is working just fine. Walter's sunny 16 rule check is a good one, so long as you understand it's not precise to 1/3 stop accuracy, and requires some adjustment for latitude (geographic).

Good luck, and have fun!

[Robert Hughes]

Just a note about the L-398. I own one that over time has changed sensitivity. It now reads a full stop brighter than a known-good meter of more recent vintage. You may want to check your meter for proper calibration, although the f/16 @1/125 doesn't sound far off for a mid day shot.

[Donald Miller]

I use incident exclusively with LF BW and a single incident reading is actually not going to do more than get one into the ball park as far as exposure is concerned. I can see where the same would hold true for color.

In order to arrive at a more accurate exposure one must meter both from a shadow position and a highlight position. From that one can determine the contrast range of the scene and make an informed decision of how they want to expose to arrive at the result that they want.

[D. Bryant]

If you get a utility that can read what's in the Raw file you will find all the information is there.

Even if it were not, the software on your computer would have to fill in the blanks.

A user defined or default contrast setting has to be applied and rendered in before a Raw image can be viewed as more than 1's and 0's.

Just because we can change the settings in the computer and the file gets re-rendered to show the changes does not mean that there are no settings, it simply means that we can ignore the original settings.

My point with regard to the OP is simply that negatives and scans of negatives are low in contrast and require adjustment (we have to apply a set of settings).

Digital pictures are always viewed after a certain set of settings, including a contrast setting, have been applied.

Thanks for clariying that for us.

Don

[Frank_E]

not to hijack the thread but the topic interests me because I have been having metering problems also

to make sure I am doing it right I finally did buy a spot meter but haven't been out with it yet

my question relates to the use of an incident/reflectance meter (I have both a Luna Pro and a Digi Six). I can understand how you can get an incident reading if your subject is close (ie you walk right up to it and take your reading....) however if your main subject is some distance away, or there is an obstacle between you and your subject, aren't you limited to taking a reflectance reading and then the trick becomes one of trying to target your meter at some object which approximates 18% grey. How do you guys take incidence readings in those situations?

thanks

[Mark Barendt]

I can understand how you can get an incident reading if your subject is close (ie you walk right up to it and take your reading....) however if your main subject is some distance away, or there is an obstacle between you and your subject, aren't you limited to taking a reflectance reading and then the trick becomes one of trying to target your meter at some object which approximates 18% grey. How do you guys take incidence readings in those situations?

thanks

All that is required for an incident meter reading is to be in the same light, not that you are at the subject.

As to taking a reflected reading off an 18% subject, that's an easy way to get the camera setting, but it's not required. You can spot meter off most any subject in your scene.

You just need to offset the reading the right number of zones.

[Mark Barendt]

Thanks for clariying that for us.

Don

You are quite welcome.

[Chris CS]

Thanks for the replies. I'll keep experimenting. :)

All the images are RAW files from the canon, not scans.

I use Canon's DDP software with the 'Faithful' profile which has the best colour accuracy and least contrast. It's somewhere between Portra NC and Provia as a starting point.

The picture looks contrasty simply because it's extremely clear/hard light. All I did in photoshop was add a tiny bit of unsharp-mask, resize and take screen grabs of the histograms in the levels tool.

I have a 4x5 Fuji instant film back coming in the next few days. When it arrives I'll post some examples of how that film compares.

[Frank_E]

Mark thanks for your answer, much appreciated.

[rdenney]

I have used incident meters for a long time--when in the studio or in a controlled-lighting situation, and where the subject is in reach.

To me, placing an incident meter "in the same light" is hoping that the light really is the same. We don't need an incident meter to tell us how bright is the noonday sun. But that's not really why we meter. The purpose of metering is to make sure that the values in the scene are exposed in such a manner as to allow us to render those values as we want in the print. Trying to simulate shadows and highlights from a position near the camera, when the subject is somewhere else, puts us in the role of modeling the scene's values, not measuring them. We just have to hope that we understand, for example, how the reflected light up from the ground into the shadows is similar to or different from the shadowed spot where we hold the incident meter.

For landscapes, I use a spot meter. Unlike an incident meter, a spot meter is sampling values from the actual scene. When the subject is within reach, I use an incident meter (especially, of course, when using studio flash) because it measures the light falling on the subject, and in that situation, the subject is usually a face.

Rick "who uses a Sekonic L-718 a lot, but not in the field" Denney

[Michael Kadillak]

You do not need a spot meter. I have three and have not used them in over a year. In fact I need to sell them one of these days. Sandy King intrudoced me to the BTZS system and things have never been simpler and quicker. I don't have to concern myself worry about lens flare with the spot meter and I know what my target development will be without doing all of that zone system jockularity. What most of us do not do is to just look at the quality of the light and think. I am an engineer and the spot meter is to me like my scientific calculator. I was perpetually metering this and metering that and before you know it my meter was taking over. Not good. The incident meter for me has turned out to be a Godsend. Sometimes the solution is not in the fact that you don't have what you need, but the fact that you need to know how to use it correctly.

One source of reading material is the Beyond The Zone System reference. I am sure that there are others.

[philip964]

Exposure is the only thing I hate about photography. The incident meter does fine cause it doesn't care about the gray card. I take everything I have with me spot normal incident and what my digital camera is showing, come up with an exposure and go for it.
Its what makes picking up the film at the lab so much fun. And since I'm so worried about the exposure I usually forget to pull out the dark slide before I click the cable release. Oh and then there are the days when clouds are having fun with the sun and it changes every three seconds.

[sully75]

Looks like you are shooting a high contrast scene. For negative film they say "expose for the shadows". I turn the meter so the back is towards the sun (the bulb is shaded by the body of the meter) and use that for my reading (only in a high contrast scene).

Generally, it seems to work. I'd rather have a spot/reflected meter, because for certain situations that's superior, but my exposures have for the most part been reasonably close to dead on.

[Sirius Glass]

2. Get a spot meter, practice to become familiar with its use and check for tonal range.

I use a Nikon F100 as my spot meter for my 4x5s and Hasselblads. :D


I take an average reading.
then I use the spot meter for the brightest I want.
then I use the spot meter for the darkest I want.
then I use the spot meter for what I want to be 18% gray [grey].
Finally I make a command decision based on all the measurements.


Steve

[Alex Smith]

Chris,

You asked to be talked off the incident metering cliff. If you happen to still be reading this thread a month later, I agree with the posters that suggest switching to a spot meter (meaning a true 1 degree spot--seems like most built-in spots in DSLRs are closer to the 3 degree range these days). For landscape use with color transparency film, I find a spot meter a necessity. If you work exclusively with negative film you will have at least a little greater dynamic range, but switch to a nice sheet of Provia or Velvia and you may find that a meter (like an incident) designed only to give you a correct median exposure is insufficient. Go and try to accurately determine which grad-ND you should be using in your high-contrast landscape without a spot. :-)

Then again, if you will only be shooting cityscapes, and with higher contrast film, have fun with the incident. As other commentors have suggested, there are simple ways to counter the idiosyncrasies of an incident meter.

[sanking]

It would be just plain wrong, and ignorant also, to try to talk anyone from using incident metering. Incident metering is a very effective and efficient method of metering, whether in the studio or in landscape work. I use it for virtually all of my outdoor work to determine basic exposure and to measure contrast difference to determine how to develop. Incident metering is a useful method of metering any time the same light is falling on the cone of the meter and the subject. If the lighting is different, as it might be in distant landscapes, I always check the incident meter reading with a spot meter reading. My meter is a Sekonic L-508 which has both 1 degree spot metering and incident reading in the same instrument so I don't have to fight with myself to determine which method is better. So I just use either the easiest method for the subject, or the best method for the subjet is incident or spot is better for a given scene.

Mainly, you just need to understand how to use your metering system with different kinds of film.

Sandy King

[Alex Smith]

Sandy,

Assuming that your comment was, at least in part, a response to mine, what would you recommend that Chris do when he is photographing a scene for which an incident meter is inadequate? Other posters in this thread have offered suggestions on how to compensate for an incident meter that is in different lighting than the subject of the composition, but you simply say that in those scenarios you switch to the spot meter function of your Sekonic L-508. You can see from the images that Chris posted at the beginning of the thread that his meter does not offer spot metering functionality, so how is your suggestion helpful? I merely recommend an alternative type of meter that will be of benefit in a wide variety of outdoors venues.

Granted, all types of meters have limitations. Is it really necessary to resort to name-calling ("ignorant") when someone suggests an alternative that may be preferable for Chris' stated photographic interests (an alternative that you, yourself, admit to turning to in the types of situations he will be working in)? Please read again the title of his thread.

[mrladewig]

I don't know whether this has been addressed previously, but digital cameras do not necessarily function at the stated ISO, but they often function in conjunction with their meters to compensate. For instance, with the 40D, DXO labs indicates that when the camera is set to ISO100, the actual ISO performance of the sensor is 87. There will be sample variation between cameras, but this is a data point. When reviewing the performance for various DSLRs on their site, I think you see that the majority perform below the specified ISO across all ISO values. For ISO 100, most seem to measure performance between ISO 64 and 90. Not good if you're trying to use the DSLR as a meter for slide film or trying to evaluate the performance of your meter by evaluating exposure on the DSLR.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an incident meter, and I would guess based on the results you've posted that the incident meter gave you a correct exposure for ISO 100 film.

[sanking]

Granted, all types of meters have limitations. Is it really necessary to resort to name-calling ("ignorant") when someone suggests an alternative that may be preferable for Chris' stated photographic interests (an alternative that you, yourself, admit to turning to in the types of situations he will be working in)? Please read again the title of his thread.


But the scene in question, a "sunlit subjects outdoors, " is very straight forward to meter with an incident meter, assuming one knows how to use it and has calibrated his/her film. Why not just say that?

Sandy King

[Larry Gebhardt]

My feeling is that a spot meter is the most accurate way to go if you want to know the brightness of any part of the scene. How usable the incident meter is depends on your subject and film type. There are some shots I can't measure with an incident meter. To keep my life simple I use a spot meter for landscapes.

I do love the ease of use of the incident meter for things like portraits, or other scenes where there aren't shadows I need to be sure to capture.

But either method needs to be calibrated to the capture method. As you can see from your examples the digital camera is not aligning with the incident readings. This may be the meter is off, or the camera is smarter and using matrix (Nikon's term) metering where it looks at the brightest areas and the shadows to determine exposure, and not the midpoint (averaging).

[sully75]

Currently I'd really like to do a picture of a street scene around the corner from here, where the streetlights are just 1 stop brighter than the sky. That's something I definitely can't do with the incident meter. I maybe could get away with a reflective, non-spot meter, but even that would be hard.

However, a spot meter is not in the budget at this point. No way, no how.

[Scott Davis]

I'll reiterate that there is in all likelihood NOTHING wrong with your meter. There is a significant disagreement between your digital camera and your handheld meter. This seems to be par for the course - every DSLR I've owned disagreed with my handheld meters, as noted on the previous page by as much as a whole stop. But my handheld meters have been spot on when used with transparency film, and are consistent relative to each other (I have two different Sekonic 408s and a Minolta Spotmeter F). This is the extreme fallacy of trying to use your digicam as a polaroid proof before shooting film, or as a substitute for a handheld meter. The digicam's internal electronics are calibrated to itself, not to an external standard.

[DanK]

My very first exposure was made with a spot meter....over time, a few influences here and there and I went for the incident meter...good marketing maybe?

The incident meter, for me, didn't last long - it seemed to be more hit or miss, than anything else...

I found it lacked the control of the 'scene' as I wanted in my images, and went back to spot metering for the majority of my work...

During the period I had a studio - the incident meter was invaluable, in a controlled setting for film...

And it saw quite a bit of Flash metering (L-508) for digital...

But, when it comes down to it....I have found the control of spot metering is superior to an incident meter reading....

Thanks,
Dan

[BetterSense]

But the scene in question, a "sunlit subjects outdoors, " is very straight forward to meter with an incident meter, assuming one knows how to use it and has calibrated his/her film.

For any experienced photographer, a "sunlit subject outdoors" should be very straightforward to shoot without any meter at all. The sun hasn't changed brightness in several years that I'm aware of.

[Bob McCarthy]

There is a fundamental flaw with using the meter of a digital camera to evaluate film exposure. The meters on DSLR's are designed to manage highlight clipping and shadow noise based upion the ISO selected. The recommendation is also biased by a "matrix' meter which looks into a database for similar scenes and adds a adjustment.

The rear screen histogram on a dslr is formed from a jpeg, processed in camera, adjusted by scene selection, contrast selected, and other factors.

18% grey cards need not apply, except for the same principle that a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

A film camera can be used, especially the spot meter for metering. Even then my F5 adds an "adjustment" if I use the matrix meter.

bob

[BetterSense]

I've also noticed that film cameras with matrix metering (the only kind I have experience with, no digital) seem to be designed to create magically correct exposures with slide film. This means that they save highlights. This is really really good for slide film, but I agree that using such a camera as a light meter might be flawed, unless maybe you are using slide film in your LF camera, then I can't see how you could do much better, because my Nikon matrix metering cameras seem to be pretty magic at exposing slides well.

[rdenney]

Most cameras these days that have evaluative metering of one sort or another usually also have typical center-weighted average metering as an option, similar to cameras from the SLR boom of decades past. Those should be similar to any other meter, as long as they see the same field of view using the same center-weighted bias.

And that is what leads one to either the extreme of using a 1-degree spot meter, or the opposite extreme of using an incident meter. With the incident meter, one is reading the integrated light sources falling on the scene, and noting little about the difference between highlights and shadows as projected onto the film. The belief is that the middle values define the realism of the scene, and if highlights and shadows lose tonal separation as a result of exceeding the dynamic range of the film, then it will still, at least, look approximately realistic. The incident meter will not be confused by the dominance of highlights or shadows in the reflected scene. This seems to me a strategy for transparencies intended for projection or for movie film, both of which are intended to look realistic on direct viewing.

Spot metering is a tool for those who intend to place certain scene luminances on desired values in the final print, without much regard for its realism on direct viewing. With negatives, direct viewing is obviously not the intended viewing mode in any case. But few project color slides any longer, either. I meter transparency film to make sure I keep tonal separation in the highlights where I want tonal separation, because I can bring up the middle values if needed, and shadows that lose separation are usually less bothersome for me than blown highlights. This strategy also seems to work for digital capture, at least for me. Those are decisions made with the awareness that the slide is merely a step in a process, not the end product.

Yes, I know it is possible to compare the effect of main and fill lights (whether constructed in a studio or found in nature) using an incident meter, and i have done so many times. And in the studio, the dynamic range is usually tightly controlled to achieve a particular effect on a particular medium. But trying to manage scene luminances that challenge the range of the film requires making tough and precise decisions at those boundaries, and that's why spot meters were invented.

Rick "who has used his Canon DSLR as a meter in emergencies, but only with care about the metering mode and the aiming of the camera" Denney

[SeanEsopenko]

The only case I've found where an incident meter requires a little more brain effort is when shooting a large vista with two very different lighting situations. It happens often when I'm downtown and the sun's bright. You have shady areas behind buildings mixed with bright areas in between. If I'm lazy I'll guestimate the adjustment from one area's spot metering. If I feel like walking I meter both and then guestimate the in-between exposure.

When shooting digital I always shoot RAW and usually underexpose all my images by about 1/3-2/3 stops then make the adjustments required in post processing. With digital it's easier to over-expose than to under-expose and a RAW file contains a lot of information outside of what's displayed by default in the editing software. I use a full frame camera, too. I notice full frame records WAY more dynamic range with less noise than cropped sensors do.

[Michael Kadillak]

Many times we tend to get captured in the peripheral processes and we forget about the objective. I find that in the real world of natural light spot meters can concurrently be a photographers blessing and a curse. If what we photographed consistently contained reasonably large sections of easily discernible reflected light, making images with this meter would be a day at the beach. Similarly, using an incident meter has its pros and cons for which compensation is necessary. Both instruments are tools to the objective of producing optimal negatives for the photographer and his choice of making prints. What we chose to photograph can vary from A to Z as it relates to luminance at the time the optimal photograph can be made. As a result simply leaving the meter in its pouch and just looking cognitively at the image and how it relates to the film and the print as it will be produced can be a highly productive experience. It is amazing how we already have the best "light meter" possible in the form of our own eyes.

Irrespective of what technique used to value the luminance relationships within the chosen scene to photograph, you know when you are mastering the medium when you purposefully deviate from the measured values to obtain the desired results. THAT by its very nature makes the meter the subordinate contributor to the process as opposed to what I read in this post where the meter is represented as the dominant criteria.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well said Michael....

[rdenney]

Irrespective of what technique used to value the luminance relationships within the chosen scene to photograph, you know when you are mastering the medium when you purposefully deviate from the measured values to obtain the desired results. THAT by its very nature makes the meter the subordinate contributor to the process as opposed to what I read in this post where the meter is represented as the dominant criteria.

Any tool is subordinate when it is used on purpose in support of a larger goal.

I agree that technique should be subconscious. But my experience with things that require technique is that making it subconscious requires dedicated time spent practicing it consciously.

My meters don't tell me one thing from which I must decide to deviate or not. My meters give me anywhere from three to ten data points, from which I will decide on and extract the exposure I use. Is that being a slave to a meter?

Rick "thinking the goal is to do things on purpose" Denney