Spot metering reversal/E6 films (Velvia, Provia, etc) films for twilight cityscapes

E6 (reversal/transparency/slide) films like Velvia and Provia are notoriously fickle about exposure. This makes metering technique and a well calibrated spot meter crucial.

For landscapes, a spot meter and Zone System style methods work wonders. Put your brightest highlights (that need to keep detail) at +2 and your shadows at -2 or -2.5, and you're good to go.

However, while landscapes usually offer broad swathes of gentle gradients to place as shadows or highlights, the same is not true when you start shooting architecture and cityscapes. In a built or urban environment, bright highlights are often just pinpoints... while twilight can make your shadows too dark to meter.

Worst of all, the perfect light is fleeting, often lasting a few minutes at most. There is no time for bracketing, even if you could afford to do so.

What technique do you use for getting your exposure spot on in these difficult conditions?

I don't know if this is useful, but whenever I have shot images in the built urban environment at dusk there's generally been unmeterable artificial point light sources, which I think if what you're meaning here. They've always come out OK, which tells me it's probably not worth sweating the exact spotmeter readings of, say, pinpoint artificial lighting sources or things like that. Naturally we'd expect to see these looking very bright or even burnt out anyway. Instead I'd try and break the scene into broad zones - sky, foreground, distant buildings, work out what I need shadow detail in, what is fine as silhouettes/dark (because we expect some darkness at dusk), and meter and use grad filters accordingly (if possible). This is kinda how I would deal with structurally complex landscape scenes in nature too TBH. I'd be interested to hear from more experienced city shooters though.

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...4&d=1723630957

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave_whatever

I don't know if this is useful, but whenever I have shot images in the built urban environment at dusk there's generally been unmeterable artificial point light sources, which I think if what you're meaning here. They've always come out OK, which tells me it's probably not worth sweating the exact spotmeter readings of, say, pinpoint artificial lighting sources or things like that. Naturally we'd expect to see these looking very bright or even burnt out anyway. Instead I'd try and break the scene into broad zones - sky, foreground, distant buildings, work out what I need shadow detail in, what is fine as silhouettes/dark (because we expect some darkness at dusk), and meter and use grad filters accordingly (if possible). This is kinda how I would deal with structurally complex landscape scenes in nature too TBH. I'd be interested to hear from more experienced city shooters though.

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...4&d=1723630957

---

Yes, my current approach is to ignore the point sources. Then I look for things that I can use to define the highlights and shadows, then take an average and check the contrast range is correct. This doesn't always work.

For example, there may not be any dark areas that are exactly as dark as I want the highlights to be bright... so if I take an average, the overall tonality of the scene is wrong.

Or a more common example is that the entire scene should be in the -2 to 1 EV range (or indeed -5 to 1 EV!), and the only real highlights are the pinpoint lights. Now what do I meter for my highlights, if there aren't any "bright" areas to define the highlights?

Sure, I could guess at what things in the picture should be 0 EV (zone V) or 1 EV (zone VI) but I've gotten terrible results with that approach. Should the side of that building be +0.7EV, +1 EV, or +1.3 EV? I haven't the foggiest idea! And with these films, you really do have to know EXACTLY...

Try using a digital camera as a meter and pick the exposure that looks right for the digital camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

For example, there may not be any dark areas that are exactly as dark as I want the highlights to be bright... so if I take an average, the overall tonality of the scene is wrong.

---

Yep, this is the problem with metering methodologies which rely on averaging - they only work with average scenes...or with emulsions which have a huge margin for error...

I would just forget about averaging, and just place the elements which you can meter where you need them - and if they won't fit where you want them then you need to get the grad filters out, or walk away.

In practical terms what you probably need to do is decide what the shadow areas are that you need to be able to see decent detail in, and place them at, say, -1EV. If there isn't anything in the scene like that, then find a shadow you want to be just approaching full black and put it at -2. Or, find a midtone (like a side of a key building in open shade or dusk light) and put it at 0EV. Then start to meter the bright stuff in the scene - lit sides of buildings, windows, water reflections, sky etc. If the sky is coming in at +4EV then you know you need to bring it down to somewhere in the +1EV region with a grad if you want to see colour/detail there. If you then still have shadow areas metering at -5EV then you have to accept these are going to be fully black, or bring them up with more exposure and grad everything else down.

Or, you might meter a cityscape at dusk and find that all your concrete buildings will sit happily at -1EV or 0EV and the dark cloudy sky falls naturally at +1, happy days, you can just expose at 0EV and not need any grads and not even need a +2 highlight to meter, unless you want to sky to look like +2, which you probably wont. Apologies if none of this makes sense, it's easier to explain verbally than write down...

It is worth building up a mental checklist of what sort of values you need certain things at to always refer to, for the stuff you shoot. Like for me I almost always want clear blue skies at +1, rocks under an overcast sky or green grass in the shade at 0, sunlit rocks or sidelit green grass at +1, caucasian faces at +1 and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

E6 (reversal/transparency/slide) films like Velvia and Provia are notoriously fickle about exposure. This makes metering technique and a well calibrated spot meter crucial.

For landscapes, a spot meter and Zone System style methods work wonders. Put your brightest highlights (that need to keep detail) at +2 and your shadows at -2 or -2.5, and you're good to go.

However, while landscapes usually offer broad swathes of gentle gradients to place as shadows or highlights, the same is not true when you start shooting architecture and cityscapes. In a built or urban environment, bright highlights are often just pinpoints... while twilight can make your shadows too dark to meter.

Worst of all, the perfect light is fleeting, often lasting a few minutes at most. There is no time for bracketing, even if you could afford to do so.

What technique do you use for getting your exposure spot on in these difficult conditions?

---

I find that its best to shoot a lot when you're are working in transitional light, and bracketing as well. There's a 20-30 minute window of time to work and a large variety of "perfect" moments depending on the architecture/environment/location. The bracketing is as much about exposure as it is about aesthetics as well - that is- if you take a bracket (+1, meter, -1,) all three can work just fine but give different feel for the overall image.

When I was shooting film I'd establish my base exposure (with an incident meter and proof it with polaroid) and shoot a 3 or 5 frame bracket in 1/2 stops - I would do this 3 times- early dusk, mid disk, an late dusk/full dark. This will give you a full range of aesthetic choices. Example links below:

late dusk: https://www.brucekatzphoto.com/galle...meoAlbumID=#/0

Early dusk: https://www.brucekatzphoto.com/galle...eoAlbumID=#/18

Mid dusk: https://www.brucekatzphoto.com/galle...eoAlbumID=#/17

There are lots of other examples here if you care to scroll around - the secret is to shoot a lot over the transition from early to late.

Bracketing, but I do realise that this method could be very costly when shooting Colour Transparency Sheet Film...

I'm inclined to agree with Alan Klein, that the easiest approach is to use a digital camera to determine exposure. In tricky lighting situations like this, the old approach would be to take a Polaroid, but digital now works as well, or better. Color transparency film is just too expensive to be doing bracketing experiments. You don't need anything fancy in terms of a digital camera. Something older should work just fine, and will probably be far cheaper than a good spot meter. It will also probably be faster than taking multiple readings with a spot meter.

The other issue with this type of photography is that everyone has a different opinion about what looks "good". Some people may prefer a darker image, and others something much lighter. You need to discover what suits your own individual taste. You might want to do some experiments with 35mm transparency film, and shoot a variety of twilight scenes with bracketed exposures. Record your exposure settings, and decide which ones you prefer. When you next go out to shoot large format, you can refer to your exposure table for the desired "look".

Using a digital camera: I've tried that, of course. You do need to convert the ISO of the camera (which has a minimum value of 125 for Canons) to the value of the film you are using. That takes a little thinking (which can lead to mistakes) but is not really a problem.

A bigger problem is that the ISO rating of digital cameras is not always entirely accurate. It is probably accurate enough for negative films (black and white or color). With E6 (reversal) films, however, extremely high accuracy is needed. Plus, using a digital camera feels like cheating!

For this composition (double exposure) I used 2 exposure readings on 6x7 Velvia. The first was to catch the alpenglow on the downtown (Market and Van Ness in San Francisco) and the second for the traffic and street lights after darkness had descended:

Attachment 259652

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Plus, using a digital camera feels like cheating!

---

... well, using a light meter has already put you on the edge, and a spot meter's sent you flying over, hrmmph! :)

Sadly, there are no bonus points for personal suffering in the final image.

It sounds like the OP already has a spotmeter, so I don't see the sense in using a digital camera instead if they've already got the perfect tool for the job. Cameras don't read out in LVs, and usually force you to do mental arithmetic to account for not having the correct iso or aperture available too - another chance to mess up. Plus they inevitably end up being a distraction.

Most digital cameras these days have a dynamic range miles wider than transparency film, and are often doing clever stuff in terms of expanding the range on the fly, preserving highlights and lifting shadows, and cheating on the ISO (looking at Fuji here....) so even when used as a general preview of overall exposure they are not necessarily indicative of film results without a lot of testing. I suspect the transmission losses in zoom lenses aren't insignificant for metering E6 film either. Plus then it's one extra thing to carry, and one extra thing to have to remember to charge up etc etc. A phone metering app is worth having as a backup though.

Shooting a bit of 120 in a rollfilm back on your large format camera might be a good idea, alongside bracketing and making detailed notes - it might let you fastforward to nailing to look you're after in typical scenes without having to burn through too much sheet film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave_whatever

I would just forget about averaging, and just place the elements which you can meter where you need them - and if they won't fit where you want them then you need to get the grad filters out, or walk away.

In practical terms what you probably need to do is decide what the shadow areas are that you need to be able to see decent detail in, and place them at, say, -1EV. If there isn't anything in the scene like that, then find a shadow you want to be just approaching full black and put it at -2. Or, find a midtone (like a side of a key building in open shade or dusk light) and put it at 0EV. Then start to meter the bright stuff in the scene - lit sides of buildings, windows, water reflections, sky etc. If the sky is coming in at +4EV then you know you need to bring it down to somewhere in the +1EV region with a grad if you want to see colour/detail there. If you then still have shadow areas metering at -5EV then you have to accept these are going to be fully black, or bring them up with more exposure and grad everything else down.

Or, you might meter a cityscape at dusk and find that all your concrete buildings will sit happily at -1EV or 0EV and the dark cloudy sky falls naturally at +1, happy days, you can just expose at 0EV and not need any grads and not even need a +2 highlight to meter, unless you want to sky to look like +2, which you probably wont. Apologies if none of this makes sense, it's easier to explain verbally than write down...

It is worth building up a mental checklist of what sort of values you need certain things at to always refer to, for the stuff you shoot. Like for me I almost always want clear blue skies at +1, rocks under an overcast sky or green grass in the shade at 0, sunlit rocks or sidelit green grass at +1, caucasian faces at +1 and so forth.

---

Dave, this is a great idea, and I've tried doing something similar in the past. The problem that I keep running in to is one of refinement: with the films I am using, it definitely matters if something is (for example) at +0.7 vs +1 or +1.3 ... and I am having real trouble visualising exactly which of these I should use!

It may be that I just need to spend some quality time with a 35mm camera shooting test rolls until I can say from memory which of the 12 possible tonal values (from -2 to +2 EV in 1/3 EV increments) a given part of the seen should be placed at.

Also, depending on the scene, skies can be anywhere from -1 to +1 EV. It usually depends on the brightness of the artificial illumination in the scene and the desired color of the sky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdkphoto

I find that its best to shoot a lot when you're are working in transitional light, and bracketing as well. There's a 20-30 minute window of time to work and a large variety of "perfect" moments depending on the architecture/environment/location. The bracketing is as much about exposure as it is about aesthetics as well - that is- if you take a bracket (+1, meter, -1,) all three can work just fine but give different feel for the overall image.

---

That's a really interesting point that different exposure values can all be "correct" but just different in mood and feel!

Quote:

---

When I was shooting film I'd establish my base exposure (with an incident meter and proof it with polaroid) and shoot a 3 or 5 frame bracket in 1/2 stops - I would do this 3 times- early dusk, mid disk, an late dusk/full dark. This will give you a full range of aesthetic choices.

---

How on earth did you work with an INCIDENT meter while perched 10 stories up photographing buildings a half-block or more away?!

Yes, I agree shooting 3-5 frame brackets is an excellent approach. Currently I frequently use 3 frame 1/2 stop brackets. But dear God, the cost of film -- and that's when you can get it at all!

Quote:

---

Example links below:

late dusk: https://www.brucekatzphoto.com/galle...meoAlbumID=#/0

Early dusk: https://www.brucekatzphoto.com/galle...eoAlbumID=#/18

Mid dusk: https://www.brucekatzphoto.com/galle...eoAlbumID=#/17

There are lots of other examples here if you care to scroll around - the secret is to shoot a lot over the transition from early to late.

---

Very nice work! Funny that you got hired to shoot the Shutterstock offices. I would have been tempted to add some generic business people models and other "stock photo" cliches... it IS Shutterstock after all!

I quite like this one and this one. The Hearst Building shot I find too dark -- shot too late (if shooting at dusk) or too early (if at dawn).

Which lens did you use for this astounding perspective? Looks to me like a Canon 17mm TS-E...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgtaylor

For this composition (double exposure) I used 2 exposure readings on 6x7 Velvia. The first was to catch the alpenglow on the downtown (Market and Van Ness in San Francisco) and the second for the traffic and street lights after darkness had descended:

Attachment 259652

---

Oh now that is a stunning shot, and a wonderful trick! How did you get the exposure so spot-on that you were confident having just ONE frame for the entire evening?

After all with 6x7 medium format you cannot wind the film back... (and indeed, even if you could wind the film back, or put the film holder back in the camera, most cameras are not capable of precise enough registration to do double exposures like that. You would get the two exposures subtly shifted with respect to another)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharktooth

... well, using a light meter has already put you on the edge, and a spot meter's sent you flying over, hrmmph! :)

Sadly, there are no bonus points for personal suffering in the final image.

---

Where in my post did I make any pretensions to sanity or reasonableness? Please accept my apologies if I did so by accident, I assure you, it was unintentional :)

Years ago there was a great answer to more or less the same question from a guy here named Brian V, but I haven’t been able to find it. With less technical prowess and a bit more gestalt, I adopted his approach.

For me, gone are the days of three-shot E6 bracketing around a single reading. I like to shoot landscapes in nature where my metering technique usually begins with a tightened-down composition. Once I’m familiar with my corners, I scan the scene with a 1% spot meter, hoping for no more than five stops of separation. This might be wishful thinking early on, but as the sun gets low, it almost always happens in a favorable fashion.

I like the light best in the minutes just after sunset. During this period the film miser in me has to decide: is this the best light, or will it get better … is this the best light, or are the colors now fading. As the light changes I take frequent meter readings, juggling the optimal aperture with the best shutter speed until everything seems right, then I trip the shutter. These days that motion feels more like flushing a tenner, but if the light is good and I pace myself, one shot from a thirty-dollar outing is usually spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

That's a really interesting point that different exposure values can all be "correct" but just different in mood and feel!



How on earth did you work with an INCIDENT meter while perched 10 stories up photographing buildings a half-block or more away?!

Yes, I agree shooting 3-5 frame brackets is an excellent approach. Currently I frequently use 3 frame 1/2 stop brackets. But dear God, the cost of film -- and that's when you can get it at all!



Very nice work! Funny that you got hired to shoot the Shutterstock offices. I would have been tempted to add some generic business people models and other "stock photo" cliches... it IS Shutterstock after all!

I quite like this one and this one. The Hearst Building shot I find too dark -- shot too late (if shooting at dusk) or too early (if at dawn).

Which lens did you use for this astounding perspective? Looks to me like a Canon 17mm TS-E...

---

First a correction from your post #9- ISO is perfectly accurate from camera to camera. I've used multiple different brands and models and ISO was consistent across the board. It's in the name ISO =International Organization for Standards. Using a spot meter like you are calculating a zone system negative is not needed for working in twilight. An averaging meter or an incident meter is all you need. The incident meter measures the light falling on the scene - If I'm on the roof of a building in mid-town the light falling on me is the exact same as the light falling on a building 1-100 blocks away. The truth is that when I was using film I hardly ever used a meter - I used to play a game with my assistants - I have them meter the scene and write down what they thought the exposure was - I look at the scene and just guess using my experience- we'd compare notes and use the polaroid to see who's right if there was any difference - my success rate was pretty good. In fact, if you are shooting a twilight scene in NYC at 15 minutes past sunset - looking east- your exposure would be between 4-6 seconds at ISO 100 at F11 - A 1 stop bracket +/- would have you covered perfectly. For Velvia 50 open up 1 stop.

I've never understood the whining about film costs- what's a good photograph worth to you? Why wouldn't you shoot extra sheets to make sure you got a "perfect" shot. Making an interesting/satisfiing photograph is much more important than process. It's not cheating to use tools best suited for the job (digital) that give you the opportunity to do your best work, plus you have to know how to use the tools and that's a much bigger learning curve than most folks think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdkphoto

First a correction from your post #9- ISO is perfectly accurate from camera to camera. I've used multiple different brands and models and ISO was consistent across the board. It's in the name ISO =International Organization for Standards. Using a spot meter like you are calculating a zone system negative is not needed for working in twilight. An averaging meter or an incident meter is all you need. The incident meter measures the light falling on the scene - If I'm on the roof of a building in mid-town the light falling on me is the exact same as the light falling on a building 1-100 blocks away. The truth is that when I was using film I hardly ever used a meter - I used to play a game with my assistants - I have them meter the scene and write down what they thought the exposure was - I look at the scene and just guess using my experience- we'd compare notes and use the polaroid to see who's right if there was any difference - my success rate was pretty good. In fact, if you are shooting a twilight scene in NYC at 15 minutes past sunset - looking east- your exposure would be between 4-6 seconds at ISO 100 at F11 - A 1 stop bracket +/- would have you covered perfectly. For Velvia 50 open up 1 stop.

I've never understood the whining about film costs- what's a good photograph worth to you? Why wouldn't you shoot extra sheets to make sure you got a "perfect" shot. Making an interesting/satisfiing photograph is much more important than process. It's not cheating to use tools best suited for the job (digital) that give you the opportunity to do your best work, plus you have to know how to use the tools and that's a much bigger learning curve than most folks think.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdkphoto

First a correction from your post #9- ISO is perfectly accurate from camera to camera. I've used multiple different brands and models and ISO was consistent across the board. It's in the name ISO =International Organization for Standards.

---

Other commentators beg to differ:

"The ISO standard for digital sensor sensitivity (ISO 12232:2006) is basically, "Whatever the manufacturer thinks gives a good exposure." [I'm speaking here of the REI technique, which is the technique used by virtually all of the digital camera manufacturers.]"
(from this thread here)

If you are using a digital camera then it is well worth trying to calibrate the ISO using the test targets and the software that Sekonic supplies for this purpose. And keep in mind that DSLR camera profile settings and T-stop (as opposed to F-stop*) variation between lenses -- in particular big DSLR zoom lenses! -- can also contribute considerably to inaccuracy.

For me this results in a blizzard of correction factors that I need to juggle in my head on top of all the other things I need to be mindful of when shooting... and every additional thing to keep track of is another potential mistake (and ruined film).

* (in the cinema world, lenses are calibrated to T-stop, i.e the amount of transmitted light, rather than F-stop, because the exposure needs to be spot-on for cine applications. This is not done in photography because photographers mostly shot negative films and their metering was so all over the place anyway that nobody noticed the differences between lenses! Now with digital it is even less relevant since you meter off the histogram.)

Quote:

---

Using a spot meter like you are calculating a zone system negative is not needed for working in twilight. An averaging meter or an incident meter is all you need. The incident meter measures the light falling on the scene - If I'm on the roof of a building in mid-town the light falling on me is the exact same as the light falling on a building 1-100 blocks away.

---

Interesting idea. That wouldn't have worked for me the other night, when I was shooting from inside a parking garage, but if I am out in the open I will try it.

Quote:

---

The truth is that when I was using film I hardly ever used a meter - I used to play a game with my assistants - I have them meter the scene and write down what they thought the exposure was - I look at the scene and just guess using my experience- we'd compare notes and use the polaroid to see who's right if there was any difference - my success rate was pretty good.

---

Yes that has been known to be a workable approach... though most people I know who do this are working with negative films. If you are able to "meter by eye" with transparencies -- chapeau!

Quote:

---

In fact, if you are shooting a twilight scene in NYC at 15 minutes past sunset - looking east- your exposure would be between 4-6 seconds at ISO 100 at F11 - A 1 stop bracket +/- would have you covered perfectly. For Velvia 50 open up 1 stop.

---

Sure, that works.

Quote:

---

I've never understood the whining about film costs- what's a good photograph worth to you? Why wouldn't you shoot extra sheets to make sure you got a "perfect" shot.

---

Film hasn't exactly gotten cheaper in the last few years. And it hasn't gotten any easier to get, either. Unless you are one of the lucky ones who live in New York and can just saunter over to B&H to sample the complete Fuji cornucopia at will, getting the film you want when you want it may simply not be possible no matter what price you pay. "Sorry, we're out of stock" is an all too common refrain from local shops, and if you order by mail then it may get ruined by some paranoiac X-raying it in transit. (I am not located in the USA)

Therefore, being able to use film efficiently has become a rather more important skill than it ought to be...

Quote:

---

Making an interesting/satisfiing photograph is much more important than process. It's not cheating to use tools best suited for the job (digital) that give you the opportunity to do your best work, plus you have to know how to use the tools and that's a much bigger learning curve than most folks think.

---

Sure, and I do keep a digital camera around to check that my exposure is approximately where it should be, sort of a "digital Polaroid". But just like a Polaroid is not quite the same as the transparency, I wouldn't use it as the ONLY tool for setting exposure.

Your posts sound a bit anxious—understandably so, but not in a productive way. Have you thought about getting comfortable with shooting 35mm transparency film first? I say this as someone who began their career shooting 4x5 transparencies professionally, back when it was the standard for commercial product work. In photography school, we started with 35mm then went to 4x5 and there were lessons we learned only by reshooting.

Metering isn’t as difficult as it might seem, and bracketing is common with transparency film—not because it’s wildly unforgiving, but because even a 1/3 stop can subtly shift the look of the image. That shift can sometimes enhance the light and mood, so it’s not always a bad thing.

As for the ISO concerns, don’t stress over minor variations. A little drift is normal across equipment. Just compare your meters to each other and look for any noticeable differences. And honestly, if bracketing feels too costly right now, spend some time with a smaller format. It’s a great way to learn, and the lessons carry over when you move up in format.

Allow me a suggestion, perhaps this lesser 'complicated' way could help:

I have the famous Pentax digital spot meter, but I realised that in certain situations spot metering isn't that 'practical'.
So what I then do is taking off the diffuser sphere of my Gossen Digipro F light meter and use it the old fashion way, as we did at the time when the Gossen Lunasix was the boss.
Just incline the meter somewhat down to avoid to many skylight influencing the metering results, and then apply some well thought out guesswork and there you are...

The Digipro F has a small meniscus lens in front of the sensor allowing metering at an angle of about 30°, about the same angle as the Lunasix.
By this way the majority of the scene is measured, in about the same way the (matrix-) metering by a digital camera (and lens) is done, there is just NO COMPUTER involved to analyse and interpret the metered results, this last step has to be done by YOU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

Your posts sound a bit anxious—understandably so, but not in a productive way. Have you thought about getting comfortable with shooting 35mm transparency film first? I say this as someone who began their career shooting 4x5 transparencies professionally, back when it was the standard for commercial product work. In photography school, we started with 35mm then went to 4x5 and there were lessons we learned only by reshooting.

Metering isn’t as difficult as it might seem, and bracketing is common with transparency film—not because it’s wildly unforgiving, but because even a 1/3 stop can subtly shift the look of the image. That shift can sometimes enhance the light and mood, so it’s not always a bad thing.

---

Well yes, that's why I want to get the exposure right to within 1/3 stop!

What I am looking for is a technique that will let me achieve this with "one shot Shulman" level accuracy. As you (and I, earlier) observed, the best way to do this may simply be to do exhaustive tests with these films and a 35mm camera.

I understand that bracketing and some margin of error are normal for professional and serious amateur work. For a variety of reasons, I want to learn to do without that luxury -- sometimes I have no other choice.

For example, some weeks ago I was shooting at sunrise when I noticed the light was changing at a rate of about 1 EV per minute! I ended up metering during the exposure, and then mentally shortening the exposure time (while holding the release cable) to approximately average the meter reading taken before and while the shutter was open.

When the "decisive moment" is so fleeting, bracketing is not possible, and the "one shot" approach is the best way to go.

Plus, I can say from those times where I did indeed get it "right on the nose"... when you get these films "just right," holy hell do they look good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phdgent

By this way the majority of the scene is measured, in about the same way the (matrix-) metering by a digital camera (and lens) is done, there is just NO COMPUTER involved to analyse and interpret the metered results, this last step has to be done by YOU!

---

Interpreting the metered results -- that's the trick, isn't it?

But yes the Luna-Pro / Profi-Six meters are phenomenal and the newer ones must be even better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Well yes, that's why I want to get the exposure right to within 1/3 stop!

What I am looking for is a technique that will let me achieve this with "one shot Shulman" level accuracy. As you (and I, earlier) observed, the best way to do this may simply be to do exhaustive tests with these films and a 35mm camera.

I understand that bracketing and some margin of error are normal for professional and serious amateur work. For a variety of reasons, I want to learn to do without that luxury -- sometimes I have no other choice.

For example, some weeks ago I was shooting at sunrise when I noticed the light was changing at a rate of about 1 EV per minute! I ended up metering during the exposure, and then mentally shortening the exposure time (while holding the release cable) to approximately average the meter reading taken before and while the shutter was open.

When the "decisive moment" is so fleeting, bracketing is not possible, and the "one shot" approach is the best way to go.

Plus, I can say from those times where I did indeed get it "right on the nose"... when you get these films "just right," holy hell do they look good.

---

I think you're on the right track in terms of trying to get it right in one shot. I too have had to change the exposure on the fly during longer ones - although sometimes for long exposures at dusk a bit of unintended underexposure actually just ends up making the shot look more dusky, so sometimes it can work in your favour! Always worth having some Provia on hand instead of Velvia if only for those long exposures too, not just for the speed but also the massively better reciprocity.

I will say though that, yes, E6 film needs to be exposed correctly, but depending how you're scanning and how good the scanner is with digging into shadows (and how good your post-processing software is with shadow recovery) you probably have more latitude than you think, as long as important parts of the scene aren't blown out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave_whatever

I think you're on the right track in terms of trying to get it right in one shot. I too have had to change the exposure on the fly during longer ones - although sometimes for long exposures at dusk a bit of unintended underexposure actually just ends up making the shot look more dusky, so sometimes it can work in your favour!

---

Of course, happy accidents are always welcome. But I'd rather leave nothing to chance, if possible.

Quote:

---

Always worth having some Provia on hand instead of Velvia if only for those long exposures too, not just for the speed but also the massively better reciprocity.

---

Velvia 100 (not 100F) is pretty good in the reciprocity department. But yes, it's hard to top Provia for reciprocity, scannability, and (slightly) greater exposure latitude.

Quote:

---

I will say though that, yes, E6 film needs to be exposed correctly, but depending how you're scanning and how good the scanner is with digging into shadows (and how good your post-processing software is with shadow recovery) you probably have more latitude than you think, as long as important parts of the scene aren't blown out.

---

Yes, though that shadow detail still has its limits and the demands on the scanner are quite extreme. As far as I know, only drum scanners and Flextights are able to handle Velvia's Dmax. Provia is a bit friendlier in that respect, but only a bit. If memory serves, you can check that your lab is processing E6 correctly by takin an unexposed but developed (i.e, fully black) piece of Provia, then holding it up to the light next to a 10 stop ND filter, and checking they are about the same density!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Yes, though that shadow detail still has its limits and the demands on the scanner are quite extreme. As far as I know, only drum scanners and Flextights are able to handle Velvia's Dmax. Provia is a bit friendlier in that respect, but only a bit. If memory serves, you can check that your lab is processing E6 correctly by takin an unexposed but developed (i.e, fully black) piece of Provia, then holding it up to the light next to a 10 stop ND filter, and checking they are about the same density!

---

Dang, I spent way too much for a Big Stopper!

Considering your goal to achieve one-shot exposure perfection, perhaps you could adopt a strategy whereby you only shoot one shot of each motif.

Of course, this might need to be a side pursuit until you get things dialed in, but I bet over time you’ll be achieving your goal of one-shot wonders.

I don’t take notes while the light is good. It tends to cause me to misplace my cable release. But with only one-shot per setup I would be afforded ample note taking time. <pensive.face.emoji>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric James

Dang, I spent way too much for a Big Stopper!

---

Sadly, unexposed E6 film is not color neutral. You could at most use "black" Provia (or Velvia) as an ND filter for shooting B&W.

Quote:

---

Considering your goal to achieve one-shot exposure perfection, perhaps you could adopt a strategy whereby you only shoot one shot of each motif.

Of course, this might need to be a side pursuit until you get things dialed in, but I bet over time you’ll be achieving your goal of one-shot wonders.

I don’t take notes while the light is good. It tends to cause me to misplace my cable release. But with only one-shot per setup I would be afforded ample note taking time. <pensive.face.emoji>

---

Interesting idea. But that seems more an exercise in masochism than one of increasing actual control of the photographic process. It's not about just torturing yourself. It's about getting really good at this stuff and being able to get exactly the results you want the first time around.

[QUOTE=spotless_camera;1734636]Other commentators beg to differ:

"The ISO standard for digital sensor sensitivity (ISO 12232:2006) is basically, "Whatever the manufacturer thinks gives a good exposure." [I'm speaking here of the REI technique, which is the technique used by virtually all of the digital camera manufacturers.]"
(from this thread here)

If you are using a digital camera then it is well worth trying to calibrate the ISO using the test targets and the software that Sekonic supplies for this purpose. And keep in mind that DSLR camera profile settings and T-stop (as opposed to F-stop*) variation between lenses -- in particular big DSLR zoom lenses! -- can also contribute considerably to inaccuracy.

For me this results in a blizzard of correction factors that I need to juggle in my head on top of all the other things I need to be mindful of when shooting... and every additional thing to keep track of is another potential mistake (and ruined film).

* (in the cinema world, lenses are calibrated to T-stop, i.e the amount of transmitted light, rather than F-stop, because the exposure needs to be spot-on for cine applications. This is not done in photography because photographers mostly shot negative films and their metering was so all over the place anyway that nobody noticed the differences between lenses! Now with digital it is even less relevant since you meter off the histogram.)


Sorry to be rude but neither you or the other "commentators" - just random hobbyists in the beginners forum at DPreview know what they are talking about when it comes to working digitally. You also have the cine stuff backwards as well - cine stock is color negative, low contrast high latitude film designed to be printed (each generation builds contrast) and color timed. Commercial photography (my 40+ year profession) was shot on transparency film - advertising, editorial, fashion, architecture etc. That's how I developed my skills with respect to exposure and work habits and the ability to separate internet BS from actual knowledge . Understanding exposure is a basic skill set that is required to do any decent photography - learning the principles is straightforward but you seem to have a lot of baggage and misinformation getting in your way - others have outlined some good ideas to follow but if you are looking for a "one shot Shulman" answer you are missing out. Just as a side note FWIW - I'm on the faculty at the International Center of Photography here in NYC (shooting in transitional light was a topic in my class) and I have worked as a second unit cinematographer in the early 90's for an small feature film starring Paul Sorvino, Rita Moreno and Jonathan Silverman - It won best comedy at the Houston Film Festival but never had a theatrical release - long, super fun story but for another time and place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Well yes, that's why I want to get the exposure right to within 1/3 stop!

---

You miss the point of my comment. Sometimes the + or - 1/3 stop makes the difference between an okay image and a great image. Bracketing is a technique for a reason, especially for transparency film.

Quote:

---

What I am looking for is a technique that will let me achieve this with "one shot Shulman" level accuracy. As you (and I, earlier) observed, the best way to do this may simply be to do exhaustive tests with these films and a 35mm camera.

I understand that bracketing and some margin of error are normal for professional and serious amateur work. For a variety of reasons, I want to learn to do without that luxury -- sometimes I have no other choice.

For example, some weeks ago I was shooting at sunrise when I noticed the light was changing at a rate of about 1 EV per minute! I ended up metering during the exposure, and then mentally shortening the exposure time (while holding the release cable) to approximately average the meter reading taken before and while the shutter was open.

When the "decisive moment" is so fleeting, bracketing is not possible, and the "one shot" approach is the best way to go.

Plus, I can say from those times where I did indeed get it "right on the nose"... when you get these films "just right," holy hell do they look good.

---

I hear you, but I’d caution against getting too caught up in the romance of “decisive moments” and “one shot mastery.” Those phrases sound good in books and documentaries, but in practice, they often become shortcuts for skipping the fundamentals.

As an example, you're asking for “one shot Shulman” accuracy, but that’s a bit like trying to play a Beethoven sonata after your first piano lesson. Julius Shulman was a master, no doubt—but what people often forget is that his “one shot” magic came from careful planning, expert use of light, and impeccable composition. He didn’t walk in, point the camera, and hope for the best. He crafted those images before ever pressing the shutter.

Photography is both an art and a craft, and the craft takes time. If you're serious about learning fast and well, I’d recommend a structured, rigorous program—a curriculum with real feedback and critique. I’ve spent over forty years in the field, and I’ve taught in the classroom. More than once, I saw students come in confident from YouTube or forums, only to feel discouraged when others who embraced critique began surpassing them.

Self-teaching can work, but when you're your own teacher, critic, and audience, it’s easy to miss what you don’t yet see.

If you want more targeted feedback or help getting there, I invite you to share some of your work. Seeing the results will give us a much better sense of your current strengths and where refinement might help most.

To be honest I think you are asking too much to of yourself to be able to get a perfect exposure with one exposure right off the bat. I think it would make more sense to bracket initially, take copious notes and work methodically towards honing your craft. Bracketing to begin with might even save film in the long run if it speeds up the learning process. A roll film holder would cut the costs if you have the right focal lengths to use with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdkphoto

Sorry to be rude but neither you or the other "commentators" - just random hobbyists in the beginners forum at DPreview know what they are talking about when it comes to working digitally. You also have the cine stuff backwards as well - cine stock is color negative, low contrast high latitude film designed to be printed (each generation builds contrast) and color timed. Commercial photography (my 40+ year profession) was shot on transparency film - advertising, editorial, fashion, architecture etc. That's how I developed my skills with respect to exposure and work habits and the ability to separate internet BS from actual knowledge . Understanding exposure is a basic skill set that is required to do any decent photography - learning the principles is straightforward but you seem to have a lot of baggage and misinformation getting in your way - others have outlined some good ideas to follow but if you are looking for a "one shot Shulman" answer you are missing out. Just as a side note FWIW - I'm on the faculty at the International Center of Photography here in NYC (shooting in transitional light was a topic in my class) and I have worked as a second unit cinematographer in the early 90's for an small feature film starring Paul Sorvino, Rita Moreno and Jonathan Silverman - It won best comedy at the Houston Film Festival but never had a theatrical release - long, super fun story but for another time and place.

---

Are you saying I am wrong about cine lenses being calibrated in T-stops because exposure accuracy is critical when shooting moving pictures on a big set?

https://fstoppers.com/education/why-...-f-stop-158541

Yes cine film is high latitude color negative stock, but on set you still try to get everything right to <1/3 EV accuracy, because it saves time and money. The high latitude of the film stock is there (in addition to the reasons you listed) as a "safety net" to catch you if you screw up, to save you from a (horribly expensive) reshoot. (all that notwithstanding, some commercials were/are shot on reversal/E6 film to get punchier colors -- I believe Velvia was a popular choice back in the day)

I understand you have a lot of experience and I certainly appreciate your contributions. But while your "estimate and bracket" approach may be very useful shooting buildings in NYC (where you know what the light will be, because you have been shooting in the city for years, and where you can get any film you like whenever you want) that is not necessarily a viable approach for me in a very different situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

You miss the point of my comment. Sometimes the + or - 1/3 stop makes the difference between an okay image and a great image. Bracketing is a technique for a reason, especially for transparency film.

---

Sure, and I'm not saying it's an invalid technique or wrong... I'm just saying I don't want to have to rely on it.

Quote:

---

I hear you, but I’d caution against getting too caught up in the romance of “decisive moments” and “one shot mastery.” Those phrases sound good in books and documentaries, but in practice, they often become shortcuts for skipping the fundamentals.

As an example, you're asking for “one shot Shulman” accuracy, but that’s a bit like trying to play a Beethoven sonata after your first piano lesson. Julius Shulman was a master, no doubt—but what people often forget is that his “one shot” magic came from careful planning, expert use of light, and impeccable composition. He didn’t walk in, point the camera, and hope for the best. He crafted those images before ever pressing the shutter.

---

Of course! And I'd love to learn more about Shulman's process for planning, lighting, and composing.

But I put as much planning and preparation into my pictures as anyone. Sun position, weather, access, perspective, advance scouting -- you didn't think I just showed up to a nice-sounding spot and hoped for the best, did you? And it's not uncommon for me to go back to the same location multiple times to shoot and re-shoot until it is "just right." (I think my current record is 4 re-shoots for one location. In my defense, one of those re-shoots was caused by the lab screwing up.) But all that is very inefficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Sure, and I'm not saying it's an invalid technique or wrong... I'm just saying I don't want to have to rely on it.



Of course! And I'd love to learn more about Shulman's process for planning, lighting, and composing.

But I put as much planning and preparation into my pictures as anyone. Sun position, weather, access, perspective, advance scouting -- you didn't think I just showed up to a nice-sounding spot and hoped for the best, did you? And it's not uncommon for me to go back to the same location multiple times to shoot and re-shoot until it is "just right." (I think my current record is 4 re-shoots for one location. In my defense, one of those re-shoots was caused by the lab screwing up.) But all that is very inefficient.

---

You ask for advice, but your replies come off like lectures. If you already know everything, why ask?
Until you're willing to share your work and show where you're coming from, this feels more like posturing than genuine learning. I'm not here to waste time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Are you saying I am wrong about cine lenses being calibrated in T-stops because exposure accuracy is critical when shooting moving pictures on a big set?

https://fstoppers.com/education/why-...-f-stop-158541

Yes cine film is high latitude color negative stock, but on set you still try to get everything right to <1/3 EV accuracy, because it saves time and money. The high latitude of the film stock is there (in addition to the reasons you listed) as a "safety net" to catch you if you screw up, to save you from a (horribly expensive) reshoot. (all that notwithstanding, some commercials were/are shot on reversal/E6 film to get punchier colors -- I believe Velvia was a popular choice back in the day)

I understand you have a lot of experience and I certainly appreciate your contributions. But while your "estimate and bracket" approach may be very useful shooting buildings in NYC (where you know what the light will be, because you have been shooting in the city for years, and where you can get any film you like whenever you want) that is not necessarily a viable approach for me in a very different situation.

---

You are right about the T-stop calibration.

But I still wonder why at the time, in the late 1970's, the lenses I had for my Éclair ACL 16mm, SOM Berthiot and Angenieux regardless being fix focal or zoom, were calibrated in the usual F-stops.
And the lightmeter, the Spectra Combi-500, I had (and still do) had no T-stop indication.
But I do realise that the T-stop system is the most exact licht transmission indication for an optical system, and wonder why we still calculate in F-stops...

I used a lot of Eastman VNF stock for shooting demonstration and instruction films for the industry, the lighting conditions in the production halls were uncontrollable as these ware lit by those horrible mercury vapor lamps then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

You ask for advice, but your replies come off like lectures. If you already know everything, why ask?
Until you're willing to share your work and show where you're coming from, this feels more like posturing than genuine learning. I'm not here to waste time.

---

Well, I asked a relatively straightforward question (" What technique do you use for getting your exposure spot on in these difficult conditions? ") and instead of giving me a usable answer, people are saying it's not possible, that I should give up trying to achieve "one shot" accuracy, and that instead I have to bracket, or guesstimate, or any number of other things.

I understand that not everyone shoots E6 or that they can et great results with bracketing or that many people are happy if the result is "good enough", but just because someone does not know how to do something does not mean that thing cannot be done.

And if you think I am posturing, note that a number of people have been suggesting that I am playing Don Quixote with a light meter because I am so new to all this that I do not know any better, but their presumptions are not accurate.

This thread is not about "please critique my photography and help me take better pictures." This thread is about photography technique and answering a specific technical question.

So please, if you have experience using a meter to get exposure "right on the dot", I would love to hear more about your technique and approach.

If you are just here to tell me that it is hopeless and futile to try, I understand your concerns and have heard your warnings, but it is not necessary to belabor the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phdgent

You are right about the T-stop calibration.

But I still wonder why at the time, in the late 1970's, the lenses I had for my Éclair ACL 16mm, SOM Berthiot and Angenieux regardless being fix focal or zoom, were calibrated in the usual F-stops.
And the lightmeter, the Spectra Combi-500, I had (and still do) had no T-stop indication.
But I do realise that the T-stop system is the most exact licht transmission indication for an optical system, and wonder why we still calculate in F-stops...

I used a lot of Eastman VNF stock for shooting demonstration and instruction films for the industry, the lighting conditions in the production halls were uncontrollable as these ware lit by those horrible mercury vapor lamps then.

---

T-stop and F-stop are interchangeable for purposes of metering and calculation, so no light meter reads in T-stops. If the lens is marked T-2.8 then that means a light meter reading of F/2.8 is correct. The lens being marked as T-2.8 just means you will get precisely correct exposure if the meter says F/2.8, and you do not need to add exposure to compensate for light losses in the lens.

I don't know why the other lenses were marked as F-stops and I don't know whether their values were derived from optical calculation (the ratio of effective aperture size to focal length) or based on measurements of light travelling through the lens (T-stop).

I never touched VNF... sounds like interesting stuff if it could cope with mercury vapor lighting though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Well, I asked a relatively straightforward question (" What technique do you use for getting your exposure spot on in these difficult conditions? ") and instead of giving me a usable answer, people are saying it's not possible, that I should give up trying to achieve "one shot" accuracy, and that instead I have to bracket, or guesstimate, or any number of other things.

I understand that not everyone shoots E6 or that they can et great results with bracketing or that many people are happy if the result is "good enough", but just because someone does not know how to do something does not mean that thing cannot be done.

So please, if you have experience using a meter to get exposure "right on the dot", I would love to hear more about your technique and approach.

If you are just here to tell me that it is hopeless and futile to try, I understand your concerns and have heard your warnings, but it is not necessary to belabor the point.

---

You're not hearing what people are actually saying. No one’s telling you it’s “hopeless” or that you should give up. We're saying the path to precision—especially with E6—isn’t theoretical. It’s built through experience: shooting, evaluating, adjusting.

Anyone who takes photography seriously enough to master it learns this the same way—whether by going to school and following a proven method, assisting a working pro after showing a solid portfolio, or by jumping online and sharing work to get feedback. There’s no substitute for doing the work and showing the work.

You’ve asked for help, but you’re brushing off answers that don’t fit your expectations. That makes it feel less like a conversation and more like a performance. If you're truly looking for guidance, then share what you're working on—your images, your metering notes, what’s working and what’s not. Otherwise, it's impossible to offer real help.

No one can diagnose your exposure problems with just words. That’s not how photography works.

Out of curiosity—how many rolls or sheets of E6 have you actually shot so far? I ask because that experience really shapes how you learn to meter for it. The more film you shoot, the more you start to see patterns and results that no amount of theoretical planning can fully predict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

+1

---

+2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

You're not hearing what people are actually saying. No one’s telling you it’s “hopeless” or that you should give up. We're saying the path to precision—especially with E6—isn’t theoretical. It’s built through experience: shooting, evaluating, adjusting.

Anyone who takes photography seriously enough to master it learns this the same way—whether by going to school and following a proven method, assisting a working pro after showing a solid portfolio, or by jumping online and sharing work to get feedback. There’s no substitute for doing the work and showing the work.

---

couldn't agree more ...

it's quite a conundrum
as Neo said "I like Judo"
unfortunately we dont' have a plug ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

You're not hearing what people are actually saying. No one’s telling you it’s “hopeless” or that you should give up. We're saying the path to precision—especially with E6—isn’t theoretical. It’s built through experience: shooting, evaluating, adjusting.

---

Alright,then that jives with earlier suggestions to simply do enough exposure tests (or other experimentation) until sufficient accuracy can be obtained by instinct -- knowing that "that building edge over there should be at +1.3 EV" or similar.

That's a reasonable answer and certainly something I am going to try.

It's not quite what I was hoping for: I was hoping there was some non-obvious principle or basic relationship of exposure that I could use to achieve greater precision. Similar to how I learned to spot meter by choosing a bright spot, a dark spot, and averaging the two readings. (this usually results in a more accurate exposure compared to choosing one value and placing it on a zone, for several reasons. A more involved version would be to make several Zone System placements, derive the final exposure in EV for each placement, and then average the resulting EV exposure values. Actually, I should try that...)

Quote:

---

No one can diagnose your exposure problems with just words. That’s not how photography works.

Out of curiosity—how many rolls or sheets of E6 have you actually shot so far? I ask because that experience really shapes how you learn to meter for it. The more film you shoot, the more you start to see patterns and results that no amount of theoretical planning can fully predict.

---

I'm not asking for anyone to diagnose my exposure problems. I'm trying to better understand the craft, techniques, physics, and methodology of metering so that I can diagnose my own problems, as it were.

Since you asked, I've shot about 630 frames since January 1 of this year, mostly Provia and Velvia but also some B&W. This number does not include photos shot digitally or on 35mm film. It also does not include film currently waiting for development.

The thing is, making a zone system placement of important tones in the scene IS the only reliable (aka "precise") way to meter transparency film. You don't really want an accurate metering methodology, you want precise metering methodology, because then that's easy to adjust to give you bang-on results.

If you can spot meter individual parts of a scene and you know what the latitude of the film is, then averaging isn't doing anything for you - you already know all you need to come up with the right exposure every time, short of human error or lapses in judgement.

Basically, someone should be able to ask you where you would place various typical elements of the sorts of scenes you shoot in terms of zones/EVs, and you should be able to tell them - because you need to answer that same question to yourself every time you pick up the meter. If you can't answer it, then this is your problem. The solution to that is just a bit of decision making based on past (and possibly future) results. That's the critical step.

If you're already making those decisions and you're consistently under or over exposing then that's easy enough to correct too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave_whatever

The thing is, making a zone system placement of important tones in the scene IS the only reliable (aka "precise") way to meter transparency film. You don't really want an accurate metering methodology, you want precise metering methodology, because then that's easy to adjust to give you bang-on results.

If you can spot meter individual parts of a scene and you know what the latitude of the film is, then averaging isn't doing anything for you - you already know all you need to come up with the right exposure every time, short of human error or lapses in judgement.

Basically, someone should be able to ask you where you would place various typical elements of the sorts of scenes you shoot in terms of zones/EVs, and you should be able to tell them - because you need to answer that same question to yourself every time you pick up the meter. If you can't answer it, then this is your problem. The solution to that is just a bit of decision making based on past (and possibly future) results. That's the critical step.

If you're already making those decisions and you're consistently under or over exposing then that's easy enough to correct too.

---

Sure. The difficulty is (as I noted before) judging whether something that looks "about +1 EV" should be at, for example, +0.7 EV, +1 EV, or +1.3 EV. Can you consistently get that right?

Averaging (as I described it in my previous post) is about saying "I think that bright spot should be at about +2 EV, and that dark shadow over there looks like it could be -2 EV." Of course in practice the bright spot may be better placed at +1.5 EV... but by averaging the two, your exposure error is cut in half.

The next step then is to just do some tests with color charts and figure out how exactly things look at every possible placement. And then in the field it's much easier to say, "That pavement goes at -1.7, the white lines over there at +1, the red roof at +0.7"

If we assume a range of -2EV to +2 EV, and a step size of 0.3 EV, that is only 12 possible "zones". I may get the tests scanned, and make up an "E6 zone menu," so choosing a placement becomes as easy as pointing at a picture... like ordering Asian food off a picture menu. I'll have that Pad Thai at +0.7 EV, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Sure. The difficulty is (as I noted before) judging whether something that looks "about +1 EV" should be at, for example, +0.7 EV, +1 EV, or +1.3 EV. Can you consistently get that right?

---

Can you show us some of your images are are a disaster because you got the metering 1/3rd of a stop out?

If I was worrying about the difference between +0.7 EV, +1 EV, or +1.3 EV then I'd just call it +1, then if after doing that for a long time you're convinced that you're systematically miss-estimating certain values to the tune of 1/3rd of a stop, and all other variables are absolutely nailed down (see below), and it's causing a problem then I'd say fair enough, but if this is a purely theoretical problem rather than an actual problem then I don't think there's much to be gained.

Most of the time, even on Velvia, 1/3rd of a stop is neither here nor there except if you're right at the upper limit of the highlights and certainly well within the scope of scanning and post-processing. Pragmatically there's only so much you can do. Bear in mind also that most leaf shutters are probably operating at +/- 30% to begin with. Most grad filters don't come in 1/3rd stops either, then throw in reciprocity correction estimates, how closely to 1/3rd of a stop you can move the aperture lever on your lens, age and storage of the film, variations between light meters, variations between repeated meter readings of the same subject, light falloff of shifted wide angle lenses etc etc. You'll end up chasing some ideal which is neither practical, possible, nor has any tangible benefit in most cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Are you saying I am wrong about cine lenses being calibrated in T-stops because exposure accuracy is critical when shooting moving pictures on a big set?

https://fstoppers.com/education/why-...-f-stop-158541

Yes cine film is high latitude color negative stock, but on set you still try to get everything right to <1/3 EV accuracy, because it saves time and money. The high latitude of the film stock is there (in addition to the reasons you listed) as a "safety net" to catch you if you screw up, to save you from a (horribly expensive) reshoot. (all that notwithstanding, some commercials were/are shot on reversal/E6 film to get punchier colors -- I believe Velvia was a popular choice back in the day)

I understand you have a lot of experience and I certainly appreciate your contributions. But while your "estimate and bracket" approach may be very useful shooting buildings in NYC (where you know what the light will be, because you have been shooting in the city for years, and where you can get any film you like whenever you want) that is not necessarily a viable approach for me in a very different situation.

---

Darr's thoughts in post # 34 are spot on.

T stops are not relevant to this discussion -

The fundamental problem with your initial question is that there is no perfect exposure - especially working in transitional light - just a range of options where minor/major exposure changes will yield a range of choices.
My technique works everywhere- bracketing is how professionals work to insure you have perfection - whatever that means for you.
Husbanding film is a terrible idea
Your digital camera will give you all the information you need to determine your base exposure. Need more latitude shoot color neg. 4x5 too expensive, shoot a different format. Need perfection shoot digital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave_whatever

Can you show us some of your images are are a disaster because you got the metering 1/3rd of a stop out?

If I was worrying about the difference between +0.7 EV, +1 EV, or +1.3 EV then I'd just call it +1, then if after doing that for a long time you're convinced that you're systematically miss-estimating certain values to the tune of 1/3rd of a stop, and all other variables are absolutely nailed down (see below), and it's causing a problem then I'd say fair enough, but if this is a purely theoretical problem rather than an actual problem then I don't think there's much to be gained.

---

Oh they're not a disaster because the metering is off by 1/3 stop, it's just causing me to miss shots (and waste film) because I have to bracket to get it just right. With a 30 second - 2 minute exposure time the light can change significantly from shot to shot. That means the "right" light (for whatever definition) may happen during the "wrong" bracketing exposure.

Since you mentioned: yes I do have a device to measure my shutter timings, and I keep a correction table at hand when I am relying on the shutter. (I'm usually not, as mechanical shutters can't handle 30 second exposures.) I shoot films (Provia and Velvia 100) where reciprocity is not an issue at these exposure times and yes, I do have the reciprocity tables at hand just in case.

Grad filters aren't much use for urban/architecture work unless you like your skyscrapers dark on the top and bright at the bottom.

My light meters all agree, except for the cheap one, which goes to show it's not a good idea to pinch pennies when buying light meters.

For precision exposure changes I find it more useful to change the exposure time than the aperture. It's easier to time a few more seconds than it is to precisely nudge the aperture lever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdkphoto

Darr's thoughts in post # 34 are spot on.

T stops are not relevant to this discussion -

---

T-stops were relevant because we were discussing using digital cameras as light meters. If you are using a nice zoom on that DSLR then the light losses inside the lens may be substantial, throwing off the results.

Quote:

---

The fundamental problem with your initial question is that there is no perfect exposure - especially working in transitional light - just a range of options where minor/major exposure changes will yield a range of choices.

---

Of course there's a perfect exposure.. the perfect exposure is the one that gets me the look I want to have!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

Oh they're not a disaster because the metering is off by 1/3 stop, it's just causing me to miss shots (and waste film) because I have to bracket to get it just right. With a 30 second - 2 minute exposure time the light can change significantly from shot to shot. That means the "right" light (for whatever definition) may happen during the "wrong" bracketing exposure.

---

In this case, don't bracket. Just shoot one. If all your shutters are fine, and all your meters are perfect, and you're within, say, half a stop of the theoretical ideal (sounds like you are if one of your brackets is right) then you're done right? Hard for me to imagine what problem's being 1/3rd of a stop off is without seeing any examples TBH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

T-stops were relevant because we were discussing using digital cameras as light meters. If you are using a nice zoom on that DSLR then the light losses inside the lens may be substantial, throwing off the results.



Of course there's a perfect exposure.. the perfect exposure is the one that gets me the look I want to have!

---

You spend too much time believing internet twaddle. The only thing you are doing here is showing your ignorance. Your questions have been answered here by people who have far more experience and success than you. Its time for you to stop trolling.

I’m beginning to believe our OP is Making Imaginary Kodakachrome Exposures, but Frankly I may be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spotless_camera

T-stop and F-stop are interchangeable for purposes of metering and calculation, so no light meter reads in T-stops. If the lens is marked T-2.8 then that means a light meter reading of F/2.8 is correct. The lens being marked as T-2.8 just means you will get precisely correct exposure if the meter says F/2.8, and you do not need to add exposure to compensate for light losses in the lens.

I don't know why the other lenses were marked as F-stops and I don't know whether their values were derived from optical calculation (the ratio of effective aperture size to focal length) or based on measurements of light travelling through the lens (T-stop).

I never touched VNF... sounds like interesting stuff if it could cope with mercury vapor lighting though!

---

No VNF couldn't handle mercury vapour light as such, but it was forgiving and by this rather easy to colour control filtering in the sense that one could never filter at the (deca-) Mired precise as these lamps changed colour by age, duration of under power, environmental temperature and imagine a production hall lit by a few dozen of these, and the colour meter (Gossen) sometimes seemed to have a hard time to measure this too...

BTW, I do realise that this little conversation is deviating from the initial topic, apologise me for chatting to much...