Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: Metering Technique...any problems here?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    254

    Metering Technique...any problems here?

    Hi all. I'm going to discribe my current metering technique/methodology. I'd like you all to poke holes in it and maybe help me understand where I might go wrong. Of course you might think it's just fine and that would be nice to know too....

    I recently picked up a Sekonic 858 it's got me noticing things I didn't quite appreciate before.

    Here is what I do:

    When I look at my composition, I look for the darkest area I want to maintain detail in, the brightest area I want detail in and what I think is the middle. Then I'll spot meter around and check those values.

    Let's say the dark area is 1/15s and the highlights are 1/500s. That's 5-stops of separation right...

    So then, I ask myself, is the middle good enough? That would be 1/80s which is basically 2-1/2 stops underexposing my shadows and 2-1/2 stops overexposing my highlights.

    As a general rule, I like to place the darkest area (with detail) no more than 2-stops below my exposure setting. This may not always be true for transparencies, but for B&W and print film it works. For transparencies, it's the other way around and I'll guard the highlights by no more than 2-stops.

    Anyway, in this example, I'm reasonably close to being happy IF the highlights were just as important as my shadows, I'd shoot at 1/80. AND if the shadows were more important, I'd shoot at 1/60 (2-stops over my darkest area). AND if the highlights were the most important to me, I'd shoot at 1/125s.

    This assumes no filters. If a GND filter was appropriate, I would use a 2-stop grad and set the shot up at 1/30s.

    Would you say this is sound logic? Is this a good approach?

    Many thanks for your thoughts.

    Adam

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,573

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    Pretty much the way I work with my Sekonic L-558, except I don't mess with a middle value. I meter and store the reading for detailed shadows, same for detailed highlights, and average the readings. Then, while holding the button down I scan the scene watching how the EV differs from the average. Based on that and whether I'm shooting B&W or color film, I'll adjust. For B&W film, I'm usually giving a bit more exposure because I want my high values further up the scale (assuming normal scene here.) For color transparency, I bias the exposure toward the more important areas, but always making sure I don't blow the highlights. I don't shoot much color negative film, but if I did I'd generally bias toward the shadows.

  3. #3
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    Using B&W film, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. I always assume the shadows are important, even if exposed to pure black on the print, so I normally place the shadow areas I might want detail in two stops less than I metered it, leaving some darker shadow areas with only texture or nothing. I then mess with development to get highlights that are easy to print. This will vary with the process used to make prints...usually alt processes. But I cannot pull details out of shadows that are not there.

    And if you get too much shadow detail on the negative and don't want to burn it down in the print, a quick soak in bleach will take care of that. (and a slight bump in contrast)

    And if one wants to enter into the world of Brett Weston Blacks, that's a whole other kettle of fish.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,908

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    I fully agree with Vaughn's approach

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    776

    Metering Technique...any problems here?

    There’s different ways to achieve the same result. Whether you average and then make sure your scenes stays within a certain range around there, or exposing directly for the shadows on zone 3 is pretty similar in the end if done properly.

    What matters is that you always check the dynamic range of your scenes for the chosen exposure, and then also what you do to handle when you’re out of the comfortable range. B&W has lots of latitude for highlights for example, at least compared to slides.

    In any case, you can control the highlights either by developing for them (shorter development, this forces to take notes in the field of how to develop each shot), this applies also to color (but there may be color shifts that need to be corrected, depends on the film) or, you can use grad filters, if it makes sense for the scene, to reduce the range directly on the exposure. I prefer the latter approach but YMMV. If you do that, then you do expose for shadows on zone 3 and then use a grad of N stops where N is how many stops the highlights are above zone 7 (for slides) or 8 for color neg or B&W. [You’ve probably realized by now that although similar in spirit, it is faster to expose directly for the shadows rather than taking averages and then checking the range]. There are times where using grad filters is not possible because of the type of scene, in which case you have to resort to adjusting the development or just not take the shot.

    Also generally I find that with color negs or slides, using 3 stops in a grad filter can make the shot look contrived, unreal-looking (obviously this is scene dependent but generally true for skies), so if it looks like I need 3 or more stops to fit it, I will pass on taking the shot. B&W has more latitude of compressing the range.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,397

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    The danger with averaging high and low values, which you are basically doing, is that with scenes of larger luminance range, you end up underexposing the shadow values (or overexposing highlights, with transparency film).

    Since you have a spot meter, base your exposure for b&w negative materials on a shadow value. Just check highlights and midtones to see where they fall. If they fall outside of "normal," there are lots of ways to deal with them. You don't need to alter your basic exposure.

    The classic Zone System way is to choose different development times based on where the highlights fall. These days, many just develop "normally" and rely on contrast controls during the printing process to take up the slack. And, you can also do a little of each (e.g., I don't like the grain of N+2 or higher development, so I only develop to N+1 at the most and rely on contrast controls during printing to make up the difference).

    Your assumption, at least for b&w film, that you'll end up losing either highlights or shadows if the luminance range is great, is erroneous. With development and print contrast controls, almost any scene can be made to fit onto the final print.

    With transparency materials, it's a different story, so you'll have to compromise. Choosing lighting carefully and pre-flashing your film can help squeeze a greater dynamic range onto it.

    Best,

    Doremus

  7. #7
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,736

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    If you make contact prints from 8x10 and larger B&W negatives you can get a way with just about any metering technique, especially if using something like T-max film.

    Not many are using good film like that. I know I'm not . The crummy Chinese films I'm printing today are less forgiving, they don't have an extended rightward portion of the curve and the shadow detail is poor. Plus, I enlarge my large format negatives. Therefore good metering and development are needed.

    The common way to get the thinnest printable negative (the one that produces the best print) is to expose for the shadows.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Exposure Latitude.png 
Views:	16 
Size:	92.3 KB 
ID:	210649

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,573

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    The danger with averaging high and low values, which you are basically doing, is that with scenes of larger luminance range, you end up underexposing the shadow values (or overexposing highlights, with transparency film).
    Just like a lot things with photography...not if you use your brain! That's why following averaging of my shadow/highlight readings I scan the scene with the button held down to reveal EV offsets from the average. If I'm shooting B&W film and see, for example, that an important shadow area is a -3 EV offset, then I know that area is going to render without detail if I proceed with the metered exposure. So, I adjust. I'll give more exposure to ensure I hold the important shadow areas. Conversely, if shooting transparency film and I find a +3 EV offset for a highlight area where I'm expecting detail, then I reduce exposure to hold those high values.

    Really, just a different way of working. With the VC head I have on my enlarger, the quality of current VC papers, and split-grade printing I really don't do plus/minus development anymore. Talking B&W film here, of course.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    254

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan9940 View Post
    Just like a lot things with photography...not if you use your brain! That's why following averaging of my shadow/highlight readings I scan the scene with the button held down to reveal EV offsets from the average. If I'm shooting B&W film and see, for example, that an important shadow area is a -3 EV offset, then I know that area is going to render without detail if I proceed with the metered exposure. So, I adjust. I'll give more exposure to ensure I hold the important shadow areas. Conversely, if shooting transparency film and I find a +3 EV offset for a highlight area where I'm expecting detail, then I reduce exposure to hold those high values.

    Really, just a different way of working. With the VC head I have on my enlarger, the quality of current VC papers, and split-grade printing I really don't do plus/minus development anymore. Talking B&W film here, of course.
    Yeah you pretty much described what I was saying in the original post. I only take the average and shoot with the average if, and only if, that is actually balanced with the overall goals. That doesn't seem to work all the time. So, normally I am favoring the shadows (less transparencies).

    This is pretty helpful to get your take on things.

    One thing I don't ever do is change my development process. I don't think I have nearly enough skill to try that PLUS I certainly don't want to add more variables to my confusion!!!

    But the good news is, based on your feedback it sounds like I'm in good shape to press on.

    Thx!!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,397

    Re: Metering Technique...any problems here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan9940 View Post
    Just like a lot things with photography...not if you use your brain! That's why following averaging of my shadow/highlight readings I scan the scene with the button held down to reveal EV offsets from the average. If I'm shooting B&W film and see, for example, that an important shadow area is a -3 EV offset, then I know that area is going to render without detail if I proceed with the metered exposure. So, I adjust. I'll give more exposure to ensure I hold the important shadow areas. Conversely, if shooting transparency film and I find a +3 EV offset for a highlight area where I'm expecting detail, then I reduce exposure to hold those high values.

    Really, just a different way of working. With the VC head I have on my enlarger, the quality of current VC papers, and split-grade printing I really don't do plus/minus development anymore. Talking B&W film here, of course.
    Alan,

    (Talking B&W film here too.)

    Right you are! What you do gets the job done splendidly.

    However, I submit (humbly) that you're maybe wasting a lot of time metering anything else but a shadow value and just placing that. Allow me to make my case:

    If one places an important shadow value where they want it, i.e., to render the amount of detail desired, and if one isn't doing any development changes for contrast control, rather just relying on printing controls (as you do), then no other meter readings are really necessary as far as the ultimate negative exposure is concerned.

    Let's use your example: You take two readings, average those, then scan the contrast range of the scene and then, if your shadow is a -3 EV offset from your average value (I'm assuming three stops under that average, Zone II in ZS parlance), you add an extra stop of exposure to compensate. How many meter readings is that? Five? Six?

    Now my approach. Read that shadow, place it on Zone III (a -2 EV offset in your parlance) and make the shot. Same results; one meter reading.

    All those other luminances that you didn't meter are going to end up on the negative wherever they were always going to be with your chosen development.

    Of course, you can read all those other values for information about mergers and to help with visualization, choosing filters, etc. (and whether to make the exposure or not), but that's just superfluous (albeit interesting and valuable) information as far as the exposure per se is concerned.

    I read lots of values in the scenes I photograph. Most of that is to help me visualize what the final print will look like, i.e., what mid-tone separation will be, or to choose filters to darken/lighten skies, rocks, foliage, etc. And, most importantly, to find the overall luminance range in the scene so I can decide which development time to use. None of that relates to the actual exposure.

    The exposure itself is determined by the shadow value I measure and where I decide to place it, period (along with whatever adjustments I need to make for filters, bellows, reciprocity, etc.).

    You might try just placing an important shadow, then going through your routine and seeing if things come up differently or not...

    FWIW, I meter very differently when using TTL meters with smaller cameras, but that's a subject for another discussion. The above is for spot metering for B&W negative materials and has worked well for me for years.

    Best,

    Doremus

Similar Threads

  1. Metering technique for J Lane Dry Plates
    By Alan9940 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 14-Aug-2020, 12:23
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 7-Dec-2018, 19:25
  3. Proper Incident Metering Technique (Portraiture)?
    By Andre Noble in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 3-Jan-2010, 14:16
  4. BTZS Metering Technique
    By mikxer in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13-Feb-2009, 20:49
  5. Metering Technique
    By Sylvester Graham in forum Gear
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2007, 07:26

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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