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

[sharktooth]

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.

[dave_whatever]

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.

[spotless_camera]

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.

[spotless_camera]

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!

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!

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...

[spotless_camera]

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)

[spotless_camera]

... 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

[Eric James]

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.

[bdkphoto]

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.

[darr]

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

[spotless_camera]

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.)

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.

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!

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.

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...

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.