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

[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.

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.

[phdgent]

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!

[spotless_camera]

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.

[spotless_camera]

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.

[dave_whatever]

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.

[spotless_camera]

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.

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.

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!

[Eric James]

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>

[spotless_camera]

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.

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.

[bdkphoto]

[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.

[darr]

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.

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.