Originally Posted by cyrus
I have used my palm to double check readings, tho I had never actually checked it against a gray card before. I was at work and had a gray card and a Digisix meter within reach...and like AA knowing the luminance of the moon, caucasian skin tends to be about a Zone VI...or one stop brighter than a gray card (tho obviously there is can be a bit of a variation.)
Vaughn
Yes, I was being facetious (horse's ass perhaps)? Keeping up close as you move around the back works. All they can do is push you out of the way instead of kick. Spent plenty of time working with team horses at a tourist trap and trail riding. Never injured myself but saw a few stupid accidents because people forgot the horse has a mind of its own.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled 24-hour coverage of the metering religious war (cue dramatic music)...
I enjoyed the diversion from the light wars...Yes, I was being facetious (horse's ass perhaps
We now return you to your regularly scheduled 24-hour coverage of the metering religious war (cue dramatic music)...Metering is pretty straight forward and I have to admit that after 30+ years of making photographs I have never tested for the ASA of any film or "calibrated" my development times...I just make photographs. It is not rocket science, though it can be if one wants it to be.
I packed mules for the US Forest Service for those 10 years. An experienced packer I ran into said that one is not truely a packer until one has had a wreck. So even though I was basically a self-taught city-boy ("Here are the mules, here is how you put the pack saddle on and this is how you tie on the load. See you in ten days."), I guess I can call myself a mule packer without real packers laughing too loudly. I have had gear scattered across the mountain side, mules with their packs hanging upside down on their bellies, imprompto rodeos on razor back ridges, tossed off horses, and yes, kicked a few times. I sort of miss it.
Vaughn
They say there are two kinds of horse/mule people, those who have had an accident and those who are about to
steve simmons
Sometimes there is too much confusion going about between those debating one way of metering vs another . . . us lesser informed folks get lost in it all.
_____________________________
"Bump! Bump! Bump!" Opening line of "Winnie the Pooh" Milne
Sometimes there is too much confusion going about between those debating one way of metering vs another . . . us lesser informed folks get lost in it all.
That is why I discourage comparing the two methods and looking for matching readngs.
Pick and one learn how to do it.
steve simmons
And "confusion" is a bad thing? Confusion just tests one's resolve to learn new things.
There are two basic ways to meter.
1) Take an average reading and hope that the high and low values are not too extreme and will fit within the recording ability of the film and/or print material. One can do this by using gray card and a reflected light meter, or by using an incident light meter...or by just pointing one's camera or meter at the scene.
2) Meter the shadows and expose for what detail you want there, and then meter the highlights and develop to keep them withing the recording ability of the film and/or print material. (This is not the Zone System, but the concept upon which the Zone System was designed.) Usually done with a reflected light meter (spot or non-spot meter).
The first method works great and is what probably 99% of photography (both digital and analog) is done with...but one might miss a shot if the scene is not an "average" one. But with experience, one learns how to adjust one's exposure and development to capture those non-average scenes.
Method #2 is for those would want to refine their control of their exposures.
Onward thru the fog!
Vaughn
Sigh... I guess it would be nice if people answered your question.
No, your meter is not broken. There might be a few reasons why they read differently. They might have been calibrated to a different standard, the spectral response of the photo cell is different, blah, blah, blah. It does not matter, what matters is that you are consistent, pick a metering method you feel comfortable with, do a little bit of testing and stick to it.
LF photography is a little bit harder than putting your DSLR on "P" and shooting away, but I hope you will find that once you become comfortable with it, the results are unequaled and worth the effort.
Good luck.
As the OP of this thread, I think it's about time I stepped in. I asked a question which seemed to have a multitude of answers, but thank you to Cyrus the answer was simply to do with the angle of the grey card. When angled correctly they readings of incident and reflected match, as I would have expected, and perfect exposure for the picture in question.
How do I know it was a perfect exposure? A black bag against a white wall, looked exactly as that, a black bag against a white wall. NO Zone system, NO find the true ASA of the film. NO under/over development.
Ironically Horses are what I take most of my pictures of (using an incident meter, of course)!
Heyheyhey, why don't I win anything
Just kidding!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks