Roger Hicks
Veteran
Unless they shoot exclusively LF B+W, in which case it's about the worst possible choice.
Cheers,
R.
How truly useful are lightmeters?
- Thread starter kevbo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 64
- Views 4K
- Status
Unless they shoot exclusively LF B+W, in which case it's about the worst possible choice.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
What do you mean by an 'ambient' meter?
If you mean 'incident light' (which from context appears to be the case), perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us how it can possibly guarantee adequate shadow exposure for B+W.
Cheers,
R.
leicashot
Well-known
Yes I mean 'incident' meter. Nothing is ever guaranteed in photography. That's the photographer's biggest weakness- looking for automation and guarantees, then being disappointed if the 'camera' doesn't deliver. It is NOT the camera's responsibility for the final result, it's the photographer's.
An incident meter will measure the ambient light falling on the subject - but the photographer must recognize when shadows need a little more exposure and can do one of two things:
1. put their hand over the top of the meter so it's discarding the reading of the highlights
2. read the light differences (with experience of course) and give the exposure an extra 1/3, 2/3 1 stop, or whatever they feel if required.
Photography has always been taught in manual, in this way because it's the best way photographer's can learn to read, analyze, recognize and adapt to light.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In other words, fudge it, based on experience and guesswork...
Why is this better than directly measuring the shadows with a true spot meter? Which actually does guarantee adequate shadow exposure.
Cheers,
R.
C
Carlos M
Guest
Guaranteed adequate shadow exposure?
It does "guaranty" a more realistic representation of the scene.
Some shadows are meant to be "black".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, yes... You directly meter the darkest shadow in which you want texture and detail, using a spot meter, and let anything darker go black. I'm afraid I can't quite see your point.
Afterthought: at the printing stage, you can always discard shadow detail you don't want. You can't invent detail that isn't there.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
C
Carlos M
Guest
Thank you for your edit. Your original was not very "polite".
My "point" was, and is that your "adequate shadow exposure" is a (very) fuzzy concept.
I wouldn't want to. Sure, I could make night look like day but that would not be a realistic representation of the original scene.
ebino
Well-known
In fact I'm happy that photography with technology has moved beyond banalities, such as exposure and wet printing and so on and now its purely about pictures.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
I don't often carry a separate meter when I am traveling light, but I frequently miss it.
An incident reading allows me to prepare the camera before raising it to my face. This preparation is important to me when I am photographing people so that I can get my shot quickly in one go. Well, a better chance anyway.
When I point a camera at someone, lower it, dink with the exposure, point it again, I don't often see what I saw before. Frequently, I see mounting impatience and forced smiles, i.e. not normally what I want. In candid circumstances, most subjects don't care to endure accommodating technicalities.
A camera with AE helps while lot, but that capability doesn't completely replace the fore-knowledge of a meter. A well-practiced photographer certainly can use their experience to anticipate exposure, but I find the confirmation of a meter to be an affirming check.
An incident reading allows me to prepare the camera before raising it to my face. This preparation is important to me when I am photographing people so that I can get my shot quickly in one go. Well, a better chance anyway.
When I point a camera at someone, lower it, dink with the exposure, point it again, I don't often see what I saw before. Frequently, I see mounting impatience and forced smiles, i.e. not normally what I want. In candid circumstances, most subjects don't care to endure accommodating technicalities.
A camera with AE helps while lot, but that capability doesn't completely replace the fore-knowledge of a meter. A well-practiced photographer certainly can use their experience to anticipate exposure, but I find the confirmation of a meter to be an affirming check.
C
Carlos M
Guest
ebino
Well-known
We don't need light meters for our eyes to see the world properly, our eyes don't need AF to focus, so why not a camera emulate our senses and leave us to take pictures as we see it?
I'd rather be a photographer than a light meter expert or a printer expert and so on. I wish to take photos, post-process them. The technicalities of light meters and so on I leave to other craftsman.
The same way that I don't feel guilty about not being able to program my own post processing software, the same way i feel no guilt about the metering system in my camera that takes care of exposure 99% of the time and correctly. : )
Gumby
Veteran
Sometimes it seems like it is a banality, compared to other "important" inssues like wrist strp vs. neck strap, or value of a camrea with an original red dot vs. value of same camera with a replacement red dot. 😀
C
Carlos M
Guest
Ah, I see.
Last edited by a moderator:
tlitody
Well-known
Hmmmm,
meter the shadow in which you want texture? This is straight out of the Zone system which I know and use. But what's shadow for one person maybe and frequently is black or midtone for other people. And the zone system as it's written in the negative is based on an 11 zone system from 0 thru X with each zone being a 1 stop spread giving 10 stops from pure black to pure white. All basic zone system stuff. But....
Most subjects aren't 10 stops of range. They are less and using the meter for the shadows and develop for highlights rule of thumb produces negatives of varying highlight density. Since most subjects aren't 10 stops range it is perfectly reasonable to meter for the highlights in the knowledge that you will will always have adequate shadow exposure (except in a few cases) and you will get negatives which all print or scan with very similar times unlike when you meter for the shadows. An incident meter does exactly this for you as you know it is keyed for the highlights anyway. Only if you think the scene has excessive range do you need to give extra exposure. And you can do this with a spot or an incident meter. And for roll film users who are wet printing, I would suggest this is a better way of working since most people adjust print exposure for highlights and adjust contrast for the shadows.
Of course this assumes you have calibrated dev for the zone system 0 thru X because if you haven't and just go with film ISO speed and standard dev then there is less room for manoeuvre.
Last edited:
JayGannon
Well-known
Erm they do. And a camera making your decisions for you does not a photographer make.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Carlos,
No, it's not, actually.
'Adequate shadow detail' is shadow detail where you want it. Where is the fuzziness in this?
How much shadow detail you want is a matter of personal choice, and therefore fuzzy. But the point above - how you get the shadow detail - is not.
Cheers,
R.
C
Carlos M
Guest
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First highlight: No, it's straight out of basic sensitometry, of which the Zone System is a small subset, oversimplified in some ways and over-complicated in others.
Read my earlier post (the one at 16:45) about why 'calibrated dev' is overrated.
Second highlight: right, we're back to the fudge based on experience, instead of direct measurement.
Don't get me wrong. Just about any metering system can be made to work, with the right fudge factors, and with enough reliance on latitude. The system I advocate is however the only one that guarantees adequate shadow detail, without needless overexposure, regardless of tonal range, in whatever area you choose as the darkest in which you want texture and detail.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. So where are you saying the fuzziness comes in?
Each photographer knows how much shadow detail he/she wants, and where. No fuzz there.
A spot reading guarantees shadow detail in that area, without needless overexposure. No fuzz there either.
I still don't see your point. One of us is misunderstanding the other. Where is the misunderstanding?
Cheers,
R.
ebino
Well-known
@Carlos: I use the Auto mode, A for amateur.
The question of decision making process in photography is interesting. Lets say do you agree that the unsung heroes who created Kodachrome should be given credit in every masterpiece that was shot using Kodachrome? Do you think every Salgado book should give credit to all the people behind Tri-X in Kodak? Because it was not photographers who came with these famous films, it was some unsung quiet dudes working in complete obscurity that created those films.
Similarly the modern DSLR is an extremely complicated computer that is made to be used even by a complete computer illiterate person, but lets say if that illiterate person turns out to be a great photographer and wins an award or something, should he give credit to the engineers in the company where his camera was made? And these examples can go on ad nauseum.
The point I'm trying to make is that every decision about the technology that a photographer needs to make a photograph with is already decided by someone else. A photographer's decision is simply an act of pointing at something and clicking. even what happens in post processing is already decided by someone else.
So, the notion of decision making is very tricky, and its incredibly arrogant of a photographer to think of himself as the sole creator of a picture. And those who think using their teeth is a better method to open a knot rather than their fingers are simply fooling themselves, and taking false pride at something that is after all the result of work by engineers spending thousand of hours on research.
A photographer uses a lot of technology and the hard work of others to point at a subject and take a picture. How he uses all that technology and effort of others to make a picture is his part. Otherwise, to be a true photographer one should design and make one's own camera, post processing software, printing machine and ink.
The question of decision making process in photography is interesting. Lets say do you agree that the unsung heroes who created Kodachrome should be given credit in every masterpiece that was shot using Kodachrome? Do you think every Salgado book should give credit to all the people behind Tri-X in Kodak? Because it was not photographers who came with these famous films, it was some unsung quiet dudes working in complete obscurity that created those films.
Similarly the modern DSLR is an extremely complicated computer that is made to be used even by a complete computer illiterate person, but lets say if that illiterate person turns out to be a great photographer and wins an award or something, should he give credit to the engineers in the company where his camera was made? And these examples can go on ad nauseum.
The point I'm trying to make is that every decision about the technology that a photographer needs to make a photograph with is already decided by someone else. A photographer's decision is simply an act of pointing at something and clicking. even what happens in post processing is already decided by someone else.
So, the notion of decision making is very tricky, and its incredibly arrogant of a photographer to think of himself as the sole creator of a picture. And those who think using their teeth is a better method to open a knot rather than their fingers are simply fooling themselves, and taking false pride at something that is after all the result of work by engineers spending thousand of hours on research.
A photographer uses a lot of technology and the hard work of others to point at a subject and take a picture. How he uses all that technology and effort of others to make a picture is his part. Otherwise, to be a true photographer one should design and make one's own camera, post processing software, printing machine and ink.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
