I don't need a meter!

[Sparrow]

I had friends who liked to debate like this when I was in college. Probably why I drank so much then. 😀

Now at least I can see there is stuff in here that I can learn from.

sorry Rover ya get sucked in sometimes,
I’m to bed now, good night :angel:

 

[gberger]

Stewart -

With 'chromes, it's best to take an incident meter reading - - and then (horrors of horrors!) bracket @ 1/2 stops. With B&W, the same applies, except throw in additional brackets for the shadows, depending upon your processing and printing techniques.

All the rest is just polishing the apple amd dancing on the head of a pin.

George (who started with a Brownie in 1933)

 

[VinceC]

>>try viewing it on a PC rather than a mac, there are no blown highlights<<

I'm on a PC. Our two screens are proabably adjusted differently, so that the two images look the same on our two different screens. I am calibrated by eyeball (I am, afterall, a sunny-16 shooter) but it maches our two IBM laptops, my two girls' computers and my office computers.

Regardless, when I've shot in that situation, I've purposely blown highlights. With film, you make the conscious decision to salvage them during printing. With digital, you just let them go (or learn to use flash if you're getting paid for it). These days, all my film shots are scanned onto CDs during photo-finishing, so I tend to treat them more like digital.

Below are a couple of film examples and a digital example under conditions that exceed latitude. I decided to blow highlights. No meter on the first two.
Third was with a digital and area-metered on the dark areas. I think my point, if there is one, is to use your judgement when blowing the lightlights so that you remain in control of the overall image.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have been going thru this thread for a while now and find that I must have missed some explainations relating to film speed standards. Roger, are you saying that a 400 ISO negative film and a 400 ISO transparency are manufactured such that the exposure for the negative must be biased toward the darkest elements of the subject and the exposure for the positive must be biased toward the brightest elements of the subject in order for them to reach their respective speed ratings?

If this is so, why don't the meter designers just include a switch that allows the user to simply select negative or positive, and then use whatever the meter says? The modern marvel film cameras with their super matrix meters don't seem to differentiate between film types, and it seems they would if it was simply a matter of film design bias.

Can you clarify?

Regards, Paul C.

Dear Paul,

This is indeed a great puzzle: it would be extremely easy with a multi-mode meter to put a 'black and white' mode, which simply biases the exposure towards the shadows.

No, it's not film design bias: it's inherent in the difference between transparency and negative.

If the subject brightness range is below about 5 stops, and the overall reflectivity is about average, it won't matter. As soon as it exceeds about 5 stops, the exposure for transparency must be biased towards preserving the highlights so they don't blow; perforce, you let the shadows go hang. This means that if the same algorithms are used for metering for neg, the shadows still go hang.

The first commercial spot meter (SEI, unless you count the unsuccessful Ainger Hall) had no mid-tone index, because it was designed to be used properly, i.e. for metering shadows (negative, one index) and highlights (transparency, the other index). It was a very expensive piece of equipment, and anyone who bought it would probably have understood basic exposure theory. Certainly they would if they read the SEI instruction book.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, much cheaper broad-area reflected-light meters (such as the Weston Master) had always used an 'average' or 'mid-point' index, taking advantage of two things: first, the surprisingly constant 12-14% reflectivity of many subjects, and second, the flexibility and latitude of the neg-pos process.

As far as I recall, photoelectric meters became popular around the time Kodachrome came in, or maybe a little later: pure coincidence, not cause-and-effect. To make life easier when metering for colour, Kodak recommended the use of a Kodak yellow paper envelope as a standard target, used similarly to a grey card. Incident light meters were comparatively rare and I do not know when the Invercone came in.

Now, as people became richer and more of them could afford spot meters, the spot meter manufacturers started to put in a mid-tone index for those who didn't understand basic exposure theory but could afford expensive kit; I can see no other reason for a mid-tone on a spot meter EXCEPT under controlled lighting in the studio, where it might make sense to use a standard tone (by this time the gray card, with the fudge of angling it to compensate for the fact that it was 18% not 13%. Many people were still unable to get their heads ariund this, so some (maybe all) spot meters were calibrated on the basis of an 18% standard tone.

The reason you can't just put a switch into a broad-area reflective meter should by now be obvious; spot meters do in fact have two indices, or indeed, a highlight/shadow switch; as already noted, it is a puzzle that multi-segment meters don't; and if you look at the extremly complex dial on an old Weston you'll see 'O' and 'U' marks corresponding to the maximum brightness range recrded by a normally processed negative, and other numbers designed to allow maximum precision rather than maximum speed.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why would you meter Roger, you must surely know that is inaccurate, guesswork I understand, the best results are based on experience, I have been lead to believe?

You may be advised to contemplate the difference between the definite and the indefinite article, you may then understand that there is a significant difference between “the” and “my” gymnastics, perhaps?

In future please do not quote me out of context or make assumptions on my part to a third party and I will, in exchange, extend the same courtesy to you.

With regards, and good evening

Dear Stewart,

Your grammar is so frequently splenetic that if I do not understand it on a couple of readings, I no longer bother to try to interpret it. You are letting anger get in the way of clear thought. I had no intention of quoting you out of context; I do not know where you think I did so; but if I did, I apologize.

I also apologize for the length of the post, though I have attempted to include a little new information as well as reiterating the basics and questioning your arguments.

Now: experience.

Part of the skill of metering is knowing where to meter. With a spot meter and negative film, as I have repeated ad nausueam, this is normally the darkest area in which you want detail, though you can of course key exposure anywhere you like: in movies, a favourite key tone is the highlight on the star's face.

Knowing where to meter is mostly a question of simple understanding, though experience also plays a part: you may decide to let unimportant shadows block, or you may use blocked shadows as an aesthetic element. Also -- an interesting fact I learned from a master (photomechanical) printer -- if two shadows look about equal in a scene, the one that is nearer the ground will usually be darker.

Another part of the skill of metering, especially when using anything other than a spot meter, is knowing how to interpret the results: experience again.

You have still to give a straight answer to whether you know how ISO film speed standards are defined. If you persist in denying that negative speeds are keyed to minimum density on the negative, and transparency speeds to brightest highlights in the transparency (minimum density again, of course), we shall all be forced to assume that you do not.

Then there's the question of the half stop versus 1/25 stop (difference in reflectivity between 13% and 16%). Let's assume it was a stupid mistake; we all make them. In that case, the decent thing would have been to admit it.

Next come your inexplicable assertions about blocking shadows and blowing highlights equally, by meterig a mid tone. The latitude of negative film -- great for overexposure, slight for underexposure -- makes a nonsense of that, too.

There is no polite way of saying it. A lot of the time, you simply do not appear to know what you are talking about, and you are excessively willing to resort to personal insult and general mounting of a high horse in an attempt to disguise the fact.

So let's try a little test, with anger aside:

1 Do you deny that experience plays an essential part in exposure determination, whether you are metering or not?

2 Do you agree that ISO film speeds are determined as described above?

3 Why did you fail to acknowledge your howler about 1/25 stop?

4 Do you accept that in the nature of film latitude, there is greater tolerance of overexposure than of underexposure?

5 Do you sincerely believe what you said in the post above, that you do not believe that I ever use meters, or at least, that I would not meter the shot in question?

I have no intention of denigrating your ability as a photographer. That was a very fine picture, and one I would have been proud to take. But I do query, with some force, whether you have much grasp of fundamental exposure theory. As far as i can see, you are in fact living proof of the truth that you do not need to understand exposure theory in order to take good pictures.

Throughout this thread, I have been trying to lay out some basic and verifiable fundamentals of exposure theory, and to counter some common misconceptions. If this is seen as 'willy waving', I don't really care: I want to help people understand, if they are interested in exposure theory. What has kept you in thread?

Roger

 

[tripod]

An observation and some constructive criticism: Debating a topic graciously is a rare skill it seems. A good teacher does not cause his student to feel belittled. Your content is solid Roger but your manner begs to be argued with which is counter productive to conveying knowledge. I appreciate the content Roger, but I have to work to get past the style.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Deleted and re-sent as private message.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[cmedin]

It is generally very very poor Internet etiquette to share personal/private messages like this.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It is generally very very poor Internet etiquette to share personal/private messages like this.

Don't blame Richard entirely. That was indeed what I posted publicly before deleting it and re-sending something rather different as a private message, so it is my fault.

On the other hand, the deletion had been public for quite some time before he decided to send that. Check the times. It had been up for about 20-30 minutes before I thought better of it, and cancelled it. Two and a half hours later, presumably in a spirit of mischief, Richard decided to send his post.

I can only apologize for posting it in the first place.

Apologies,

Roger

 

[Sparrow]

I would welcome comment on these photos this is the most difficult light i could find at short notice.

I thought I would just check I hadn't become delusional in old age.

My lab actually calibrates at 23% (the last grey rectangle) not 18% as I thought so we have all learnt something, I am still awaiting a reply from Kodak.

 

[Sparrow]

 

[Sparrow]

 

[Sparrow]

 

[Sparrow]

the one with the 500w lamp behind the subject demonstrates the effect of tones in combination, the card is perceptually much darker than the others I will check the actual density tomorrow

I have to apologies to Alice, my daughter, I usually remove blemishes in PS but didn't think it would be appropriate here.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Sparrow,

And the relevance of these pictures to theory is...?

I have repeatedly said that theory is something to be studied out of interest, not because it is necessary to make well-exposed pictures, where almost any system will work, thanks to (a) latitude and (b) experience.

You have admirably demonstrated this, thereby, perhaps, supporting my thesis.

Would you care to reply to any of my direct questions?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Roger

I would prefer not to become involved in a categorical debate, I would rather simply admit to your superior knowledge and experience, and refer you to my first first post in this thread.

I would also like to invite you to demonstrate the application of that knowledge and experience, perhaps similar shots to mine using the superior accuracy of sunny f16?

I offer my apology for the splenetic grammar, emental argument has that effect on me, sorry.

kind regards

 

[VinceC]

Stewart,
I for one can appreciate long-suffering daughters who obligingly endure our lens and exposure tests.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger

I would prefer not to become involved in a categorical debate, I would rather simply admit to your superior knowledge and experience, and refer you to my first first post in this thread.

I would also like to invite you to demonstrate the application of that knowledge and experience, perhaps similar shots to mine using the superior accuracy of sunny f16?

I offer my apology for the splenetic grammar, emental argument has that effect on me, sorry.

kind regards

Dear Stewart,

You are doing it again. Where have I ever said that sunny 16 is superior?

Nor do I claim to be a better photographer than you. I have already said that I would have been proud to take that picture. I do however claim, with what I believe to be considerable justice, that I know a good deal more about exposure theory than you do.

The correlation between being a good photographer and understanding fundamental exposure theory is slender or non-existent, as I have repeatedly said, and as you appear to have demonstrated with the picture you posted. It is much like the correlation between being a scrupulous grammarian and a good writer. The two are quite different. As my wife said, "If you can take pictures like that, why worry about exposure theory? Just go out and take more pictures!"

If anyone wants to see some of our pictures, to confirm that actually, we quite often do get the exposure right, www.rogerandfrances.com has hundreds, possibly thousands. There are also modules in The Photo School about metering, bracketing, subject brightness ranges, and lots more.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[VinceC]

Fundamental law of exposure:

f/8 and be there.

 

[emraphoto]

after reading (admittedly only a portion of) this thread i thought hmmm... how good am i at guestimating in the toughest of conditions? i mean i've been shooting for 2 decades with 10-15 of those years on the street... how in tune are my eye's?
so off i went. no internal meter, no handheld (my weapon of choice) just my wee noggin'.
comment away!
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20652&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20653&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20654&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20655&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20656&full=1
cheers
john