I don't need a meter!

[Sparrow]

You are quite right, and I apologize. It is hard not to respond in kind to such digs. I have edited the offending posts.

Cheers,

R.

I also apologise, sorry, it is difficult not to respond

regarrds

 

[Roger Hicks]

I said rated to, not calibrated to; are you really saying there is no relationship between film speed and exposure value?
I didn’t claim a % value for the perceptive mid-tone, it is perceptual it cannot have an absolute value, and anyway if the difference is a full 4% what is that 1/25 of a stop?

Dear Stewart,

The difference between 13% and 16% reflectivity is half a stop.

I really do not wish to appear arrogant, but add that error to your mistaken belief about how ISO speeds are determined, and it is hard to believe that you know quite as much about the subject as you think you do.

Another statement that is simply inaccurate is that if you measure a mid-point in the subject, you will block shadows and blow highlights in equal measure (post 142). No, you won't. The latitude of film for over-exposure is famously greater than its latitude for under-exposure; if you don't believe me, just try it. Take your reading, your way or any other. Bracket at that reading, at +2 stops and -2stops. The +2stops will be fully printable.

Base your exposure on a shadow reading and you are taking full advantage of that latitude. Base it on anything else and you will block the shadows long before you blow the highlights.

As you say, you are not making yourself understood. At least, not to me. I hope I have done a better job, and that even if people do not undertand me, they may look up the ISO film speed standards or read the article to which I pointed you in your last post.

I am fully aware that some people have found this discussion boring, or arcane, but equally, understanding exposure theory is quite interesting, even if of limited practical use. As I have said before, almost any method of metering (including no metering at all, just guesswork) can be made to work, given enough experience. I have highlighted this because it is fundamental. But understanding why it works is another matter.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

I also apologise, sorry, it is difficult not to respond

regarrds

Dear Stewart,

I accept your apology gladly, and thank you for aknowledging mine.

I hope the above post does not offend you too much, but no matter how much I try to soften it (as I have edited this in an attempt to do), the simple truth is that the three errors I point out in the previous post are errors: the only way they could be otherwise is if I am completely misunderstanding you, so I'd like a clarification.

First, do you acceot that the difference between 13% and 16% reflectivity is about half a stop?

Second, do you accept that ISO film speeds are keyed to minimum density: shadows for negatives, highlights for transparencies.

Third, does my explanation make sense to you, where I suggest that by reading the shadows, you have the maximum possible latitude for over-exposure and no need to worry about under-exposure?

If you could prepare a similar list of questions where I have made mistakes, I will try to answer them.

In the interests of simplicity, I have edited out the paragraph about the Munsell mid-tone and the nature of perception; not because I am unwilling to fight my corner, but because it is substantially irrelevant.

If this thread is clarifying and concentrating your understanding as much as it is mine, we shall both have gained.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[kully]

Roger and Stewart, your joint teaching style is not 'conventional' but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through this thread and learnt a lot that I hadn't known and challenged ideas that I had gathered from here and there.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger and Stewart, your joint teaching style is not 'conventional' but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through this thread and learnt a lot that I hadn't known and challenged ideas that I had gathered from here and there.

Dear Kully,

Thank you. I am sure that Stewart will be as happy as I to know that our maunderings have not been in vain.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sparrow]

For all the gymnastics Roger the fact remains that I can select an area that I want to be mid-grey in the final print, meter from it process the film and produce a print that ends up with that area of the print mid-grey, I can do it accurately under any lighting conditions all of the time.

And I cannot do that with sunny-16 below say f5.6/R.Film speed, I therefore conclude the former to be more accurate

Of course I must make allowance for film type and the overall contrast, but I must do that with both methods anyway, selecting my mid-grey from the shadow for print and from the highlights for slide seems to work. I’m afraid whatever you say that works, and works well

go well

 

[Sparrow]

Roger and Stewart, your joint teaching style is not 'conventional' but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through this thread and learnt a lot that I hadn't known and challenged ideas that I had gathered from here and there.

good grief don’t take any notice of me, I’m no teacher, this is just my way when I’m in difficult light, I’m not advocating it for anyone else, I’m an exposure slut and as likely to stick it on auto as the next man

 

[Roger Hicks]

For all the gymnastics Roger the fact remains that I can select an area that I want to be mid-grey in the final print, meter from it process the film and produce a print that ends up with that area of the print mid-grey, I can do it accurately under any lighting conditions all of the time.

Dear Stewart,

Of course you can. You may lose shadow detail, but that is another matter. Reproducing any chosen subject tone, be it black, white or grey, as a mid-tone in a print is about as undemanding as it gets. You can do that with blank film, or even an empty negative carrier. Good shadow and highlight detail are generally accounted more important -- and more difficult.

In any case, your dismissal of my 'gymnastics' does not address the points I made earlier, all of which are to do with the underlying theory, all of which can be independently verified in a wide range of authoritative sources.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[VinceC]

>>Many photographers make more or less conscious corrections for this when taking incident or broad-area readings, based on experience and rules of thumb, but the only way to be SURE they are not under-exposed is to read them directly.<<

I agree that incident readings give you the highlights and, with negative emulsions, you let your experience take it from there. As with any meter reading, the judgement call is where you choose to take your incident reading ... full light, full shadow or somewhere in between.

And, given the inherent latitude of film, if you just do like oldtimers and crank it open a stop or two for shadow detail, it's hard to muck it up too badly.

If Ansel Adams started adding an extra stop of exposure after getting a spot meter, I hazard to guess that his pre-spot-meter photographs are still quite satisfactory. The beauty of negative emulsions is that the image on the negative becomes your rough draft while the print becomes the polished final piece. Or, as Ansel Adams himself said, creating the negative is like writing the musical score ... printing the final photograph is conducting the symphony.

 

[Sparrow]

Like this undemanding as it gets lighting you mean, f16 would have suggested 1/30 at f16 would you say?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Vince,

Absolutely. Which makes it all but meaningless to get too precious about metering mid-tones.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Like this undemanding as it gets lighting you mean, f16 would have suggested 1/30 at f16 would you say?

Dear Stewart,

Nice picture. But no significant areas of deep shadow detail, so your metering technique should work fine.

Don't quite understand your question, though. Sorry. Did you mean 'sunny 16'? Wouldn't have used it myself; better to meter the darkest area in which I wanted texture...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Toby]

>>If Ansel Adams started adding an extra stop of exposure after getting a spot meter, I hazard to guess that his pre-spot-meter photographs are still quite satisfactory.

Only Ansel would know how much easier to print they were, and that's some of the point. Skill in the darkroom can cover up inadequacies elsewhere. I can produce decent prints from dodgy exposures, accuracy of exposure is also about saving yourself hard work later on.

 

[VinceC]

To answer Sparrow's question -- a Sunny-16 photographer would tell you there are about five stops between the outside light and the tables (they appear dark in Sparrow's example ... I think there's a lot of ambient light coming in from the right). There are two schools of thought. One says you split the difference and go down 2.5 stops. The other says you go for the shadow detail and knock it down four stops.

In any event, there is no single accurate exposure. I personally would have sacrificed exterior detail for interior detail.

 

[rover]

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.

 

[Sparrow]

To answer Sparrow's question -- a Sunny-16 photographer would tell you there are about five stops between the outside light and the tables (they appear dark in Sparrow's example ... I think there's a lot of ambient light coming in from the right). There are two schools of thought. One says you split the difference and go down 2.5 stops. The other says you go for the shadow detail and knock it down four stops.

In any event, there is no single accurate exposure. I personally would have sacrificed exterior detail for interior detail.

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

 

[tripod]

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

Oh no, here we go with the next argument!

 

[Keith]

Aside from the odd dig between the protagonists this has turned into a very interesting discussion on exposure and I thank Stewart and Roger for their in depth dissections!

We're all learning and it's all good!

 

[Paul Connet]

Dear Stewart,

Second, do you accept that ISO film speeds are keyed to minimum density: shadows for negatives, highlights for transparencies.

Cheers,

Roger

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.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

Nice picture. But no significant areas of deep shadow detail, so your metering technique should work fine.

Don't quite understand your question, though. Sorry. Did you mean 'sunny 16'? Wouldn't have used it myself; better to meter the darkest area in which I wanted texture...

Cheers,

R.

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