light metering

[sbug]

'FWIW, this is probably the most interesting thread I have read at any photo related website in months.'

scott, a bit off topic, but i'm curious about what makes this thread so interesting for you?

joe

Extra interesting for me mostly because of the timing. I just shot two rolls of film with no meter at all and I was very pleased with the results of my educated exposure guesses. I haven't done that in far too long a time. Plus I see this type of thread as one of the ideals of a forum like this. An in depth discussion of equipment and technique without either of those being the end-all, be-all.

You?

Scott

 

[Film dino]

......

Consistent film emulsions were manufactured before accurate meters were widely availalabe. So once upon a time, photographers had to learn how to correctly expose using their judgement. It's something of a lost craft in modern days -- a curiosity on par with those who, in pre-writing societies, were able to train their memories to accurately recall spoken passages of astonishing length, such as Beowulf or the works of Homer.

Vince this is an interesting observation about trained memories- though I'm not sure many medical students would agree- I encounter them daily trying to mind-map & commit lists of things to memory, like the 12 cranial nerves .... 😀 Most of them get stumped trying to remember drug names. Apologies for going OT 😉

 

[VinceC]

>>I'm not sure many medical students would agree- I encounter them daily trying to mind-map & commit lists of things to memory, like the 12 cranial nerves .... Most of them get stumped trying to remember drug names. Apologies for going OT<<

Their penmanship notwithstanding, I think most medical students don't live in pre-writing societies, so it's not a fair comparison. They are -- I hope! -- experiencing an overload of written information while pursuing their studies.

 

[back alley]

Extra interesting for me mostly because of the timing. I just shot two rolls of film with no meter at all and I was very pleased with the results of my educated exposure guesses. I haven't done that in far too long a time. Plus I see this type of thread as one of the ideals of a forum like this. An in depth discussion of equipment and technique without either of those being the end-all, be-all.

You?

Scott

thanks scott, satisfies my curiosity.

i find this sort of conversation interesting also.
mostly for the diversity of ideas and opinions.
it's so easy to get stuck in a certian way of doing something and not revisit/rethink it.

i also appreciate the adult behaviour of the forum memberts.

joe

 

[Hektor]

"i also appreciate the adult behaviour of the forum memberts"

we'll have to do something about that then ! *


*=smiley, but I don't know how to insert it !

 

[TEZillman]

I've adopted the "metering on the subject or a suitable tonal area in the same light as the subject, if the subject is unsuitable," approach with the camera's meter for some time. I never could get the hang of using an incident meter along with using filters on the camera, especially polarizing filters. Does anyone have any quick approaches to determining filter adjustments with an incident meter? Every once in a while I'd like to use an incident meter in tricky lighting, but end up bracketing rather than taking the time to determine proper exposure with a filter factor for polarization.

Another metering issue that I run into is with scenes that have an exposure range that exceeds the film's range. A graduated neutral density filter is one approach, but I tend to get strange results with a rangefinder as it's tough to line up the filter. Any suggestions?

 

[hoot]

Another metering issue that I run into is with scenes that have an exposure range that exceeds the film's range. A graduated neutral density filter is one approach, but I tend to get strange results with a rangefinder as it's tough to line up the filter. Any suggestions?

Yeah... finally a subject I can give advice on. 😀

1. Use a lens that is simultaneously high-resolution and low-contrast (Leica glass is your best bet, but there are alternatives).

2. Meter the highlights and shadows, ideally with an incident meter (the one with the white plastic half-globe) and go for an average.

3. Use a low contrast film (TMax 400 is the lowest-contrast film I know, but I dislike its midtones. HP5+ is much prettier, IMO).

4. Develop for low contrast by diluting your developer (normally 1 part stock solution and 1 part water, or, in extreme situations, 1 part stock solution and 2 parts water), increasing development time according to instructions or experience, and at the same time decreasing agitation and making sure the developer doesn't get any warmer than it should.

Ideally, your negatives should then have extremely low contrast but full highlight and shadow detail. You can then go into your wet darkroom or Photoshop and increase the image's contrast and punch while easily preserving all that detail.

 

[RJBender]

I've adopted the "metering on the subject or a suitable tonal area in the same light as the subject, if the subject is unsuitable," approach with the camera's meter for some time. I never could get the hang of using an incident meter along with using filters on the camera, especially polarizing filters. Does anyone have any quick approaches to determining filter adjustments with an incident meter? Every once in a while I'd like to use an incident meter in tricky lighting, but end up bracketing rather than taking the time to determine proper exposure with a filter factor for polarization.

Another metering issue that I run into is with scenes that have an exposure range that exceeds the film's range. A graduated neutral density filter is one approach, but I tend to get strange results with a rangefinder as it's tough to line up the filter. Any suggestions?

The papers that came with the polarizer should tell you how many stops you need to open up... maybe 1 1/2 or 1 2/3 stops.

Try fill flash or a reflector.

R.J.

 

[VinceC]

Not elegant, but you could hold the polarizing filter over the incident meter globe to get your reading, then attach the filter to the camera. I've done it and it does generally work. I've recommended elsewhere using two polarizing filters, one on the lens and one to site through to adjust the lens ... if you're doing that, it's a little easier to also use that second filter to meter through.

 

[TEZillman]

Thanks for your advise Hoot. I'll try your approach next time I run into this with B&W, unfortunately I mostly shoot chromes (should have mentioned that!).

R.J. I also value your advise. What I have a problem with is the varying levels of polarization. As I understand it, there are two additional variables with a polarizing filter. The first is the level of polarization based on where the polarizer is turned and second the angle of the reflection. The result is somewhere between 0 and 2 stops or more at higher elevations. By the way, are you in Collinsville?

 

[TEZillman]

Thanks Vince. I think I'm glad I have an internal meter 🙂

 

[VinceC]

If you're shooting chromes, sometimes you've just gotta bite the bullet and use fill-flash.

 

[Doug]

and even then it might lie.

LOL, indeed it often does! An endemic problem with meters is that they may not be measuring quite the light you want the film to record. So I'm always questioning what the meter seems to be telling me. Keep thinking! 🙂

 

[RJBender]

Thanks for your advise Hoot. I'll try your approach next time I run into this with B&W, unfortunately I mostly shoot chromes (should have mentioned that!).

R.J. I also value your advise. What I have a problem with is the varying levels of polarization. As I understand it, there are two additional variables with a polarizing filter. The first is the level of polarization based on where the polarizer is turned and second the angle of the reflection. The result is somewhere between 0 and 2 stops or more at higher elevations. By the way, are you in Collinsville?

Hi TE,

Thanks. The best advice I can give you is experiment, take good notes and know your equipment.

I think the least amount you lose is 1 stop and the most you can lose is 2. If you bracket you should be ok. If you use an autofocus camera you'll need a circular polarizer instead of a linear polarizer.

I live south of Shiloh between Belleville and SAFB. I belong to a PSA club in Collinsville.

R.J.

 

[taffer]

Time to bump up a very interesting thread

I usually begin my photo 'sessions' by taking a reading on something pretty neutral, such as a wall, the ground or my hand. Then keep that in mind and try to remember to adjust that settings to the required lighting / conditions.

Of course, many times I forget 🙂

Shooting in (very) dark conditions is another matter, as most times I'm faced to the fact that I simply cannot satisfy the settings the meter gives me, also, in places with strong spot lights, or inside rooms a meter can get fooled by them.

What I usually do in that conditions is to take a reading, and if things are just took dark to get a confident reading, I shoot wide open (mainly if shooting wide angles, that give me a tad more dof to cover focus errors) and select the speed on which I still feel confident enough of being able to keep the camera steady, that's usually 1/8 - 1/4 of a second if the subject is not moving (bar portraits, slow parades, etc) or 1/30 if something faster is going on. My two most used films, Neopan 400 and Tri-X (at 640 and 1250-1600 respectively when souped in Diafine) use to do a nice work unless the exposure is not way too incorrect.

If I'm feeling wild, I just forget about metering and use the 'sunny' 16, even though I admit having that clever designed built-in meter on the bessa-T has turned me lazy 😱

Oscar

 

[DougK]

Yes, thanks for the bump, Oscar... even though I'm REALLY behind if this is a recent thread for me 🙂.

While reading the above, I was thinking about the few photos I've taken which I consider "great." All of them were from a meterless TLR and guessing the exposure based on sunny-16. It never ceases to amaze me how well that rule really works... and how dependent I've become on those little LEDs.