I think the idea that "exposure metering is more important in LF" came about because in general people have been drawn (or drawn back) to LF largely because of its more considered, "craftsman" approach to shooting, and the fact that LF in general offers the photographer more explicit control of every exposure (and every factor of the exposure). As others have said here, there is no technical reason for it - and in fact, because enlarging on the print is often proportionally smaller than in other formats, there is more visual latitude anyway. It becomes simply a question of your own preferred way of working.
I wonder if the person who said this equates LF with Zone System techniques, including N, N-1 and N+1 development.
To get the full benefit of the entire Zone System approach, you need good metering.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
I would apply the same advanced metering techniques I use in MF to LF because I know the methods I use will deliver the image required, as experience has shown. And never once have I relied on the Zone System for any metering determination.
Sent from my GT-I9210T using Tapatalk
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
If, like Ansel Adams, you're after the perfect b&w negative, you should use his zone system and, ideally with a good spot meter, carefully measure areas of your subject ranging from darkest to lightest.
Most of us don't have that kind of patience. I usually just find an area that approaches 18% gray, like grass, and use the reading from it. I do this for all formats. When I get really picky, especially with large format, I measure a few light and dark areas with the simple spot-meter attachment on my Luna Six. Works for me.
Metering for LF is part of the sequence of recognition, setting up and preparation for taking the shot. That is why most of the subjects for LF are static and executed in a calm and relaxed way.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Any exposure on film is a compromise between reality and what you want in the final print/transparency. You do the best you can regardless of the format, and within the constraints of the time and place. Where large format is slightly different, is that it is normally done with sheet film, and that permits custom development. If you deviate from your normal development you are probably looking at an altered film speed, so you have a metering adjustment. But that is just more complexity - the level of care should be the same regardless.
Though if I have carried my 5x4 up a hill, adjusted the tripod a bit, put in any movements I feel I need, picked my exposure settings, and waited for the wind to drop, I'd better get a useable negative. 8-) I likely only have a dozen sheets in the bag at most - the rest are back in the car...
I feel, therefore I photograph.
Depends on what "important" means. If $$$, then yes. However they are technically the same.
But a screw up on metering just hurts more in LF, esp. when your shootin chomes. And bracketing in LF is not typically done by lots of LF shooters, due to costs involved.
I figure if something is worth shooting, I will almost always make 2 exposures. Sometimes at the same exposure, so I can manipulate the development, (B&W) and sometimes at differing exposures, if I need to nail the exposure. (Chrome or color neg, in the field.)
The film is frequently the lesser part of the cost on many shoots. The time, the hauling the equipment around, gas and travel expense, etc. All dwarf that extra few bucks. if I think the shot is only so-so I wonder if I should even pull the darkslide in the first place.
Comes down to whats important to you. Is this shot worth the insurance of a bracket, or a backup copy to develop differently, or even the same in case you have a negative defect or want a backup copy. In the studio, we seldom made backups or bracketed. When in doubt, we just processed the E-6 right now and could tell what we had in 37 minutes later...
OTOH, smaller formats really need a bit more precision all around, as once you start enlarging 8X - 10X, you can see the errors more. But technically, exposure is exposure, regardless of the square inches of film used (or wasted) per shot.