Still I can't kick the idea of using spot-meter out of my mind for roll films.
The theory of zone-system has indeed helped me to understand the exposure a little better than anything else. But now I'm too compelled to use spot-meter for placing exposure value on zones even for roll-film, for which I will be very happy with a decent incident meter.
One thing which is not so clear for me is how incident metering can ensure good shadow detail or am I confused/worry little too much?
You absolutely can use spot metering for roll film (if that's what your concern is), although its more useful in shorter rolls, as in 120 (MF). I'd go as far as to say that well over half of the ZS potential can be exploited in the exposure (and pre–visualization) stage alone. Most 120 shooters, for instance, will expose a number of shots for one scene, which is likely to be the same exposure. With a little forethought, you can group these similarly exposed scenes together on one filmstrip, or its halves – separately exposed, particularly with 6X7, which results in only 10 exposures per roll. You can then develop them separately by cutting the film in half or, less destructively, average development for the entire roll, if the individual exposures vary by no more than say, 2 stops (take notes!). Most B/W negative films are more than tolerant to this spread in latitude, and VC papers can assist you in fine tuning the print.
The same procedures may be used with 135, but with a bit more care and potential wastage. Don't let that stop you!
Last edited by ROL; 03-15-2012 at 05:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.
One thing which is not so clear for me is how incident metering can ensure good shadow detail or am I confused/worry little too much?
Yes you are worrying too much.
As long as your incident metering technique is correct, you will get good shadow detail.
The trick is knowing the circumstances when you can rely on a simple, single meter reading, as compared to those circumstances when you need to take multiple readings and interpolate between them.
The former is most common.
A spot meter requires you to pay more attention to the reflectance of your subject, so it adds more potential sources of confusion.
Of course the really skilled and knowledgeable photographer can use both, even if they may choose to prefer one over the other.
Matt
“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 seldom use incident metering preferring either average or spot reflectance. I grew up with the Zone System so it is more natural for me. My meters both have incident domes but almost never used. 1 is permanently on the meter and the other is a snap on.
[QUOTE=baachitraka;1317108]One thing which is not so clear for me is how incident metering can ensure good shadow detail or am I confused/worry little too much?[QUOTE]
I would say that you are not necessarily giving too much concern, there's a definite pitfall to using an incident meter and obtaining good shadow detail, and you would be wise to know it. So, how it's used definitely makes a difference.
When every element within the scene is evenly lit by the same light source, then the incident meter provides a worry free, pretty reliable exposure setting. The big limitation of incident meters is that the full scene you are photographing should to be evenly lit by the same light source, obviously sunlight and shadow don't fall into that description. So wise use of the meter is called for. The following was scanned from one of my book sources (The AA Guide Book 1 - Basic Techniques of Photography by John P. Schaeffer) to show the pitfalls of using an incident meter.
From left to right, please excuse the poor scan, the actual text example is much better:
Picture 1, Alan Ross has the dome of the incident meter in direct sunlight, overall picture is underexposed
Picture 2, Ross has the dome of the meter in shade, overall picture is over exposed
Picture 3, Ross has the dome of the meter in "lightly spotted sunlight", the exposure is satisfactory
Picture 4, is a picture showing a reflected light reading from the camera's built-in meter, the exposure is about the same as that in Picture 3.
The bottom line is that the incident meter can't make up for deficiencies in exposure for the highlights and shadow areas when the meter is squarely placed in one light level vs. the other.
Last edited by CPorter; 03-15-2012 at 02:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"The difference between a very good print and a fine print is quite subtle and difficult , if not impossible, to describe in words."
---AA (The Print)
[QUOTE=CPorter;1317181][QUOTE=baachitraka;1317108]One thing which is not so clear for me is how incident metering can ensure good shadow detail or am I confused/worry little too much?
I would say that you are not necessarily giving too much concern, there's a definite pitfall to using an incident meter and obtaining good shadow detail, and you would be wise to know it. So, how it's used definitely makes a difference.
When every element within the scene is evenly lit by the same light source, then the incident meter provides a worry free, pretty reliable exposure setting. The big limitation of incident meters is that the full scene you are photographing should to be evenly lit by the same light source, obviously sunlight and shadow don't fall into that description. So wise use of the meter is called for. The following was scanned from one of my book sources (The AA Guide Book 1 - Basic Techniques of Photography by John P. Schaeffer) to show the pitfalls of using an incident meter.
From left to right, please excuse the poor scan, the actual text example is much better:
Picture 1, Alan Ross has the dome of the incident meter in direct sunlight, overall picture is underexposed
Picture 2, Ross has the dome of the meter in shade, overall picture is over exposed
Picture 3, Ross has the dome of the meter in "lightly spotted sunlight", the exposure is satisfactory
Picture 4, is a picture showing a reflected light reading from the camera's built-in meter, the exposure is about the same as that in Picture 3.
The bottom line is that the incident meter can't make up for deficiencies in exposure for the highlights and shadow areas when the meter is squarely placed in one light level vs. the other.
Makes perfect sense..which brings me to mention Phil Davis and BTZS, and the use of incident metering to determine subject brightness rage. Of course, testing is involved to develop accordingly (of film and paper), but it sure makes printing easy and a pleasure.
I like to spot meter the shadows, and assuming I want some detail, this is zone 3. Then I check the highlights, to see if they extend beyond zone 7. If all is well, I shoot at the indicated exposure. If the brightness range exceeds 5 stops, I bracket so I can pick my compromise when printing. In general, I am finding that a bit of underdevelopment and associated reduced contrast seems easier to correct with VC printing than working with negatives that have too much contrast. The 3 degree spot meter built into my Pentax 645N works well in most circumstances to support this technique.
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by baachitraka
