I don't think so. It's pretty basic stuff. Now I have done this and verified for myself with my incident meter and it is true. What I have been saying is simply fact----basic incident metering facts. From left to right, as indicated in the text, the photos were taken using the indicated meter reading---it's a poor scan but you get the point:
-Alan Ross has the dome of the incident meter placed in sunlight, you can see that the shadows are underexposed. (my interpretaion of the text: this should be painfully obvious to you---the exposures recommended by the meter aim to reduce the density on the negative in the sunlit area to that which will print closer to a middle gray, thus underexposing the shadows.
-Next, the dome of the incident meter is moved just a few inches up into a very narrow beam of shadow, you can see that the sunlit portions are blocked. (my interpretation of the text: this should be painfully obvious to you---the exposures recommended by the meter aim to increase the density on the negative to render the shadow middle gray, thus blocking the sunlit areas.)
-Next, the dome is placed in "lightly spotted sunlight", the exposure is much more satisfactory. (my interpretation of the text: I'm not going to be searching for just the right mix of sun and shade with my dome, when a reflected reading is simpler, more reliable, IMO in these situations)
-Lastly, a reflective reading with the exposure made using the camera's built- in meter gives the same exposure as as the previous example. (my interpretation of the text: the distribution of light versus dark areas of the scene are obviously pretty even because the in-camera meter (that also assumes the subject is middle gray) rendered a negative with well proportioned densities that printed very well, no manipulation of the meter was used.) Once the distribution of light vs. dark areas of the scene become heavy in either direction, the in-camera meter, or a hand held wide area reflective meter will get fooled and the photographer has to adjust in that instance.
Like I said, pretty basic stuff.
"I find it always necessary to stress that we cannot equate brilliance with contrast."
---AA (The Print)
".....in printing we are trying to breathe expressive life into the image,.....this raises intangible issues that do not yield to formulas or measurement."
---AA (The Print)
This is (still ) not an incident light metering issue.
O.G., IMO, I was addressing "Better Sense's" comments about incident metering and going back to read the OP, it's pretty much in line with the discussion, IMHO. I realize these threads take on a life of their own sometimes, nature of the beast.
"I find it always necessary to stress that we cannot equate brilliance with contrast."
---AA (The Print)
".....in printing we are trying to breathe expressive life into the image,.....this raises intangible issues that do not yield to formulas or measurement."
---AA (The Print)
Subjectively speaking, the "proper exposure (or relative exposure)" for a shadow can be "underexposure" in many cases.
In real life, most shadows probably aren't Zone V or VI; many shadows are truly IV, III, II, or etc. And, if incident metering leads to a recommended exposure which puts shadows that are truly Zone II on Zone II in your image, then the incident meter did its job. But, of course, dynamic range capabilities also play a major role in this.
I think people get way too hung up on underexposure and overexposure in photography. There is no right or wrong way to respond/handle these extremes. It's an aesthetic decision. If the photographer wants to interpret the scene differently, then they could change the exposure or make changes during the developing/printing process to suit their vision.
But, there are no rules, or objective methods, for interpreting the scene or for responding to underexposure and/or overexposure in the scene. For instance, some photographers may want the "underexposed shadows" on the door to go even darker in the final print (in CPorter's example above).
Last edited by Brandon D.; 12-24-2009 at 12:52 AM.
O.G., IMO, I was addressing "Better Sense's" comments about incident metering and going back to read the OP, it's pretty much in line with the discussion, IMHO. I realize these threads take on a life of their own sometimes, nature of the beast.
I think you took his post the wrong way.
To help clarify, his point wasn't that you weren't in line with the discussion. His point was that the dilemma you brought up, "Taking an incident reading in the sun will underexpose the shadow areas" is a not a result of metering (be it incident or reflective). But, it's actually a result of extremely high contrast inherent in the scene and also a lack in our photographic process's ability to capture and show an extremely high dynamic range.
In a contrasty lighting scenario, it isn't an incident meter's job to recommend a "perfect exposure" for the entire scene simply based on one meter reading. It seems that sometimes people don't realize that it isn't the meter's "fault" that some lighting scenarios are too contrasty for the meter to recommend a useful exposure for the entire scene (with just one meter reading). That's part of the reason why I recommend that people begin learning how to use an incident meter in even lighting until they get a sense of how it functions (i.e., what it does and what it can't do, capabilities and limitations). Meters certainly cannot compress all of the inherent dynamic range in scenes into fully visible detail on film, allowing our cameras to capture more detail in the shadows and specular highlights. If meters could, then metering and photography would be easy, .
What's in the scene is in the scene. But, if the range of brightness in the scene is extreme, then we can't just solely rely upon the meter or blame it. When the contrast is inherently high, then it's best to do extensive metering and to go through trial-and-error until you get desired results. It's up to the photographer to evaluate the whole scene with precise metering, and then to make aesthetic exposure decisions based on that info and his/her tastes.
Last edited by Brandon D.; 12-24-2009 at 02:36 AM.
I don't think so. It's pretty basic stuff. Now I have done this and verified for myself with my incident meter and it is true. What I have been saying is simply fact----basic incident metering facts.
Thank you for the pictures and explanation, with a bit of luck we can get on the same page now.
Every meter/metering method has it's limits and strengths. The user needs to learn when each tool is appropriate and how to use each or adapt the tool they have to the situation.
Essentially what you have shown in your pictures is how to use an incident meter as a spot meter, as you have demonstrated it can do an excellent job of spot metering too.
So let's break this down a bit.
The first decision any photographer has to make is, "what is the subject?" Without defining the subject we don't know know what tool is most appropriate.
If the subject is the door, AND both the highlight and shadow details are equally important in the scene, a spot meter (or incident meter used as a spot meter) is the hard way to do this; any meter that will average the whole scene will get the camera very close to the proper exposure in the scene you chose. My old FM2n with a normal lens nails shots like this every time.
The next question is "does my medium have enough range to get all the detail I want?" Well that depends on just how far you want to see into the shadows/highlights. A film like Velvia would not go too deep, TMY shot at a tested and proven personal EI and developed specifically for the scene brightness range will get you bunches.
Let's consider a slightly different subject, say "Alan Ross" in picture 2, the incident meter was used to measure the same light Alan was in, shade here.
The incident meter will not be fooled by the other lighting in the scene.
Alan is perfectly exposed. Sure, the highlights are way out there on the edge, but so what. If we choose Alan as the subject, regardless of meter or method, the camera can only shoot one setting at a time and the rest of the scene simply "falls" where it "falls".
If you want both Alan and the door with detail in both shadow and highlight you will probably have to change the lighting Alan is in.
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
My aspiration of late is to become more Bohemian; "a person with artistic or intellectual tendencies, who lives and acts with no regard for conventional rules of behavior."
It indeed is.
It shows how you need to make decisions how to use a meter to get the result you want.
This the essence of what I have been trying to contribute in this thread to the OP. The OP states:
"I am in a position where I need a meter to use with an unmetered camera and it seems that most affordable hand held meters are incident meters. So, what does the reading tell you? Does it simply tell you what exposure is needed for a middle gray based on the falling light?
Several posts answered his question, but I feel they did not adequately describe the pitfalls of incident metering.
What i too think is misleading is the repeated assertion that it is an incident light metering thing.
It is not.
I'm sorry, I guess I am just dense enough to not grasp what you mean by this. I apologise for that, but it's not important enough to drag this thread out any further. I hope the OP feels he's gotten some good info from all.
Chuck
"I find it always necessary to stress that we cannot equate brilliance with contrast."
---AA (The Print)
".....in printing we are trying to breathe expressive life into the image,.....this raises intangible issues that do not yield to formulas or measurement."
---AA (The Print)
CPorter--Thanks. It took a while to get around to it, but you have explained and, more importantly, demonstrated what I was after. Thanks all or the discussion. It has been revealing.
[QUOTE=CPorter;914533]
Originally Posted by Q.G.
This the essence of what I have been trying to contribute in this thread to the OP. The OP states:
"I am in a position where I need a meter to use with an unmetered camera and it seems that most affordable hand held meters are incident meters. So, what does the reading tell you? Does it simply tell you what exposure is needed for a middle gray based on the falling light?
Several posts answered his question, but I feel they did not adequately describe the pitfalls of incident metering.
I'm sorry, I guess I am just dense enough to not grasp what you mean by this. I apologise for that, but it's not important enough to drag this thread out any further. I hope the OP feels he's gotten some good info from all.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Adv Reply
) not an incident light metering issue.
. 
