Spot meters make exposure control easy if one understands how to shift the calibration point to make direct readings off the scene. Out of the box an ISO rated meter is calibrated for 12% reflectance, meaning that if a 12% gray card is metered the resulting shutter / aperture at the rated ISO film speed should produced ‘acceptable’ albeit not ‘optimal’ exposure of shadows on negative film and highlights on transparency film. But what makes a spot meter really convenient is being able to just point the spot at a Zone 2 textured shadow area in the scene and then read the needed exposure to render it Zone 2 on the negative and print without any mental f-stop math or ‘zone-shifting’ mumbo-jumbo. Doing so is very simple and something I figured out back in 1971 when learning to use my Honeywell-Pentax 1° meter with Adams Zone system. With Adams Zone System the first calibration test is shooting a subject wearing black and white clothing standing in sunlight at midday holding a gray card and taking the exposure reading off the card not the subject with meter set to the nominal film speed (e.g. ASA 400) then bracket by changing the film speed on the meter dial in 10% + / - increments: 480, 440, 400, 360, 320. You then developed the five sheets of film, or the single roll with bracketed exposures and looked at the shadow detail on the negative IN THE BLACK CLOTHING and printed a proof sheet on #2 paper with just enough exposure to render the clear boarders of the negative max (Zone 0 black) to find what the ACTUAL film speed was. But I realizes that instead of metering off the gray card to do that calibration test on the Zone V 18% card I could instead meter a Zone 2 area of dark shaded texture on the subject as my calibration point and to correctly expose it on the negative I just need shift the ASA dial on the meter much more, in the range of 3-4 stops because the Zone 2 shadows reflected much less light. Same test a Adams suggested, just a different calibration point for the meter. Once I had my meter adjusted to give me correct shadow exposure simply by pointing it at a Zone 2 shadow without needing a gray card, it was simple a matter of noting the EV reading off that Zone 2 shadow then shifting the meter to a Zone 9 non-specular white highlight to PRECISELY know the EV range of the scene and from that exactly how long to develop the film to fit any EV range scene to #2 print paper if printing that way according to the gospel of St. Ansel. What most don’t realize today is that Adams system is based around ALWAYS printing on #2 grade paper, the one designed by Kodak for rendering full range outdoor scenes on a clear sunny day. The way you calibrated development time with the Kodak multi-grade paper system necessitated by roll film camera is exactly the same as Adams Zone System. After determining the actual film speed in the first test you shoot the same subject in the same direct sunlight in the morning or afternoon when sun is at 45° but this time expose 4-5 sheets or rolls the same but develop them for different times with the goal of discovering what development time created highlight densities on the negative which matched the 3.1 density range of the #2 grade paper perfectly. With the Kodak system that development time was used always, regardless of scene contrast. Any outdoor scenes in direct sunlight on clear days would produced stunning full range prints with no problem. If the negative had less contrast because the photo was taken in open shade, cloudy or overcast days you simply switched to a different paper grade with a shorter dynamic range to get a full toned print. The automated printing machines would read the lightest and darkest areas of the negative to determine what grade was needed. In the late 1960s Kodak developed a print paper which could change contrast with different amounts of yellow or magenta filtration. In addition to using the Zone System for my personal photography I was working as lab technician in the National Geographic Photo Lab where I had access to densitometers and other measurement tools I used to “dial in” the color head on home darkroom enlarger so I was able know exactly what amount of magenta filtration needed to alter the range of the Kodak and Ilford polycontrast paper I was using. My workflow when shooting with my Mamiya 645 was to take a Zone 2 spot meter reading directly to expose the shadows then read and note the EV range between that metering point and the Zone 9 highlight in the scene. If I shot an entire roll of film under lighting with the same EV range I would use the Adam’s method of adjusting neg. development time to the EV range. But as noted above the Normal development to fit a sunny scene to #2 paper is exactly the same for both the Kodak and Adams systems. But if EV range differed due to overcast lighting I’d increase development time to compensate and print on #2. When I was shooting with my 35mm using 36-exposure rolls I still used the Zone 2 spot metering for exposure and took notes frame-by-frame of the Zone 2 9 EV range, but back in the darkroom I would develop the roll “normally” - as if to fit sunny scene EV range to #2 paper - but then when printing based on the EV range notes change the contrast of the Polycontrast paper via filtration with the color head based on my testing. When working at NGS I shot a lot of Kodachome and Extachrome and for those I adjusted my spot metering film speed so when I spot read a Zone 9 textured highlight the indicated shutter / aperture combinations correctly exposed the highlights. Then metering the darker parts of the scene, knowing the EV range the film could handle, would tell me where in the shadows I’d start to lose detail. It was similar to “exposing to the right” on a digital histogram then looking at the left side of the graph to determine if the sensor can handle the contrast of the lighting. Because the histogram is so much more accurate than any metering I stopped using meters when switching to digital in 2000. Instead I just carry white and black terry wash rags and exposed to keep the white one 1/3 stop below clipping in the same light as the subject then evaluated the shadow detail in the black one. When setting studio lights I will set aperture for desired DOF and always use centered FILL, turning it on first and raising until test shot and histogram show detail in the black rag, then turn on the RIM light and raise until the parts of the white one it hits are 1/3 stop below clipping and then finally the KEY which gets adjusted 2/3 stop below clipping putting it 1/3 stop below the rim light. This also works outdoors with two flashes as FILL and KEY with the sun at back of subject as rim lighting. Getting full range / full detail rendering isn’t difficult if the underlying tech is understood 😊
I've just bought myself a Sekonic 858D light meter so that I could have Incident and spot metering. I only ever had Incident before that. I served me well but shooting in the city I sometimes wanted to get readings from a distance where I couldn't get to (i.e. up a building). the spot is great for that. I still use the lumisphere as well. As you say, it is fast and accurate. I have one of the Minolta meters you have. They are a brilliant meter. Very fast and simple. No BS with these and they give EV. I won't ever sell it and use it alongside my new one.
It sounds like you are covered well for any lighting situation, a spot meter is a great option to have when you can't be in the same light as your subject.
Another great video David! Even though I use a spotmeter, I'm totally in agreement with your assessment about metering. It doesn't really matter which kind of meter you use, as long as you learn what to expect from it, your film, and your equipment.
Thx. Looking for a new meter a the moment and thinking about going for a sekonic 398 or 208 for street or landscape. I only use TLR or a rangefinder, so as you point out, will be in the same light mostly. Food for thought. Nice pictures also.
Either reflective or incident will serve you well, the key is to practice with whatever you choose. If mine quits working I can't afford the one I would want to replace it with so I hope mine hangs in there a while longer
Great advice David...I have to admit I fret about metering a lot. I prefer to use my incident meter, I just trust it more than interpreting a spot meter. I have both but your results prove your point, wonderful images. Always look forward to your videos.
Thanks Bill, I think anyone who shoots film frets about metering, myself included but since I’m only shooting black and white negs now I feel more relaxed in knowing the film I’m using is pretty forgiving but I did fret a lot in this video because every time I would take a reading the darn light would change :)
This is terrific, I'm very glad to have found your page. I can't agree more with you re: incident metering. I've been shooting architectural and landscape scenes in LF black and white for 15+ years, and my Minolta incident meter has stood me in good stead the whole way along. The spot meter comes out only for specific shadow areas that I can't get to, when I need to make sure that I'll have detail there. For all other cases, the incident is best for me, for all of the reasons that you mentioned. Well done!
Thanks Bruce, I’ve had my Minolta incident meter a long time as well, I’m hoping it will serve me many more years but when it finally goes down it will surely be missed.
Hi there, it seems like every time I use an incident meter in sunny weather my prints come out over exposed. Do you shade your dome from direct sunlight. I've tried holding my hand over the dome...same thing. I'm starting large format with b&W film now, so maybe the incident will work with that medium. Thanks
Interesting Jack, no I don't shade the meter but I do hold it so the dome faces towards the camera and I make sure I'm in the same light as my subject. I've never had a problem getting a good exposure, I wonder if there is a way to check your meter against a different one to see if something has happened to the calibration. You could also do a couple test shots holding the meter at a different angle to see which is giving you the correct exposure. If you are blocking the light to the meter it will give you a reading that will over expose the film because it thinks it's darker out than it really is. I hope you have some luck getting to the bottom of this, honestly the incident meter is the most accurate meter I've used so I'm not sure why it's not working for you.
@@RidingTheEdgePhoto Thanks for getting back to me. After watchin a few of your videos I think my problem is with my digital Panasonic S1R. I will shoot some 4x5 B&W film and with it's latitude i'll just bet that has been my problem. I'm using a Sekonic meter and have checked it with my other meters and everything is right on. Really enjoy your videos. Thanks again. Jack
I don’t use a view camera, but I often have a stick of chalk, so once I’ve found my spot for the tripod position, I mark the hard surface with a slight arc where the tripod feet are situated. If, I have to quickly move out of the way, I now have the general position to replace the position of the tripod feet. It helps to have to find the general position, instead moving it here and there and All of a sudden, you have to move again just before taking the shot. It works for me.
Excellent discussion on metering. Part of the learning process is learning when to use each style of metering, including the hand! Since I started in film photography years ago I have been comfortable with using meters of all types. I am fortunate to have that background to draw from.
For sure Robert, being the old fart that I am, I can draw from past experience, I keep forgetting that there are a lot of photographers that have never learned the skill of metering for their photography because they haven’t needed the skill but are now giving film photography a try. I figured it was time to touch on the subject a bit and maybe add a little balance to the conversation. Someday if I ever have a little extra cash I would love to pick up a light meter with both spot and incident capabilities to streamline my gear, there is always another piece of gear to buy. :)
At 12:45 you say ........ "I TEND to point my meter globe towards the camera, and that SEEMS to work pretty well for me." Well, that's mighty genius of you!!!! But how else do you measure an incident reading? And with that 'tend' and 'seem', you don't seem to be so sure of it either. I would love to hear you explain the Zone System as a step up from here. Proper gray cards are matte surfaces and do not shine. Not like cheap ones for $4.99 on Amazon.
My experience with gray cards was many years ago, before Amazon and the gray cards I had access to had a bit of a sheen if tilted, probably cheap ones. Why would I explain the Zone System? I don’t use the Zone System, I know how to get to white with detail and black with detail from middle grey, my exposures are pretty solid but the films I use are pretty forgiving so that must be why. :) Someone who has never used an incident meter might think they should hold the dome pointing up toward the sun or toward a subject, just covering my bases, when I say seems or tend I simply mean roughly toward the camera, I don’t have an exact angle, just toward the camera and not flat out in front of me. I could be wrong but I’m sensing a tone in your comment that suggests I lack experience, all I do in these videos is share how I make images and in my 30 years of do photography as a hobby and a profession, I’ve learned there is usually more than one way to approach a photographic problem. If someone can get something of use from one of my videos then that’s all I can hope for, I keep it simple, well, it seems simple to me but that doesn’t mean I’m not still learning or at least reevaluating different ways to approach making an image, that’s what keeps it interesting. It’s also possible that I’ve picked up some bad habits over the thousands of photography assignments I’ve done through the years, that’s why I say this is just how I do it Lol have a good day.
@@RidingTheEdgePhoto, thanks for explaining your points and why you do them. I am curious, how do you measure light in a place like a forest, with dappled lighting, like where you were, just with incident light reading? If you have been bracketing your shots after incident light reading, I reckon that answers how you get good images. Nothing wrong with that, except in LF photography, with 3 image bracketing, that would be a very expensive method, don't you think? I have Kodak gray cards from 30 years ago, no sheen. The Kodak brand ones don't have a sheen. I think you should encourage people to learn to measure both ways and let them develop a keen sense to decide what are the appropriate situations for their usage. You can't mosey on through life just reading incident light for everything in photography. Anyway, at least you are making videos to elucidate others, I give you credit for that.
Dappled light in the forest, that’s an easy one, I just don’t waste the film and come back when the light is better Lol if I must make an image I would try to decide what’s most important in the composition, it the scene is mostly shadow I would have to expose for the shadow and pull my film in development, if the scene is mostly bright I would meter in that light and over expose a bit or just let the shadows go, I could also try taking 2 readings, one in shadow and one in light and average the 2, every scene will be different and offers a unique photographic challenge. I shoot only black and white film and find the exposure latitude to be pretty forgiving so I almost never bracket for exposure, if I bracket, it’s usually for a different reason, like focus, subject movement or the light changed just as I tripped the shutter, I hate it when that happens. :) Even though I think an incident meter is the most accurate way for me to measure light, doesn’t mean I think it’s the only way to get to a well exposed image, if someone likes to use a grey card then they should use one, I carried one for awhile but decided it was one less thing to carry if I left it home. Large format is really a small part of the total amount of images I make, until this last year I was shooting all my film on a Pentax 645n medium format camera, I probably used the built in multi segment meter 90% of the time and had good success, I’m not that picky if I’ve come to trust my metering tools I will use what’s most efficient to get my reading. As I said in the video, if someone doesn’t have a incident meter I don’t think it’s necessary for them to go out and buy one, but if they do have one then consider using it as an option, incident meters don’t have to be just for the studio, which I heard one of the bigger TH-cam landscape photographers say and of course I disagree with. I’ve never suggested anyone mosey through life just using an incident meter for everything in photography, it’s not what I do and I would expect anyone else to, but when I’m doing landscape with a large format camera I seem to make it work, I also carry a DSLR for video and backup if I need to press its spot meter into action, so far it’s not been needed. Again it’s just how I do it, doesn’t make it right, it’s just right for me.
Thanks Paul, to be honest I wasn’t familiar with the Leningrad meter or the Zenit camera tell I looked it up, old school meter for an old school camera :)
Great video, yep, totally agree, incident meter works for me in landscapes, and I come from a studio background. However, I will pull out a reflective meter, as my Pentax spot meter takes up too much room. KB.
Thanks Ken, they do make some very compact reflective meters for sure and the Pentax spot meter does seem a bit on the large side :) it all works, it’s up to the photographer to decide what works best for them. Have a great day Ken!
Absolutely beautiful images of the covered bridge David! Really appreciate your comments on metering. I used to meter off my hand often, and primarily shot negative film which was much more forgiving, as you said. You’ve really rekindled my interest in film photography. Got my Nikon FM2 out and have new button batteries and film on order. You might consider another title for this video: “Large format photography or roadkill, a fine line”. 😎
LOL thanks Bill, glad I didn't end up a spot in the road, what we do for our art. :) You are going to have a blast with that FM2, its such a great little camera, by today's standards it's almost a pocket camera.
I always point the incident meter toward the camera, I'm not sure why you would point it towards the ground, you are measuring the light falling on the scene, not the reflected light, if you are using a reflective meter, like a spot meter, then some tones on the ground would be a good choice to meter off of. Good luck on your 4x5 adventure.
It's interesting that you are going back and re-shooting covered bridges that you previously shot on older digital. I'm currently doing the same for a similar project here in Pennsylvania. I had made photos of about 80 of the Covered Bridges here in Pennsylvania back in 2005-2012 when I was all about the overdone digital HDR (hanging my head in shame). I've been shooting large format film almost exclusively since 2013 and have recently started going back and making every effort to update my location notes, maps etc to tackle all the bridges again but this time on 5x7, 8x10 and 4x10 film. Recent tropical storms, major storms, truck damage and arsons have brought home the fact that we lose more and more of these bridges each year and I need to use these tools and skills to make the best photos of them while they are still here. I wish you much luck on your own project.
Thanks Gregg I can always use the luck, :) it sounds like you have a wonderful covered bridge project going on with a lot more bridges to photograph, I agree it is sad to see some of these historical landmarks slipping away over time. Besides using different cameras, another reason I like to revisit these bridges is to get different seasons, weather and light in my covered bridge collection of photos.
LOL, the only time spot meter is absolutely necessary is when a photographer uses Ansel Adams's zone system of exposure, and those who really know about the zone system will tell you that it is far more involved than just measuring the shadows and the highlights. I have to stipulate though, that for an experienced photographer such as yourself it is an easy task to guess the luminance range of scene accurately, something that most people are incapable of achieving, particularly the digital generation. I guess the main problem for the majority of people is the understanding of what an indicated exposure represents and what exactly is an 18% grey?
Yes, it can be tough to get one's head around what the indicated exposure represents and what exactly is 18% grey, I probably over simplify it but because I have a pretty good idea of the exposure latitude for my film of choice I'm getting consistent results and a very usable negative, as long as I don't mess up the development that is :)
Metering is great, but you don’t need it. I know a lot of large format guys that have had to guess exposures without a metering and got perfect shots. Once you stick to the same film, and same development routine, you can dial in the scene without a meter, but again it takes a lot of dedication to not hinge your supplies A lot of street photographers, like Joel meyerowitz for example, would meter their hand like a grey card, and use that for most of the day on the street, or until the light changed. He used a Leica m4, no meter. That’s with asa 25 kodachrome slide film btw, pretty amazing he got those shots, on the active streets of nyc, with 25 iso film, slide film, and they’re perfect. Also, when you print black and white in the darkroom, you print for the highlights and then adjust contrast, or dodge and burn, to correct the darks how you want them on the print. Which is why leaning towards over exposure is a generally good idea. other guys like Ralph Gibson, exposed for the highlights only, to lose all the shadow details
@@nickfanzo what I am saying is that your friends who are not using a light meter represents nothing for this matter. A light meter is an objective device that measures light. That's the proper tool for the job. Same as a watch measuring time or a thermometer measuring temperature. Saying you don't need it is delusional
I would LOVE to see the low amount of traffic - no way you can do this even closely placing yourself in the middle of the road in PA with covered bridges there during daytime (it works very early in the morning though!)! The photos came out great! I am using a Gossen Digisix 2 meter where I like especially the small size. Never used spot metering with an external meter. Well explained metering techniques! I am using in 80% reflective, 20% incident metering. Mostly because when I shoot with film cameras with integrated meter it is always reflective. With large format I predominantly shoot via incident metering.
Thanks Martin, I'm aware my idea of high traffic is probably different than others, Lol sounds like you've got a good system worked out for your metering and the most important part is it's working for you.
I've owned my Sekonic L - 508 for 25 years an almost never use the spot meter. Since going digital, I almost always use the meter in my camera. And shooting flash, l shoot manual. Then check the back of the camera. Or my computer tethered in Capture One Pro.
I'm just getting back into photography (film) and have been completely immersed in spot metering. I like your take and for my style of shooting it seems like incident metering might be worth a try. I'm going to use several rolls and give it a go. Quick question, in very harsh sun light do you ever tilt the incident meter towards the camera but tilted a bit towards the ground?
There is nothing wrong with spot metering Dante, especially if you already have one and are getting good results, if you have a meter that has both then you may find using the incident useful and in many cases quicker than spot metering. I have never pointed the incident meter towards the ground, I guess if you want to meter just for the shadows that would probably work, my main worry would be that the highlights would end up difficult to scan and print, negative film has a lot of exposure latitude so it might still be ok. If you are using transparency film then I wouldn’t meter that way, it would blow out the highlights. Harsh light in certain locations, like a wood area, can be difficult to meter with any meter and usually involves some sort of compromise, favoring shadow detail or highlights, my answer to that is, I try not to make photos in the forest in harsh light, problem solved 😁. I like to say there is no bad light, just the wrong location for the light, I would rather find a location that works in the light I have. Sorry for the little tangent :) good luck with your image making and I hope you are enjoying your visit back to film photography!
You can position yourself in the center of a road if you look the part. Put on a yellow reflective safety vest, wear a beat up white hard hat and put out some orange cones and suddenly drivers will assume you are a surveyor or something. I found the cones at (of all places) my local Dollar Tree store. Walmart has the vests and Lowe's or Home Depot has the hard hats. Besides, any time you are working near a road, you should be thinking about safety.
Yes Terry, I agree safety is important, I do have an orange safety vest that I’ve put many miles on when covering any news assignments near roadways, most of my photography now days is in the woods, except the occasional covered bridge photo and most of them are out in the country where the traffic is pretty light but it probably wouldn’t hurt to grab the vest when planning to photograph one of the bridges.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
It's always refreshing to hear a professional tell it like it is Thanks for the practical advise.
And, thank you for such a GREAT show.
Good talk about metering and compensation, it is very helpful.
An excellent and enjoyable video. Thanks for the great metering advice and the beautiful images.
Thanks Colin, and thanks for checking out the video :)
Spot meters make exposure control easy if one understands how to shift the calibration point to make direct readings off the scene.
Out of the box an ISO rated meter is calibrated for 12% reflectance, meaning that if a 12% gray card is metered the resulting shutter / aperture at the rated ISO film speed should produced ‘acceptable’ albeit not ‘optimal’ exposure of shadows on negative film and highlights on transparency film.
But what makes a spot meter really convenient is being able to just point the spot at a Zone 2 textured shadow area in the scene and then read the needed exposure to render it Zone 2 on the negative and print without any mental f-stop math or ‘zone-shifting’ mumbo-jumbo. Doing so is very simple and something I figured out back in 1971 when learning to use my Honeywell-Pentax 1° meter with Adams Zone system.
With Adams Zone System the first calibration test is shooting a subject wearing black and white clothing standing in sunlight at midday holding a gray card and taking the exposure reading off the card not the subject with meter set to the nominal film speed (e.g. ASA 400) then bracket by changing the film speed on the meter dial in 10% + / - increments: 480, 440, 400, 360, 320. You then developed the five sheets of film, or the single roll with bracketed exposures and looked at the shadow detail on the negative IN THE BLACK CLOTHING and printed a proof sheet on #2 paper with just enough exposure to render the clear boarders of the negative max (Zone 0 black) to find what the ACTUAL film speed was.
But I realizes that instead of metering off the gray card to do that calibration test on the Zone V 18% card I could instead meter a Zone 2 area of dark shaded texture on the subject as my calibration point and to correctly expose it on the negative I just need shift the ASA dial on the meter much more, in the range of 3-4 stops because the Zone 2 shadows reflected much less light. Same test a Adams suggested, just a different calibration point for the meter.
Once I had my meter adjusted to give me correct shadow exposure simply by pointing it at a Zone 2 shadow without needing a gray card, it was simple a matter of noting the EV reading off that Zone 2 shadow then shifting the meter to a Zone 9 non-specular white highlight to PRECISELY know the EV range of the scene and from that exactly how long to develop the film to fit any EV range scene to #2 print paper if printing that way according to the gospel of St. Ansel.
What most don’t realize today is that Adams system is based around ALWAYS printing on #2 grade paper, the one designed by Kodak for rendering full range outdoor scenes on a clear sunny day. The way you calibrated development time with the Kodak multi-grade paper system necessitated by roll film camera is exactly the same as Adams Zone System. After determining the actual film speed in the first test you shoot the same subject in the same direct sunlight in the morning or afternoon when sun is at 45° but this time expose 4-5 sheets or rolls the same but develop them for different times with the goal of discovering what development time created highlight densities on the negative which matched the 3.1 density range of the #2 grade paper perfectly.
With the Kodak system that development time was used always, regardless of scene contrast. Any outdoor scenes in direct sunlight on clear days would produced stunning full range prints with no problem. If the negative had less contrast because the photo was taken in open shade, cloudy or overcast days you simply switched to a different paper grade with a shorter dynamic range to get a full toned print. The automated printing machines would read the lightest and darkest areas of the negative to determine what grade was needed. In the late 1960s Kodak developed a print paper which could change contrast with different amounts of yellow or magenta filtration.
In addition to using the Zone System for my personal photography I was working as lab technician in the National Geographic Photo Lab where I had access to densitometers and other measurement tools I used to “dial in” the color head on home darkroom enlarger so I was able know exactly what amount of magenta filtration needed to alter the range of the Kodak and Ilford polycontrast paper I was using.
My workflow when shooting with my Mamiya 645 was to take a Zone 2 spot meter reading directly to expose the shadows then read and note the EV range between that metering point and the Zone 9 highlight in the scene. If I shot an entire roll of film under lighting with the same EV range I would use the Adam’s method of adjusting neg. development time to the EV range. But as noted above the Normal development to fit a sunny scene to #2 paper is exactly the same for both the Kodak and Adams systems. But if EV range differed due to overcast lighting I’d increase development time to compensate and print on #2.
When I was shooting with my 35mm using 36-exposure rolls I still used the Zone 2 spot metering for exposure and took notes frame-by-frame of the Zone 2 9 EV range, but back in the darkroom I would develop the roll “normally” - as if to fit sunny scene EV range to #2 paper - but then when printing based on the EV range notes change the contrast of the Polycontrast paper via filtration with the color head based on my testing.
When working at NGS I shot a lot of Kodachome and Extachrome and for those I adjusted my spot metering film speed so when I spot read a Zone 9 textured highlight the indicated shutter / aperture combinations correctly exposed the highlights. Then metering the darker parts of the scene, knowing the EV range the film could handle, would tell me where in the shadows I’d start to lose detail. It was similar to “exposing to the right” on a digital histogram then looking at the left side of the graph to determine if the sensor can handle the contrast of the lighting.
Because the histogram is so much more accurate than any metering I stopped using meters when switching to digital in 2000. Instead I just carry white and black terry wash rags and exposed to keep the white one 1/3 stop below clipping in the same light as the subject then evaluated the shadow detail in the black one.
When setting studio lights I will set aperture for desired DOF and always use centered FILL, turning it on first and raising until test shot and histogram show detail in the black rag, then turn on the RIM light and raise until the parts of the white one it hits are 1/3 stop below clipping and then finally the KEY which gets adjusted 2/3 stop below clipping putting it 1/3 stop below the rim light. This also works outdoors with two flashes as FILL and KEY with the sun at back of subject as rim lighting.
Getting full range / full detail rendering isn’t difficult if the underlying tech is understood 😊
Hello David. Beautiful photos as always. These covered bridges fascinate me.
Christine from France
Thank you Christine, I find covered bridges fascinating as well, I’m drawn to the history and the simple design.
Thanks for showing how an incident meter can effectively be used! I'm going to give this a go on my next outing. Gorgeous images BTW!
Thank you Ricardo, good luck using the incident meter and have fun with your photography:)
I've just bought myself a Sekonic 858D light meter so that I could have Incident and spot metering. I only ever had Incident before that. I served me well but shooting in the city I sometimes wanted to get readings from a distance where I couldn't get to (i.e. up a building). the spot is great for that. I still use the lumisphere as well. As you say, it is fast and accurate.
I have one of the Minolta meters you have. They are a brilliant meter. Very fast and simple. No BS with these and they give EV. I won't ever sell it and use it alongside my new one.
It sounds like you are covered well for any lighting situation, a spot meter is a great option to have when you can't be in the same light as your subject.
Another great video David! Even though I use a spotmeter, I'm totally in agreement with your assessment about metering. It doesn't really matter which kind of meter you use, as long as you learn what to expect from it, your film, and your equipment.
Thank you Brent
Thx. Looking for a new meter a the moment and thinking about going for a sekonic 398 or 208 for street or landscape. I only use TLR or a rangefinder, so as you point out, will be in the same light mostly. Food for thought. Nice pictures also.
Either reflective or incident will serve you well, the key is to practice with whatever you choose. If mine quits working I can't afford the one I would want to replace it with so I hope mine hangs in there a while longer
Great advice David...I have to admit I fret about metering a lot. I prefer to use my incident meter, I just trust it more than interpreting a spot meter. I have both but your results prove your point, wonderful images. Always look forward to your videos.
Thanks Bill, I think anyone who shoots film frets about metering, myself included but since I’m only shooting black and white negs now I feel more relaxed in knowing the film I’m using is pretty forgiving but I did fret a lot in this video because every time I would take a reading the darn light would change :)
This is terrific, I'm very glad to have found your page. I can't agree more with you re: incident metering. I've been shooting architectural and landscape scenes in LF black and white for 15+ years, and my Minolta incident meter has stood me in good stead the whole way along. The spot meter comes out only for specific shadow areas that I can't get to, when I need to make sure that I'll have detail there. For all other cases, the incident is best for me, for all of the reasons that you mentioned. Well done!
Thanks Bruce, I’ve had my Minolta incident meter a long time as well, I’m hoping it will serve me many more years but when it finally goes down it will surely be missed.
Hi there, it seems like every time I use an incident meter in sunny weather my prints come out over exposed. Do you shade your dome from direct sunlight. I've tried holding my hand over the dome...same thing. I'm starting large format with b&W film now, so maybe the incident will work with that medium. Thanks
Interesting Jack, no I don't shade the meter but I do hold it so the dome faces towards the camera and I make sure I'm in the same light as my subject. I've never had a problem getting a good exposure, I wonder if there is a way to check your meter against a different one to see if something has happened to the calibration. You could also do a couple test shots holding the meter at a different angle to see which is giving you the correct exposure. If you are blocking the light to the meter it will give you a reading that will over expose the film because it thinks it's darker out than it really is. I hope you have some luck getting to the bottom of this, honestly the incident meter is the most accurate meter I've used so I'm not sure why it's not working for you.
@@RidingTheEdgePhoto Thanks for getting back to me. After watchin a few of your videos I think my problem is with my digital Panasonic S1R. I will shoot some 4x5 B&W film and with it's latitude i'll just bet that has been my problem. I'm using a Sekonic meter and have checked it with my other meters and everything is right on. Really enjoy your videos. Thanks again.
Jack
I don’t use a view camera, but I often have a stick of chalk, so once I’ve found my spot for the tripod position, I mark the hard surface with a slight arc where the tripod feet are situated. If, I have to quickly move out of the way, I now have the general position to replace the position of the tripod feet. It helps to have to find the general position, instead moving it here and there and All of a sudden, you have to move again just before taking the shot. It works for me.
Great idea! Thanks for sharing Roger.
@@RidingTheEdgePhoto Thank you! Love your show. Just throwing in my two cents.
Excellent discussion on metering. Part of the learning process is learning when to use each style of metering, including the hand! Since I started in film photography years ago I have been comfortable with using meters of all types. I am fortunate to have that background to draw from.
For sure Robert, being the old fart that I am, I can draw from past experience, I keep forgetting that there are a lot of photographers that have never learned the skill of metering for their photography because they haven’t needed the skill but are now giving film photography a try. I figured it was time to touch on the subject a bit and maybe add a little balance to the conversation. Someday if I ever have a little extra cash I would love to pick up a light meter with both spot and incident capabilities to streamline my gear, there is always another piece of gear to buy. :)
At 12:45 you say ........ "I TEND to point my meter globe towards the camera, and that SEEMS to work pretty well for me." Well, that's mighty genius of you!!!! But how else do you measure an incident reading? And with that 'tend' and 'seem', you don't seem to be so sure of it either. I would love to hear you explain the Zone System as a step up from here.
Proper gray cards are matte surfaces and do not shine. Not like cheap ones for $4.99 on Amazon.
My experience with gray cards was many years ago, before Amazon and the gray cards I had access to had a bit of a sheen if tilted, probably cheap ones. Why would I explain the Zone System? I don’t use the Zone System, I know how to get to white with detail and black with detail from middle grey, my exposures are pretty solid but the films I use are pretty forgiving so that must be why. :) Someone who has never used an incident meter might think they should hold the dome pointing up toward the sun or toward a subject, just covering my bases, when I say seems or tend I simply mean roughly toward the camera, I don’t have an exact angle, just toward the camera and not flat out in front of me.
I could be wrong but I’m sensing a tone in your comment that suggests I lack experience, all I do in these videos is share how I make images and in my 30 years of do photography as a hobby and a profession, I’ve learned there is usually more than one way to approach a photographic problem. If someone can get something of use from one of my videos then that’s all I can hope for, I keep it simple, well, it seems simple to me but that doesn’t mean I’m not still learning or at least reevaluating different ways to approach making an image, that’s what keeps it interesting.
It’s also possible that I’ve picked up some bad habits over the thousands of photography assignments I’ve done through the years, that’s why I say this is just how I do it Lol have a good day.
@@RidingTheEdgePhoto, thanks for explaining your points and why you do them. I am curious, how do you measure light in a place like a forest, with dappled lighting, like where you were, just with incident light reading? If you have been bracketing your shots after incident light reading, I reckon that answers how you get good images. Nothing wrong with that, except in LF photography, with 3 image bracketing, that would be a very expensive method, don't you think? I have Kodak gray cards from 30 years ago, no sheen. The Kodak brand ones don't have a sheen. I think you should encourage people to learn to measure both ways and let them develop a keen sense to decide what are the appropriate situations for their usage. You can't mosey on through life just reading incident light for everything in photography. Anyway, at least you are making videos to elucidate others, I give you credit for that.
Dappled light in the forest, that’s an easy one, I just don’t waste the film and come back when the light is better Lol if I must make an image I would try to decide what’s most important in the composition, it the scene is mostly shadow I would have to expose for the shadow and pull my film in development, if the scene is mostly bright I would meter in that light and over expose a bit or just let the shadows go, I could also try taking 2 readings, one in shadow and one in light and average the 2, every scene will be different and offers a unique photographic challenge. I shoot only black and white film and find the exposure latitude to be pretty forgiving so I almost never bracket for exposure, if I bracket, it’s usually for a different reason, like focus, subject movement or the light changed just as I tripped the shutter, I hate it when that happens. :)
Even though I think an incident meter is the most accurate way for me to measure light, doesn’t mean I think it’s the only way to get to a well exposed image, if someone likes to use a grey card then they should use one, I carried one for awhile but decided it was one less thing to carry if I left it home. Large format is really a small part of the total amount of images I make, until this last year I was shooting all my film on a Pentax 645n medium format camera, I probably used the built in multi segment meter 90% of the time and had good success, I’m not that picky if I’ve come to trust my metering tools I will use what’s most efficient to get my reading. As I said in the video, if someone doesn’t have a incident meter I don’t think it’s necessary for them to go out and buy one, but if they do have one then consider using it as an option, incident meters don’t have to be just for the studio, which I heard one of the bigger TH-cam landscape photographers say and of course I disagree with. I’ve never suggested anyone mosey through life just using an incident meter for everything in photography, it’s not what I do and I would expect anyone else to, but when I’m doing landscape with a large format camera I seem to make it work, I also carry a DSLR for video and backup if I need to press its spot meter into action, so far it’s not been needed.
Again it’s just how I do it, doesn’t make it right, it’s just right for me.
Great shots! First light meter I ever had was a Leningrad for my first SLR the Zenit!
Thanks Paul, to be honest I wasn’t familiar with the Leningrad meter or the Zenit camera tell I looked it up, old school meter for an old school camera :)
@@RidingTheEdgePhoto both cheap old school USSR and even cheaper 2nd hand but sparks my interest in the late 70!
Great video, yep, totally agree, incident meter works for me in landscapes, and I come from a studio background. However, I will pull out a reflective meter, as my Pentax spot meter takes up too much room. KB.
Thanks Ken, they do make some very compact reflective meters for sure and the Pentax spot meter does seem a bit on the large side :) it all works, it’s up to the photographer to decide what works best for them. Have a great day Ken!
Absolutely beautiful images of the covered bridge David! Really appreciate your comments on metering. I used to meter off my hand often, and primarily shot negative film which was much more forgiving, as you said. You’ve really rekindled my interest in film photography. Got my Nikon FM2 out and have new button batteries and film on order. You might consider another title for this video: “Large format photography or roadkill, a fine line”. 😎
LOL thanks Bill, glad I didn't end up a spot in the road, what we do for our art. :) You are going to have a blast with that FM2, its such a great little camera, by today's standards it's almost a pocket camera.
Very interesting and nice photography ❣️🙏🏻👍🏻
Thank you Ruud
Should we point the meter to the ground or just straight at the camera? I’m a week into shooting my 4x5 and learning. Thank you
I always point the incident meter toward the camera, I'm not sure why you would point it towards the ground, you are measuring the light falling on the scene, not the reflected light, if you are using a reflective meter, like a spot meter, then some tones on the ground would be a good choice to meter off of. Good luck on your 4x5 adventure.
It's interesting that you are going back and re-shooting covered bridges that you previously shot on older digital. I'm currently doing the same for a similar project here in Pennsylvania. I had made photos of about 80 of the Covered Bridges here in Pennsylvania back in 2005-2012 when I was all about the overdone digital HDR (hanging my head in shame). I've been shooting large format film almost exclusively since 2013 and have recently started going back and making every effort to update my location notes, maps etc to tackle all the bridges again but this time on 5x7, 8x10 and 4x10 film. Recent tropical storms, major storms, truck damage and arsons have brought home the fact that we lose more and more of these bridges each year and I need to use these tools and skills to make the best photos of them while they are still here. I wish you much luck on your own project.
Thanks Gregg I can always use the luck, :) it sounds like you have a wonderful covered bridge project going on with a lot more bridges to photograph, I agree it is sad to see some of these historical landmarks slipping away over time. Besides using different cameras, another reason I like to revisit these bridges is to get different seasons, weather and light in my covered bridge collection of photos.
LOL, the only time spot meter is absolutely necessary is when a photographer uses Ansel Adams's zone system of exposure, and those who really know about the zone system will tell you that it is far more involved than just measuring the shadows and the highlights. I have to stipulate though, that for an experienced photographer such as yourself it is an easy task to guess the luminance range of scene accurately, something that most people are incapable of achieving, particularly the digital generation. I guess the main problem for the majority of people is the understanding of what an indicated exposure represents and what exactly is an 18% grey?
Yes, it can be tough to get one's head around what the indicated exposure represents and what exactly is 18% grey, I probably over simplify it but because I have a pretty good idea of the exposure latitude for my film of choice I'm getting consistent results and a very usable negative, as long as I don't mess up the development that is :)
Metering is great, but you don’t need it. I know a lot of large format guys that have had to guess exposures without a metering and got perfect shots.
Once you stick to the same film, and same development routine, you can dial in the scene without a meter, but again it takes a lot of dedication to not hinge your supplies
A lot of street photographers, like Joel meyerowitz for example, would meter their hand like a grey card, and use that for most of the day on the street, or until the light changed. He used a Leica m4, no meter.
That’s with asa 25 kodachrome slide film btw, pretty amazing he got those shots, on the active streets of nyc, with 25 iso film, slide film, and they’re perfect.
Also, when you print black and white in the darkroom, you print for the highlights and then adjust contrast, or dodge and burn, to correct the darks how you want them on the print. Which is why leaning towards over exposure is a generally good idea.
other guys like Ralph Gibson, exposed for the highlights only, to lose all the shadow details
What are you talking about. Some guys are not using a light meter pfff wtf
@@petrub27 no shit. What does that have to do with what I said about metering in general?
@@nickfanzo what I am saying is that your friends who are not using a light meter represents nothing for this matter. A light meter is an objective device that measures light. That's the proper tool for the job. Same as a watch measuring time or a thermometer measuring temperature. Saying you don't need it is delusional
@@petrub27
Sally Mann doesn’t use a light meter
I guess she sucks
I would LOVE to see the low amount of traffic - no way you can do this even closely placing yourself in the middle of the road in PA with covered bridges there during daytime (it works very early in the morning though!)! The photos came out great! I am using a Gossen Digisix 2 meter where I like especially the small size. Never used spot metering with an external meter. Well explained metering techniques! I am using in 80% reflective, 20% incident metering. Mostly because when I shoot with film cameras with integrated meter it is always reflective. With large format I predominantly shoot via incident metering.
Thanks Martin, I'm aware my idea of high traffic is probably different than others, Lol sounds like you've got a good system worked out for your metering and the most important part is it's working for you.
I've owned my Sekonic L - 508 for 25 years an almost never use the spot meter. Since going digital, I almost always use the meter in my camera. And shooting flash, l shoot manual. Then check the back of the camera. Or my computer tethered in Capture One Pro.
Thanks.
I'm just getting back into photography (film) and have been completely immersed in spot metering. I like your take and for my style of shooting it seems like incident metering might be worth a try. I'm going to use several rolls and give it a go. Quick question, in very harsh sun light do you ever tilt the incident meter towards the camera but tilted a bit towards the ground?
There is nothing wrong with spot metering Dante, especially if you already have one and are getting good results, if you have a meter that has both then you may find using the incident useful and in many cases quicker than spot metering. I have never pointed the incident meter towards the ground, I guess if you want to meter just for the shadows that would probably work, my main worry would be that the highlights would end up difficult to scan and print, negative film has a lot of exposure latitude so it might still be ok. If you are using transparency film then I wouldn’t meter that way, it would blow out the highlights. Harsh light in certain locations, like a wood area, can be difficult to meter with any meter and usually involves some sort of compromise, favoring shadow detail or highlights, my answer to that is, I try not to make photos in the forest in harsh light, problem solved 😁. I like to say there is no bad light, just the wrong location for the light, I would rather find a location that works in the light I have. Sorry for the little tangent :) good luck with your image making and I hope you are enjoying your visit back to film photography!
Great work and inspiring. I shoot film in New Mexico. Would love to have a shoot out with you.
You can position yourself in the center of a road if you look the part. Put on a yellow reflective safety vest, wear a beat up white hard hat and put out some orange cones and suddenly drivers will assume you are a surveyor or something. I found the cones at (of all places) my local Dollar Tree store. Walmart has the vests and Lowe's or Home Depot has the hard hats.
Besides, any time you are working near a road, you should be thinking about safety.
Yes Terry, I agree safety is important, I do have an orange safety vest that I’ve put many miles on when covering any news assignments near roadways, most of my photography now days is in the woods, except the occasional covered bridge photo and most of them are out in the country where the traffic is pretty light but it probably wouldn’t hurt to grab the vest when planning to photograph one of the bridges.
Given the traffic I'm surprised you got such a good shot. I think the head-on shot was correct for that bridge. Congrats!
Thanks Erich
Good video man. Keep up the good work.
Thank you Rob, much appreciated