Pablito
coco frío
Yeah, this works well. The only in-camera metering that is really useful is the spot metering.
daniel buck
Established
I don't understand this? My pentax spot meter gives me a medium grey value on whatever I spot it on.
emraphoto
Mentor
Pretty much became a rhythm with me as well. Meter direct light and the shadows, figure put the rest from there. Far off light conditions? Guess. Pretty good at it now.
bwcolor
Mentor
I don't think that reflective readings need be "wild ass guesses". Using the meter results without attention given to what the reflectance of the area metered is not even a guess. It is simply being lazy. I think most folks that have used a spot, or incident meter for some time can pretty accurately guess what exposure compensation needs to be made based upon the reflectance of the subject metered. Most of us can judge common items like a bush, or a tree trunk. Again, Roger's comment regarding the angle of light reflected must approximate the actual angle of light hitting and reflecting off the main subject. So, perhaps we can do a bit better than WAG.
FrankS
Registered User
I agree. If a reflective light reading is no better than a wild ass guess, then that speaks only to the ineptness of the photographer with using a reflected light meter.
craygc
Well-known
Often I couldnt work with an internal reflective meter (such as an M6), at least one that isnt giving me an automated exposure. Shooting people and movement I often have little time to react for the shot I want. Getting exposure, and often a planned focus distance, set ahead of time while all elements (self included) are moving into position almost necessitates using a handheld (incident) meter.
FrankS
Registered User
Even with a built in reflective meter, every shot need not be metered. One can use the reflected light reading the same way as an incident reading to get a proper exposure, and leave it set as long as the lighting does not change. I usually use an alternate subject/view to obtain this reading, for example, pointing the camera lens and meter at a medium grey ground and excluding the sky which would fool the meter.
paulfish4570
Mentor
It is insurance in case of an incident ... 
Richard G
Mentor
What Craig said.
And Paul, your last contribution is incidental to the discussion......
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Daniel,
Only because you're not using it right. Read the darkest shadow in which you want texture and detail and use IRE 1 (shadow reading).
Early spotmeters didn't even HAVE a mid-tone index, because it's all but useless. No film speed is based on a mid-tone, and the only reasons you can get away with reading a mid-tone are (1) limited subject brightness range and (2) film latitude. Mid-tone indices on spot meters were added later to placate Zonies who didn't really understand what they were doing. See:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/over-under-indices.html (over and under indices)
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo neg.html (metering for negatives)
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/sei.html (SEI meter and description of keytone method)
Cheers,
R.
Gumby
Mentor
I wouldn't use the word "ineptness", but rather... ignorance. One has to understand what a tool is doing before using it. To not do so is ignorant. To use that tool inapropriately is inept. Sometimes there is not a difference.
Last edited:
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
Dear Roger -
For me metering for shadows doesn't work quite well in C41 and hybrid film/digital workflow. When I use color stuff (or C41 b&w for that matter), meter for shadows and use IRE1 reading (or -~2 stops from mid tone reading), and then use unknown back street C41 processing and scanning, I usually end up with grainy (muddy) underexposed shadows AND still might have blown away highlights.
/Sigh
dave lackey
Mentor
Wow....no concensus here. Just goes to show that there is no such thing as a perfect or "correct" exposure.
georg16nik
Member
I always carry my trusty Sverdlovsk 4. I shoot ltm's manufactured before the 50's and those are meter free, which I find is a great thing for me.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm quite happy to use in camera reflective metering having learned through experience to compensate for it's programmed attitude towards exposure. It will attempt to darken light areas and will try to lighten darks courtesy of it's nature of wanting everything to be medium grey. Once you become familiar with the behaviour you can compensate accordingly. Knowing how much it's biased (center weighted) towards the middle of your your composition and seeing what's in that area in black and white by disregarding colour if you can goes a long way towards accurate exposure.
It's not always totally accurate but making obvious mistakes and learning from them is part of the process for me!
It's not always totally accurate but making obvious mistakes and learning from them is part of the process for me!
Last edited:
bizarrius
the great
i have my meter because i can read light before i take the camera off the bag.
this way i will know my light, set my camera before bringing her to my eye, prefocus and snap the shot without scaring the subject away.
works like a charm in a terrified country like Greece.
Plus, chicks dig it
this way i will know my light, set my camera before bringing her to my eye, prefocus and snap the shot without scaring the subject away.
works like a charm in a terrified country like Greece.
Plus, chicks dig it
nikole957
Newbie
The great thing about a proper incident light reading is that it's nothing like as critical where you point it, except for side-lighting. A few degrees different with a grey card, and there's a stop different...
agricola
Well-known
having got this far I had to go back to the first question to see what the poster started out with - he asked: "but I don't get bringing an incident meter when you have a perfectly good reflectance/incident meter in camera"
It depends on the subject. If you are in a theatre with spotlit actors then the meter in the camera will leave their faces as overexposed blobs. Use an incident meter placed in the place where the actors will be performing and you have some hope of getting their facial expressions.
That's an extreme example. But if you think about it you can see why incident is sometimes something that you just have to do. Mostly I find the in-camera meter on the Nikons is just the ticket. But not for spotlit actors.
It depends on the subject. If you are in a theatre with spotlit actors then the meter in the camera will leave their faces as overexposed blobs. Use an incident meter placed in the place where the actors will be performing and you have some hope of getting their facial expressions.
That's an extreme example. But if you think about it you can see why incident is sometimes something that you just have to do. Mostly I find the in-camera meter on the Nikons is just the ticket. But not for spotlit actors.
mathomas
Well-known
"Exposing" my ignorance here: probably 80% of the time, I just hold the incident meter over my shoulder (and that's when I use the meter -- the rest of the time I shoot "Sunny 16"). I'm generally happy with my exposures. The few times I've gone to the subject and pointed back to the camera position, I've gotten no better exposures, and sometimes worse (overexposed, IIRC).
It's never made any sense to me why you point the meter back at the camera position anyway. I realize that is how incident meters are designed to work, but the light isn't coming from the camera position any more than it is from, say, the sky, on a hazy day. Again, just my ignorance, I'm sure. I manage to muddle through anyway.
It almost seems like the more I think about exposure when shooting, the more inconsistent my results become.
charjohncarter
Mentor
Here is an example of a fooled reflective in camera meter. This super white ship overwhelmed the meter and gave me a slightly underexposed scene; Elitechrome:
Last edited: