Metering/Measuring light

[Johannes Knightworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Photography is all about light, the light will define the image and contribute to the quality thereof.

Knowing this why would anyone leave the measurement up to a built in lightmeter?

 

This is my personal observation, I don't use cameras with built in lightmeters and I doubt I ever will, I use a Pentax spotmeter and a sekonic 558 (I think thats the model) measure the image part I want to photograph and adjust manually from that point onward, snapshots with my M4 I can estimate quite well in 90% of the cases my personal perception is that this will produce a better overall image.

 

I am interested to know how others handle light measurement ?

[jotam]

Johannes,

 

This is a more than interesting subject!

Of course photography is all about light!

To use a spot meter is the best way to not get the wrong measurement...

 

Metering the light while photographing

always is my biggest concern!

I use cameras with built-in light meters,

but I learned how they «react» and try to extract

good results from them.

 

The big «tool», however, that gives me good results

is the famous «Zone System» method by Ansel Adams.

I studied it intensively and now it is my trustful companion

while pointing a camera to a subject!

 

If you know Zone System and if you know which point (area / zone)

your metering is measuring, then you never fail.

 

José

[Johannes Knightworth]

Jose,

 

I have read about the zone system and have applied it in my early years of photography. Back in those days I though Ansel Adams was the greatest photographer ever for he photographed landscapes in a manner which brought them to life.... I applied the zone system and after numerous roles, countless hours in my darkroom I gradually began to see results. By then however I had chosen a different photographical approach, not trying to achieve perfection, but trying to create atmosphere. In my humble opinion I find overall perfection very boring and hence catagorize Ansel as a very good but boring photographer. I read about the "painting with light" purpose of photography and since then try to achieve using the light available at that explicit point in time to construct an image which doesn't need to be perfect, but needs to contain atmosphere..... before actually seeing the subject contained in the photograph one must be "caught" by the atmosphere of the complete image, only then to deduct the meaning of the detail within the atmosphere .... I will never master this fully but after having tried photographing in this manner I have come to the conclusion that light is the only variable substance in this equasion and therefore one must play around with the possibilities.... again my motto is allways that perfection bores and provides no room for further imagination..... needless to mention that I don't even think of zoning anymore... still trying to learn about "unstructured" usage of light though

[jotam]

Johannes,

 

Your reflections on «Ansel Adams», light metering, perfection

and creating atmospheres (painting with light) are very rich! Thank you for sharing them.

 

By coincidence, or maybe not, I do agree with them.

Maybe we had similar courses in photography...

 

Nowadays my concern with «creating atmospheres», catching

very fleeting moments is such that I even search for cameras (film cameras)

fully automatic (!) in order to be totally concentrated in looking, evaluating (quickly)

a situation and... shooting!|

 

I photograph with Leica, but other little fully automatic jewels are catching my attention now...

And I am very pleased with the results!

A friend of mine call those cameras «photographic pencils» and he is absolutely right!

I feel them as pencils and feel myself designing from the scratch!

Of course, these exercises can always be translated into more sophisticated cameras...

As my friend says, «there is room for both».

 

José

[luigi bertolotti]

Photography is all about light, the light will define the image and contribute to the quality thereof.

Knowing this why would anyone leave the measurement up to a built in lightmeter?

 

This is my personal observation, I don't use cameras with built in lightmeters and I doubt I ever will, I use a Pentax spotmeter and a sekonic 558 (I think thats the model) measure the image part I want to photograph and adjust manually from that point onward, snapshots with my M4 I can estimate quite well in 90% of the cases my personal perception is that this will produce a better overall image.

 

I am interested to know how others handle light measurement ?

 

I also do not love built in lightmeters: when you have time, is much better making light evaluations in the areas of interest, and setting exposure after having thought a little; modern films have lot of latitude, but a RIGHT EXPOSURE is still a datum you always notice in negs and prints. By myself, I have never used a spot device, but would like to have one : I have 3 Gossens of different level weight and dimensions (Lunasix, Bisix 2 and a small selenium Sixtino) , devices I like to use and am very satisfied of.

[jotam]

Johannes and Luigi,

 

When you mention measuring light with external devices,

are you considering what one calls «street photography»?

 

When I shoot street photography (which I do regularly), either a fully automatic

or a camera with built-in meter is very useful.

Otherwise, photographing on studio demands a much more accurate light metering process.

In such cases I never use a built-in light metering.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jose... you are right; for me, I definitely do not want to carry on some strange "battle" on "use external lightmeter !" , I simply like to use them but... never do street photo..and when I saw the M7, I admit that my first comment was "Ok, the right level of automation needed by street photogs".

[Johannes Knightworth]

Jotam,

 

when doing "Street" which I actually do not do, but I do walk around and take snapshots, I measure the light "on the sunny side of the street" so to speak, as well as the dark side and take it manually from there. Mind you I mostly use B&W film which is very forgiving especially if you develop yourself, most colour negative films are also quite forgiving. I only spot-meter critical scenes. You can also use the "sunny 16" rule which works relatively well. Of course when using slide-film you need to be a bit more precise.

Actually one should do what one feels most comfortable with, using a built in lightmeter is not "wrong" I just find it to binding and it does slow down the process of seeing and snapping, it actually does distract me. You get the hang of judging light values without a meter pretty quick, it just requires practice.

 

However if I would practice street photography, I would use a Rolleiflex which in my opinion is perfect fro the job, shoot at waist level, very inconspicuous, it's quiet and produces great results.... but this is another discussion all together.

[square_one]

I don't use cameras with built in lightmeters and I doubt I ever will. I use a Pentax spotmeter ... measure the image part I want to photograph and adjust manually from that point onward ... I can estimate quite well in 90% of the cases my personal perception is that this will produce a better overall image. I am interested to know how others handle light measurement ?

 

Johannes - Me too! What you say! And! Besides slow-spotting your roll of film you can go unmetered period! With good Zone experience you probably have a gut-feel for brightness (ev) values - can leap tall buildings with a single bound, see beyond 16, save a key shadow or intentionally lose a less-important highlight. Such Zen-Un-Zenness is not always spot-on of course, but great fun-for-the-head til you must give-in, play serious with the PentaxV ... still have fun.

 

Bruce

[Michael Hiles]

Photography is all about light, the light will define the image and contribute to the quality thereof.

Knowing this why would anyone leave the measurement up to a built in lightmeter?

 

This is my personal observation, I don't use cameras with built in lightmeters and I doubt I ever will, I use a Pentax spotmeter and a sekonic 558 (I think thats the model) measure the image part I want to photograph and adjust manually from that point onward, snapshots with my M4 I can estimate quite well in 90% of the cases my personal perception is that this will produce a better overall image.

 

I am interested to know how others handle light measurement ?

I do about the same. I use a spot meter to measure the brightest and darkest part of the subject and then make sure that they fall between zone 8 and zone 2, tending towards the higher end, making a negative with rich shadow detail. Once this is set for a situation, remetering only is needed if things change substantially, making street work quite easy and somewhat automatic with judgment adjustments. This works well with B&W. For slides (Kodachrome), frequent metering is wise - less leeway with Kodacrome.

 

I do not try to monkey around with development - that is a major complication with 35mm. And it does not matter much in my experience. The late Fred Picker finally concluded "measure the brightest part of the scene, and put it on Zone 8". The negative will always (in my experience) be very printable or scanable, because everything will be on some usable part of the curve.

 

I also make sure I know what speed my film is. For each film I do a test to see what ISO produces a usable zone 1. When you know that, you know your film speed for your camera. It is often not what it says on the film box.

[alexz]

Well, this is my first posting in the Forums here.

Used to be a long-term SLR shooter until converted to RF and Leica in particular few months ago. Happily shoot with my M6 Classic, 50mm/2 'cron (current) and Elmarit-M 90mm/2.8 (current).

Well, from my yet limited experience with M6 metering - I personaly can attest for its perfect usefulness if using adequately. Few years back I learnt and tried to grasp zone metering and apparently developed quite good sense of tone evaluation and manual compensation of the exposure. So, with just plain, simple M6 meter, I do off any subject (be it middle gray, white, dark or in-between), evaluate how far it si from middle gray (within +/- 2-3 stops: 5-7 zones) and compensate accordingly. With little practice takes 10--15 sec. to be set. Then do similar if the light changes noticeably. In that manner I found M6 metering is nearly as robust as contemporary super-technological meters in nowaday's SLRs. Just learn to use it and be aimed with zone system. Besides, with an understanding of zone system, one can be creative with the exposure - just shift your "exposure window" up or down.

Recently acquired a small, simple but robust Polaris digital meter - does both incident and reflected, I use it for incident - makes metering a breeze.

 

I also shoot lareg format (4x5) - then my tool is Pentax Digital Spotmeter modified by Zone VI. This is indeed the most robust exposure evaluation tool - but at the expense of your time (which you rarely have a lot shooting Leica (or RF in general) style, but usually do have with Large Format approach).

 

Best, Alex

[Photoskeptic]

Okay, I'm going to add my dos centavos here. I started in 1960 with a box camera that used MF film. I've never owned a light meter and never used the zone system. Seriously. I suppose I'm lucky in that I picked up a camera and just started shooting and learned from my mistakes. I eventually got an SLR which had a meter built in, but it was more of a novelty than an assist. Ditto my M6 TTL. I guess my method is closer to the "sunny 16" rule than anything else, but I don't get my bowels in an uproar over it. I've also learned that certain films require different techniques that toss the sunny 16 concept out the door. After all these years, instinct about most any scene has been acquired and filed in the data base of my mind. That said, I learn more every time I shoot and in digital I have learned to use the histogram of the LCD so I don't blow the highlights

[reality]

By then however I had chosen a different photographical approach, not trying to achieve perfection, but trying to create atmosphere. In my humble opinion I find overall perfection very boring and hence catagorize Ansel as a very good but boring photographer. I read about the "painting with light" purpose of photography and since then try to achieve using the light available at that explicit point in time to construct an image which doesn't need to be perfect, but needs to contain atmosphere.....

 

Johannes,

 

This is my first post here, but to read what you have said is so very refreshing... I've often thought the same thing myself, but have never wanted to be the heretic when it comes to Ansel!

 

So, I'll post and be a heretic with you!

 

How right you are about atmosphere... as Bill Brandt said: "Thus it was I found atmosphere to be the spell that charged commonplace with beauty. And still I am not sure what atmopsphere is. I should be hard put to define it. I only know it is a combination of elements, perhaps most simply and yet most inadequately described in technical terms of lighting and viewpoint, which reveals the subject as familiar and yet strange."

 

Here in Hong Kong, the light is quite tragic, especially during the day... it's like there's a huge diffusion filter hanging over the city, so I do most of my photography at night. I potter around with my M7, looking for something that is interesting (well, at least to my point of view) and use a Seikonic spot meter, pretty much metering off the middle area in terms of light... and hope for the best in terms of creating some kind of asthetic and atmosphere. Of course, there are a lot of duds, but there are always one or two where I think... okay!

 

I would suggest following your own intuition in this area.

 

Personally, I am sick and tired of the Photoshop, "technical perfection" that appears to be creeping into modern photography; something that is leeching any type of creative and individual eye out of the art of photiography... I'll take Brassai, Brandt, etc, before much of what is called photography these days; these guys had an idea... not a memory stick and workflow!

 

In the end, it's your eye; your image that matters... not what Ansel Adams expects, or what anyone else expects!

 

By the way, if you are interested in the idea of "Painting with Light", you might want to check out a book of the same name by John Alton. He was a cinemaphotographer who rose to fame during the late 40's, early 50's filming a number of noir films... stunning stuff! His style is very distinctive and will give you a great deal of inspiration in terms of creating atmosphere, especially in black and white.

 

Here's to the spot meter and creating atmosphere!

 

Brett.

[gberger]

So far, the discussion has centered (correctly) on metering for B&W, with little input from those of us who shoot slides almost 100%.

 

I've been taking slide photos almost since the introduction of Kodachrome (1940). Since then, I've used Kodachrime II, Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64. I used my Dad's old GE meter, then a Norwood Director, then a myriad of meters - - finally settling on a Sekonic 308 for use with my M-series (M4 and M7). A flick of the finger changes the meter from incident to reflective metering for the M4. Over the years, I've found that (for me) incident exposure results in the most number of "correct" exposures on a roll of slide film.

 

Is a built-in meter useful? Yes, in the M7 for AE, and also for shooting stained glass windows from the inside of a cathedral or church. There are several more instances where reflective metering must be used where it just isn't possible to take incident readings. However, I usually bracket exposures made with the built-in meter, as sometimes the "correct" exposure determined by the built-in meter doesn't produce the best results for projection. (I'll even bracket incident exposure settings every now and then).

 

After some disasterous processing results with Kodachrome, my wife and I switched to the green box films, and we currently use Astia. Neutral palette, extremely fine grain and a superb film for projection.