"Expose for shadows" with Leica MP?

[eawriter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm new to B&W film photography, and have read the advice several times to "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights."

Also, I was told by my Leica dealer that the exposure reading the MP light meter uses is an egg-shaped zone located in the bottom half of the viewfinder. 

Therefore, to "expose for the shadows," should I put that egg-shaped zone over the darkest area in the image that I want to have some detail, set a shutter speed and aperture, then recompose—without changing the exposure—and shoot? Is that the recommended way to get a negative I can print and get both good shadow and highlight detail? 

P.S. I searched this forum to see if this question had already been asked, but didn't find a relevant thread. If this has been covered elsewhere, please refer me to that discussion. Thanks. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[spydrxx]

The guideline I used for many years  (with film) was when using B&W expose for the shadows and when using Color (positives) expose for the highlights. It usually worked just fine. As far as the exposure pattern, you may want to experiment a little. Some cameras have weighted exposure in different sectors of their patterns (I'm thinking here especially of Nikon, but some others as well).

[Pieter12]

3 hours ago, eawriter said:

I'm new to B&W film photography, and have read the advice several times to "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights."

Also, I was told by my Leica dealer that the exposure reading the MP light meter uses is an egg-shaped zone located in the bottom half of the viewfinder. 

Therefore, to "expose for the shadows," should I put that egg-shaped zone over the darkest area in the image that I want to have some detail, set a shutter speed and aperture, then recompose—without changing the exposure—and shoot? Is that the recommended way to get a negative I can print and get both good shadow and highlight detail? 

P.S. I searched this forum to see if this question had already been asked, but didn't find a relevant thread. If this has been covered elsewhere, please refer me to that discussion. Thanks. 

I hope that your dealer was misinforming you. What happens when you shoot a portrait, then? If your subject its dark-skinned and wearing a light outfit, you will end up with a grossly underexposed negative. I believe the light meter reads a central circle about 15% of the frame area.

[andybarton]

Isn’t there a white circle on the shutter curtain, from which the meter takes its reading? I sold my MP years ago, but I’m pretty sure that’s the case. 

[earleygallery]

The MP has what is rather like a fat spot meter. As Andy says you can see a white spot on the shutter curtain and that’s what the meter reads off. 
 

B&W film has a lot of latitude so as you are new to this just meter the scene in front of you avoiding any obviously bright area.

You might want to consider buying a separate handheld meter which can take incident readings, that’s where you read the light source rather than the reflective light off the subject matter. 

[Mute-on]

Your dealer is misleading you. It is a round meter area like a fat spot meter, as @earleygallery said. Just meter that part of the scene that most closely approximates 18% grey, and expose that correctly (centre dot lit). Just shoot at box speed, too. Don’t systematically over or under expose until you know how the film behaves with proper exposure at box speed (the iso speed on the box).

Having said that, some B+W films look amazing pushed (underexposed by 2 stops) and developed to compensate. 

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/28/2024 at 7:40 PM, eawriter said:

egg-shaped zone located in the bottom half of the viewfinder. 

Pure nonsense

23 hours ago, andybarton said:

white circle on the shutter curtain

Yes like all the film M’s since M6 and it never changed

22 hours ago, earleygallery said:

a fat spot meter

A circle yes

[Mr.Prime]

There's a pun in there somewhere about having egg on your face.

 

Anyhow, my experience has been that this type of centre-averaged metering can work very well for a wide range of film types and situations. The trick is to remember that the meter will guide you to a correct exposure for a scene with that infamous 18% grey reflectance. It's quite accurate for most scenes without worry but if in doubt you can 'take a meter reading' by pointing the camera at green grass (not this time of the year where I live though) or a brick wall and get something pretty close.

 

The other way to approach it is to take a meter reading by pointing the camera at the scene but doing so as to exclude obvious areas of significant darkness or brightness. For example, tilting down slightly to keep a bright sky out of the centre-weighted area to avoid the meter recommending a lower exposure than would suit the main subject.

 

For people who 'think' in terms of the zone system, there is also the approach of preserving detail in the shadows (expose for the shadows with negative film) where you can meter off a very dark area and open 3 stops, or preserving detail in the highlights (e.g. for slide film) where you can meter off a very bright area and close down 3 stops.

 

And when it's snowy like where I am today, meter as normal and open up two stops.

Sorry if I'm preaching to the choir here.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Mr.Prime

[eawriter]

Thanks to all of you for your helpful replies. I consulted the Leica MP manual (which I probably should have done in the first place) and found these useful diagrams, which confirm that the metering spot is indeed in the middle of the viewfinder, although its size changes depending on the lens attached. From now on, I believe I'll try to find a dark area in the scene I'm photographing, put that in the center, and open up one, two, or three stops, depending on how dark the dark area is. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Mute-on]

Why wouldn’t you just meter from an 18% grey, or the area in the image in which you expect to see the most detail, i.e., properly exposed, and expose as indicated by the light meter? Why this idea of metering from a dark shadow and opening up by an arbitrary number of stops based on ‘judgement’?

To make this simple, if I’m photographing a car show, and all the cars are parked on grass, I meter from the grass in front of the car I’m photographing, set aperture and shutter speed, and take photos of the car at that exposure. Any change in reflected light from the colour of the car is ignored since I’m not metering from the car’s paint. Same idea applies on the street. Meter from the footpath (sidewalk) if the light falling on it and your intended subject is similar. Set shutter and aperture and blaze away. It’s about understanding how a light meter measures light, and adjusting accordingly. Metering for shadows and opening up some estimated number of stops can produce acceptable results, but it’s unnecessarily complicated compared with metering for that part of the scene you just want properly exposed … IMHO of course. 

[rogxwhit]

I'm feeling like a novice interloper here, but have just glanced through this thread & haven't noticed anyone mention anything about film speed rating?  Which is a consideration along with how you meter when exposing neg films (whether mono or colour). 

 

The OP has seemingly vanished, & I'm not altogether surprised.  

 

 

[Einst_Stein]

For color films, it is less practical to develop for certain zones.  Personally I always develop normally. Not that I can't push or pull, but I just find it's more reliable. In the end, I also develop B&W according to the global ISO setting I choose. The question left is, to meter the shadow or highlight?

FYI, this is what I do: I use spot meter mode to meter the darkest area and the brightest area that I want to retain good details, then choosing roughly the middle of the two readings.  It would be slightly less exposure, about half stop,  than the middle while slightly more exposure, half to one stop, than the middle. I also make sure the two extremes are not too far apart in the exposure meter. If they do, I will do some compromise. 

[earleygallery]

19 hours ago, rogxwhit said:

I'm feeling like a novice interloper here, but have just glanced through this thread & haven't noticed anyone mention anything about film speed rating?  Which is a consideration along with how you meter when exposing neg films (whether mono or colour). 

 

The OP has seemingly vanished, & I'm not altogether surprised.  

 

 

Film speed doesn’t matter in terms of how the camera metering works, which was the OP’s query. 

[eawriter]

19 hours ago, rogxwhit said:

I'm feeling like a novice interloper here, but have just glanced through this thread & haven't noticed anyone mention anything about film speed rating?  Which is a consideration along with how you meter when exposing neg films (whether mono or colour). 

 

The OP has seemingly vanished, & I'm not altogether surprised.  

 

 

I haven't vanished at all. I'm reading all the replies, which are helpful, and my follow-up post is just two above yours. 

[otto.f]

In the end incident light metering is the most foolproof in all situations, from in the snow to a dog show with only black dogs. Gossen Digisix 2, small, light, fast. With exposing for the shadows you always risk too low contrast in the shadows. 

[stray cat]

The thing is, an MP's light meter will give you a great exposure in the vast majority of cases. Having said that, another metering trick I've found consistent over many years is to meter the palm of your hand (assuming caucasian skin) in similar light to your main subject and then open up a stop from there. So if the meter reading off your palm is f11, set the camera at f8 and you'll always get a pretty good exposure.

[pgk]

On 11/28/2024 at 6:40 PM, eawriter said:

I'm new to B&W film photography .....

In that case you are on a steep learning curve. In order to learn how everything interacts its worth shooting your new camera 'straight'; as in using it with the settings it indicates and standard development. Sometimes this will produce great negatives, at others it won't. You can learn by examining the poor negatives and reading up on their failings and thus figure out how to improve them. By seeing the actualy, physical results of over/under exposure and standard development, in conjunction with reading up on B&W film photography, you will gain an understanding of how to improve things as you progress. There is no substitute for practicality when it comes to shooting film I'm afraid. Your questions are valid, but the reality of seeing how things work is very valuable if a little costly. I've spent far too long in darkrooms to want to go back there, but I can't overemphasise how important it is  to learn by experience the practical side of film photography.

[otto.f]

46 minutes ago, stray cat said:

The thing is, an MP's light meter will give you a great exposure in the vast majority of cases. Having said that, another metering trick I've found consistent over many years is to meter the palm of your hand (assuming caucasian skin) in similar light to your main subject and then open up a stop from there. So if the meter reading off your palm is f11, set the camera at f8 and you'll always get a pretty good exposure.

you've got probably darker hands than me (I don't open up one stop), but I use this method almost always when I forgot my Digisix and when the situation is very contrasty or with backlighting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[oldwino]

I’ve always operated on the principle that, for negative film, a little too much exposure is better than too little. (Negative) film is pretty forgiving of overexposure. 

[eawriter]

On 12/5/2024 at 12:56 AM, pgk said:

In that case you are on a steep learning curve. In order to learn how everything interacts its worth shooting your new camera 'straight'; as in using it with the settings it indicates and standard development. Sometimes this will produce great negatives, at others it won't. You can learn by examining the poor negatives and reading up on their failings and thus figure out how to improve them. By seeing the actualy, physical results of over/under exposure and standard development, in conjunction with reading up on B&W film photography, you will gain an understanding of how to improve things as you progress. There is no substitute for practicality when it comes to shooting film I'm afraid. Your questions are valid, but the reality of seeing how things work is very valuable if a little costly. I've spent far too long in darkrooms to want to go back there, but I can't overemphasise how important it is  to learn by experience the practical side of film photography.

I appreciate your advice. I'm definitely learning by experience, but I'm trying to speed up the process by learning from others' experience rather than through lengthy trial-and-error experimenting on my part. I should also add that although I've only recently started shooting film (again), I'm a very experienced digital photographer and did shoot and develop film when I was in college, long ago. The main reason I'm shooting film is that I prefer the look of silver gelatin prints to inkjet prints. I have the use of a community darkroom, and have had a half-dozen printing sessions. Although I've yet to produce a print I'm really happy with, I'm getting closer.