Re: [Leica] Incidence Light Measurements

["Art Searle" <w2nra@erols.com>]

>For a "bunch of people" the only solution is the gray card or average
>reading. But that is only a compromise and one that cannot be circumvented
>in that situation. Think of it this way: A very light skinned person is
one
>stop or more lighter than 18%. Conversely, a dark skinned person such as
>Native American or African American is one stop or so darker than 18%.
>Tha gray card or 18% reading is the "happy medium" before fine tuning and
>not the ultimate authority, especially not in all situations.
>The portrait photographer does not expose by 18% readings. At least not
the
>accomplished portrait photographer.

I'm  no expert by a long shot, but this explanation makes no sense to me at
all.  I would think that assuming you want realistic representation of the
person's actual skin tone indicent readings should be right on.  [Given:
one light skinned person whose face is exactly 1 stop lighter than 18%
gray.]  If a "reflected" metering reading of a light skinned person is
going to give you a 1 stop underexposure because the meter is calibrated to
make everything 18% gray.  An "incidence" metering is going to read the
light falling on the subject and give the correct exposure to reproduce
realistic skin tone and that reading will be the same as the "reflected"
metering reading plus 1 stop.  The only thing an incidence meter reading
cannot do is overexpose the face to hide blimishes.  But knowing the
correct exposure gives the photographer the information to do this himself.
So how can the incidence light measurement go wrong?  Where am I wrong?
Heck I can afford to be wrong, I don't do portraits.

Art

Art Searle, W2NRA, w2nra@erols.com, Lake Grove, Long Island, NY, USA
20 miles east of Nikon USA, 70 miles east of Leica USA