Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure problem

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

From: <LEICAMAN56@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 16:48
Subject: Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure problem


> The incident meter is probably better for distant subjects
> because it measures the light falling on the subject, assuming
> that the light falling on your subject and you are the same.

But often this assumption is incorrect.  On Friday, I was photographing the
Venus de Milo.  The statue is lit by a combination of skylight through windows
on the left, and incandescent spotlights aimed directly at the statue.  The
incident light where I am standing is nothing like the light on the statue, and
I cannot stand in front of the statue to measure the light falling thereupon.
Additionally, the statue has a high reflectance (much higher than neutral gray).
I'm not sure what an incident meter would do for me in this instance, whereas
the utility of a spot meter is patent.

> After all, sunlight has traveled approx. 96 million miles to
> the earth, so a mile or two between the photographer and the
> subject won't much matter.

But if the subject is in ordinary sunlight, an incident meter is not needed,
anyway, since the character of sunlight is extraordinarily constant.

> Again, this assumes that the photographer isn't standing in the
> shade, or he subject isn't under a cloud!

I'm standing in sunlight.  My subject is the Eiffel Tower, half a mile away and
1000 feet high.  It is dark chocolate in color, against a brilliant blue sky
with fluffy white clouds that occasionally put parts of the tower in shade.  How
can an incident meter tell me how to expose a photograph of this tower?  With a
spot meter, it seems that I just point to the tower itself and take a reading,
but what can an incident meter tell me?

  -- Anthony