[Leica] Exposure and Development

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 3/2/07 2:17 PM, "Alan Magayne-Roshak" <amr3@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> typed:

> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 Jeffery Smith wrote:
> 
>> I made a rather sobering discovery a few weeks ago. I was using a Nikon RF
>> which, of course, has no meter. So I used a Gossen digital light meter and
>> used ambient readings rather than reflective readings. The exposure in 
>> most
>> of the frames was right on the money, much better than my usual TTL
>> reflected light frames. This made me want to use a handheld meter and blow
>> off the in-camera meter.
>> =============================================================================
>> ==
> 
> Mike Tatum of Honeywell used to give a talk on quality in exposure and
> development.  He said the incident meter was best for exposure consistency.
> For part of his presentation, he showed 20 prints made from 20 frames on
> the same roll of 35mm film, shot under various lighting and contrast
> conditions, metered with an incident meter, and printed at the same
> enlarger settings.
> They all were good. I think this might be where I first heard the advice to
> set an incident meter to one-half the ASA rating for B&W, to get more
> shadow detail.
> 
> I bought a Sekonic Studio Deluxe the day after attending the lecture, and
> never regretted it.  Most of my Kodachrome shooting was metered with this,
> and it was so accurate that I never bracketed.  All my outdoor slides were
> with a polarizer, too, and I found that the 3.5x exposure compensation was
> right on.  Now, with digital, I still like using an incident meter.  About
> 90% of the time I have the 1D or 1Ds set on manual.
> 
> Alan

> 
I think you'd be better off with a reflective meter for this. Not ambient.
And think you'd think looking at the contact sheet your exposures were more
consistent with the reflective say you shot it at A or if you just centered
the needle on ever shot you took, what most people do.
... Then if you used an ambient white dome reading from such a hand held
meter. 
Which will give you holes in your contact sheet unless its on number one
paper.

Say you shot a clothes line. Set at A for auto exposure. a meter in your
camera so its reflective.
You shot white sheets your cameras shoots them at f 11.
You shoots black towels on the line you camera shoots them at f 2.8
You auto camera has automatically placed both your white sheets and black
towels at zone V. needle in the middle. Your sheets are under exposed by two
stops. Your towels are over exposed by two stops.
That's what's going to happen.
On the contact sheet everything you shot at the a setting is placed at zone
V middle gray. 

That's going to make them real easy to print.
I've done it a million times. Print the one next to it on a contact sheet at
the same time as if the one next to it comes out good at that time so will
the next one which looks just like it density wise.

If you shot it with an incident reading its the same sun both the white
sheets and black towels would get f5.6.
Both exposed right on the money. Mindless but darned close to what you'd
want ideally.
Which means your sheets are placed at zone VII and your towels are placed at
zone III. Where I'd like both of them to be probably.
On the contact sheet unless maybe you used very low contrast paper the
sheets will be a white out the towels a black out.


it might have been easier to print both put in the middle which is what the
reflective meter in the camera would do..
Don't listen to those Honeywell reps.

:)
Mark Rabiner
8A/109s
New York, NY

markrabiner.com