Re: [Leica] incidently

["Isaac H Crawford" <isaacc@flashcom.net>]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Durling <durling@widomaker.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] incidently


> I'm not going to argue that reflected or incident metering is inherently
> better.  I just think that people who knock incident metering miss the
> point.  You are measuring the light.  An incident reading, taken at face
> value, will allow the relationships between tones in a photograph to
> approximate the relationships that exist in the original scene.  After the
> reading the placement of tones for creative expression is the same mental
> exercise regardless of metering technique.
>
> Most motion picture photography, something I have a lot of experience
with,
> is done with incident meters.  The reason is purely practical, it helps to
> ensure consistency between shots that have to cut together.
>
> There are many different techniques for incident metering.  I took a
seminar
> with a Hollywood cinematographer who used a flat disk on his meter and
only
> measured the key (primary) light.  He then lit the rest of the scene by
eye.
> Takes a lot of experience but it certainly worked for him.
>
> Mike D
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Date: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] incidently
>
>
> >Bernard wrote:
> >>
> >> Frank Dernie wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am not as experienced as many on the list but I also have been
using
> >> > the spot setting for years. No reflected meter can ever be as
accurate
> >> > at an incident meter (unless measuring agrey card!)
> >>
> >> As a matter of fact, reflected light metering can and will be *much*
> >> more relevant than incident light values. Just think about high key,
low
> >> key and anything else in which you have to make a real choice or
> >> otherwise force events. Who cares how much light hits your object. You
> >> need to know the range of light your object(s) are returning to you, so
> >> you can determine what parts you want on the linear part of the
> >> film-curve, and what parts you choose to live without. This goes for
any
> >> premeditated shot of anything at all. It's reflected metering that give
> >> you real spot-on information. Incident metering is only nice for very
> >> average subject and for when you're in an unimaginative mood.
> >>
> >> Bernard

    Not true! I can find my contrast range very quickly with an incident
meter. First, take a reading in the same light as the subject. Then
approximate the darkest area by selectively sheilding the light hitting the
meter. I now have the overall contrast range for the entire scene in about
two seconds. From there I make judgements as to where to place the zones
just as you would with a reflected meter. I find that I can meter a scene
more quickly and make my judgements just as accuratly in most situations.
The real exception is when I am photographing something that is illuminated,
in other words, when I am taking a picture of a light source. Examples would
be stained glass windows, backlit fall leaves, etc. That's why I have
both... Use whatever works, the result is the same, a properly exposed piece
of film!

Isaac
> >
> >I agree 100% Benard this topic has not come up for a while. Some people
> think
> >they are in the inside loup with incident reading. I think it's mindless.
> There
> >is a very short learning curve to learning how to interpret readings.
> Photoraphy
> >in automatic and instant enough allready. You open up for bright things
and
> >close down for dark things whey you take a reading. Otherwise you are
> placeing
> >or what have you everything in middlegreyzoneVville.
> >Mark Rabiner
> >
>
>