Re: [Leica] incidently

["Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com>]

Very well said!  You go around the set and make sure the light intensity is
what you want in various parts of the scene.  In cinematography you aren't
just capturing one image.

As to the other question. The flat disk allows you to take a reading of just
light coming from one direction.  You can just measure your key light and
then your fill and calculate the ratio. I believe that it was Victor Kemper
who showed this technique.  He did his ratios by eye and was obviously very
experienced.

Mike D

- -----Original Message-----
From: Isaac H Crawford <isaacc@flashcom.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] incidently


>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:21 PM
>Subject: Re: [Leica] incidently
>
>
>> Mike Durling wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> I have seen documentaries and read about the great cinematographers at
>work and
>> I find it an enigma on the fact that they all seem to use incident light
>> readings. Could it be they never had an Ansel Adams? Don't know. I can't
>see the logic.
>> But a flat disk does what exactly I thought it might be for copy work?
>
>> Mark Rabiner
>
>    One of the many reasons that incident metering is used on set is that
>you can see where hot spots and dropouts will be before anything that will
>reflect light is there... If you have lit a set, and action will take place
>across it, how do you measure where the actors *will* be? Instead of
>bringing a stand-in all over the place to take reflected readings off of,
>you simply hold the meter where they will be, and viola! Accurate readings!
>It is also quicker and easier to determine lighting ratios (which will
>determine your contrast range) with an incident meter. It is also helpful
>for consistancy's sake. You can specify to the entire camera crew and
>gaffers and grips, a specific EV to light to. Once again, very easy to do
>with an incident, a little trickier with reflected...
>    I sell cameras for a living, and one of the most common questions is,
>"Which is the best meter?" It's really a very silly question. While there
>may be certain types of meters that have some advantages in certain
>situations, the fact is that you can get an accurate exposure with any of
>them if you use them properly. I personally find incident metering very
fast
>and intuitive, but then again, I used to shoot a lot of motion picture
stuff
>too...:-)
>
>Isaac
>>
>
>