How many of you use a hand held meter even though you may have one in camera? The real question, for those who do, being, do you get more consistently accurate exposure results metering incident light as opposed to reflected light, and if so what meter do you use? Thanks for your thoughts

-- Brooks (bvonarx@home. com), April 03, 2002

Answers

Nope. Not even on my M6 as Im so used to the M3 and M4P.

Its more fun guessing. Now u know why I have so many Off-exposure pics? l(

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.

I use an M meter on my M3 and an MC meter on my M2 and the built-in meter in my M6. I don't know that I "trust" them, but they're good for guides. I sometimes end up tweaking a bit depending on conditions like snow, sky etc. Just remember that all light meters are guides and, with the exception of spot meters, take an average reading of the scene. I do occasionally use a Pentax spot meter in tricky situations for a half-vast Zone System, to read the shadows.

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), April 03, 2002.

Dear friends

Incident metering and reflected metering are two different techniques which don't automatically serve the same purpose.

The real problem is what do you want to obtain with your measure?

If you want to have the best theoretical measure, go for incident metering. Being independant of the reflective properties of your subject, the meter reading will give you the right exposure for the 33% reflectance gray exposed under the same light...

To obtain the same reading with reflected light, you must ascertain your meter points and measure something on your subject (or lighted like your subject) which is equivalent to this ideal 33% reflectance your meter is calibrated for or manually correct the reading according to the specific reflectance of the area you are measuring.

Hence the rule with reflective method, the more the meter is a spotmeter, the better reading you'll get.

We are of course assuming both meters are accurately calibrated.

Now, there is another way to proceed which is described in the famous work of Ansel Adams... I won't develop the point here because we will go for a hundred pages... Suffice to say that as the film (and the paper then) doesn't have the capabilities to reproduce the contrast range our eye and brain combination is able to record, it is often aesthetically favourable to expose for an area which is not a 33% gray in reflectance to enhance the main subject and (or) better reproduce the all scene. This is an "interpretative" measure. Of course, it will be easier to do so with the reflective technique though a guesswork with an incident meter reading is also possible.

My way to operate is to go for incident metering each time I need an "objective" exposure reading with a subject on which it is difficult or impossible to get a proper reading for lack of 33% reflectance area or a well defined correction factor. And to resort to reflective method in other cases mainly through TTL measure. In this last case, if the meter angle of measure is spot or near to it (Like in a Leica M or my Hexar RF) I measure an area of the subject which is more or less with a 33% reflectance, reframe and shoot. If I decide to apply Ansel Adams theory and play with the Zone System I determine the area of the subject I want to appear on the negative or slide as a 33% gray and proceed to reframe and shoot.

Provided your meter is well calibrated, you can trust it within the boundaries herein exposed.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 03, 2002.

Some hand-held meters can read at much lower light levels than in- camera meters, a significant advantage regardless of incident vs reflected light comparisons.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 03, 2002.

I always carry a Sekonic L208 Twin-Mate with me in case the in-camera meter dies (assuming the rest of the camera still works). Otherwise I have enough experience with my cameras that I know when and how to second-guess the meter. For 99.9% of what I shoot (scenics and travel) a reflected-light reading (with knowledge applied)is more practical.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 03, 2002.

You should trust your camera's meter in most cases. Some are off but not many. The trick is to properly meter an area of a scene which will give the best overall exposure. If there is a light source in the shot or a bright sky with a dark foreground you may not be able to properly expose the whole frame. The key therefore is not the camera meter but what part of the scene you subjectively choose to meter off of. Incident meters while more acurate are really in practice difficult to use. The light must read at the exact angle of shot at the place you are shooting. How often can you do this. More often people read the light where they are which may not be the same as the light in the shot off to some distance. Any shade ahead will affect the reading. If you are shooting a static scene, close by, such as a person and you can put the incident meter in front of their face at the right angle which is in the direction of the lens, your in luck. But shooting a vista or building good luck in getting to the point in question to measure the incident light. Reflected light meters in most cases are more reliable because it is easier to use them properly.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), April 03, 2002.

In less time than it takes most people to read the TTL meter, interpret that reading according to the tone of the subject, and twiddle the dials, I can whip out my trusty Minolta incident meter, take an accurate reading, set it on my M3, and get off a few shots. And I don't have to hold the camera in front of my face for more than a few seconds.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 03, 2002.

Francois.

A 33% grey? Grey cards are 18% reflectance for the most part, though 12% is more accurate.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), April 03, 2002.

I find I use the in-camera meter for my general shooting, but I use an incident meter for things like portraits. Each technique has pluses and minuses.

I always try to use an incident meter if the overall tone of the scene I'm shooting varies significantly from 18%. In that case, rather than guessing the correction to apply, I'll just use the incident.

The main times I don't like using an incident meter are in situations when the light is changing - either quickly or slowly. If the light is changing too fast, repeated metering is a PITA and interrupts my concentration and flow. If the light is changing slowly (as it will late in the aftrernoon) it's easy to get so involved in the shooting that you don't notice the change, and suddenly you realize that you haven't re-metered, and the last hour's images have been getting more and more underexposed. A situation like that was what promted me to dump my M3 and M4 in favour of M6's, a decision I have never regretted.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 03, 2002.

With our M4, I always use a Sekonic 308B, measuring for incident light wherever posible. In adverse situations - - such as shooting church stained glass windows from within the church, I can use the meter to take a reflective reading from the windows. We shoot slides, so accurate exposure is a must. With the M6, I agree with Paul.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), April 03, 2002.

Most of the time, I use a handheld Sekonic 408 meter, usually in incident mode. If I'm using a camera with a TTL meter for snapshots on negative film, I may use the internal meter. My metering technique is more consistent with the 408.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 03, 2002.

I use the Sekonic 608 meter in incident mode most often when shooting negative film since the exposure scale is extended compared to slide film, such as Velvia or Provia. When shooting slide film, I most often change to spot metering and meter the important area, average this one area (press the button)and from then on, check other scene areas. The meter will display exposure differances in stops allowing me to know which areas will be washed out or go black.

-- Don M (maldos@cox.net), April 03, 2002.

The question should be 'do you trust your shutter!' - M shutters are known to vary between 1/3 to 1/2 a stop according to some tests I have seen - and not consistently. This makes an acurate metering a game of chance with tranny film. Incident readings are generaly better for tranny film as they inherently tend to get the highlights right. With neg I can live with slightly over exposed highlights and will use the TTL more often. Ultimatley experience will dictate the final setting depending on the general spread of tones in the scene. As for meters I am currently using a Sekonic 508 which is very accurate for both spot and incident readings - I use this on 5x4 tranny work. I previously had 2 Gossen meters ( Variosix and Lunasix F) and I never realy trusted them - they always tended to underexpose and I always had to compensate to some degree.The 508 aligns with my Nikon and Cannon AF SLR's (and my M6 when I add 2/3 of a stop)over a range of lighting levels - the Variosix was nearly 1stop under on reflected readings and between 1/3 and 2/3 under with incident readings - this is something to do with the calibration and the design of the incident cone - I can't recommend them!

-- John Griffin (john.griffin@millerhare.com), April 04, 2002.

M shutters are known to vary between 1/3 to 1/2 a stop according to some tests I have seen - and not consistently.

Makes me wonder about the condition of those cameras that were tested. I have two M3s, one of which is overdue for a CLA, and both give consistent exposures with slide film. Though not as accurate as an electronic shutter, the M shutter design is quite sound if properly maintained.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 04, 2002.

Tim

I'm ashamed of myself....

You're entirely correct about the 18% gray....

However, besides this fateful mistake, I maintain every other bit of what I said... This stupid numerical mistake doesn't affect the rationale in itself.

Regards

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 04, 2002.