>> From my Gossen Ultra manual (page 17 for those following in your own
>> pamphlet):
>>
>> "When reading incident light, the spherical diffuser is placed in front of
>the
>> measuring cell window and pointed toward the camera, ie, opposite the subject
>> being photographed. The diffuser should receive the same light intensity and
>> distribution as that falling on the subject. The reading at this point
>> indicates the strength of the light, but does not indicate the light value
>> reflected from the subject into the camera lens and onto the film.
>
>It's not supposed to! That's the point of an incident reading -- it's not
>affected by subject reflectivity.
I believe the manual was attempting to differentiate between incident and
reflected.
>> It does indicate the light value that would be reflected into the lens from
>> an 18% average reflective subject. Therefore, when working with subjects
>> that are primarily very light or very dark, the incident exposure reading
>> should be adjusted to compensate for the difference in reflectivity from
>> the 18% standard."
>
>Sounds as if the Germans can be just as confused as the Japanese. This is,
>like, totally wrong.
I agree, I think the wording here could have been better. I think they were
setting up what followed later in the sentence following what I previously
quoted:
"Therefore, when working with subjects that are primarily very light or very
dark, the incident exposure reading should be adjusted to compensate for the
difference in reflectivity from the 18% standard."
I think John Shaw stated it more simply in his Closeup in Nature:
"With a reflected light hand meter, you still have to take into account the
tonality of the area at which you point the meter. It meters the same way your
camera meter does, making whatever you point it at a middletone value, so you
must first work in stops for a correct exposure, then make any corrections for
light lost to extension or filters. An incident meter eliminates one step in
the process, it automatically places values where they occur so you GENERALLY
don't have to worry about the reflectance of the subject UNLESS IT IS VERY LIGHT
OR VERY DARK. (The caps emphasis is mine).
In the end, for me it doesn't matter, I'll screw it up regardless of which way I
shoot.
Jay
>The point of incident exposure readings is to render the scene as seen (pun
>intended), rather than having the exposure thrown off by "subject failure" --
>an average reflectance significantly different from 18%. If a subject is
>unusually light or dark, we want it rendered that way -- not under- or
>over-exposed.
>
>Of course, no photographic material has an infinitely wide tonal range. If a
>scene comprises mostly dark tones, an incident reading might, for some
>materials, push the image too close -- or even into -- the toe of the curve.
>The photographer might very well decide to increase the exposure (over the
>incident reading), then make adjustments in printing. Similarly, he might
>decide to slightly reduce the exposure for scenes comprising mostly light tones
>when shooting transparency film. But these decisions have NOTHING WHATEVER to
>do with subject failure.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|