Black and white film metering

Ben johns

Ben johns

Suspended / Banned
Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Just got my first medium format camera and I was wondering is there a general technique for exposing black and white film? I will be mainly taking landscapes so I've looked into the zone system. From what I've read so far I should meter for the shadows in which I want to retain detail then move them to zone 3/4 depending on how dark I want them?
 
I have had good results using either an old Weston Master light meter or a newer Sekonic L308s to take incident meter readings. If you're just getting started with B&W and medium format I'd suggest just doing that for now. Write notes for each shot about the conditions, where you metered and what settings you used. Then when you develop you can see what worked and what didn't.

For me personally the zone system is a little too involved. I'm happy to take an incident reading wherever possible and then if there are significantly brighter or darker areas outside of where I'm standing with the meter I will adjust the exposure based on my best guess. Or if I'm not sure I will bracket the shots.

A spot meter will set you back a fair bit of money. I bought my newish digital Sekonic for about £100 and my Weston Master 5 cost me about £20 about 12 years ago. I bought the Sekonic as I wanted to be sure of the meters accuracy but having tested my Weston against it the two match up perfectly. Not bad for an old 60's meter.
 
That raises more questions - at least to me.

The mantra runs "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" because (within limits) the exposure determines how much shadow detail you have, and the development the contrast. With darkroom printing papers, you have to ensure that the lighter tones don't all become sufficiently dense that they all print as the same pure white.

To carry this out means that you need to expose the whole roll one subjects with the same contrast (measure the difference between brightest highlight that you want detail in and deepest shadow likewise).

Alternatively, you can assume that the latitude of the film will cover most contrast ranges, and just make sure that you have enough detail in the shadows.

If you're not developing your own films you have little control over the development side; and if you are scanning rather than wet printing, the rules change again.

Personally I take a reading with a reflected meter from the palm of my hand and open up one stop from that. It's always worked for me.
 
mdjchat said:
I have had good results using either an old Weston Master light meter or a newer Sekonic L308s to take incident meter readings. If you're just getting started with B&W and medium format I'd suggest just doing that for now. Write notes for each shot about the conditions, where you metered and what settings you used. Then when you develop you can see what worked and what didn't.

For me personally the zone system is a little too involved. I'm happy to take an incident reading wherever possible and then if there are significantly brighter or darker areas outside of where I'm standing with the meter I will adjust the exposure based on my best guess. Or if I'm not sure I will bracket the shots.

A spot meter will set you back a fair bit of money. I bought my newish digital Sekonic for about £100 and my Weston Master 5 cost me about £20 about 12 years ago. I bought the Sekonic as I wanted to be sure of the meters accuracy but having tested my Weston against it the two match up perfectly. Not bad for an old 60's meter.
Click to expand...

I agree, incident readings are the foolproof way to go, even though they peg the highlights rather than the shadows. As you gain experience you will be able to take readings of the shadow areas as well as an incident reading, and so place the exposure on the films straight line portion of its charistic curve.

In reality black and white film has such wide latitude, that exposure estimation is extraordinarily easy.
 
There is a certain joy to be gained from the results of a carefully spot metered according to the zone system print.

But then a point and shoot with auto metering seems to work too.

Find your point of comfort between those two scenarios.
 
StephenM said:
Personally I take a reading with a reflected meter from the palm of my hand and open up one stop from that. It's always worked for me.
Click to expand...

Just this and failing this use an incident light meter but appreciate that it has it's limitations.

Zone system is great if you are Ansel Adams or shooting large format where you can develop the images individually.

For normal photography its overkill. Especially if you are not developing your own films

One day I'll get back into film, perhaps when one of the kiddies moves out and I can "darkroom" their bedroom :-)

D
 
I find I get pretty good results with the built-in centre-weighted (reflective) meter in my Pentax MXs, provided I remember to point the camera at the ground or a shadow area as well as the subject, and think about the results before setting the exposure. I appreciate this isn't directly relevant, but can be adapted. But also as Simon Says, just try a few directly reflectively metered and see. As Mathew says take notes with your first few rolls, because you won't remember the settings when you get the shots back. I now use Evernote on my phone for these notes; they're on my Mac when I get home!
 
I am never sure how people take incident readings of a landscape with the main elements being several miles away. Incident readings are excellent for portraits but reflective readings are much better for landscapes.
 
It's usually possible to place the meter cell in the same light as the distant landscape; I found in practice that depending on exactly how I held the meter for a reflected light reading, it could vary by a large amount. It was this "angle it slightly downwards to avoid the sky overly influencing the reading" that finally made me give up on reflected readings for landscapes. There was too much left to chance and I couldn't accept that a stop or more difference could possibly be correct. Since switching (in the 1960s) to what is in practice an incident light method, I got much more consistent results.

Portraits on the other hand - I could make a case for reflected readings being better, as you can then make the skin tones as dark or light as you think that they should be.
 
ChrisR said:
I find I get pretty good results with the built-in centre-weighted (reflective) meter in my Pentax MXs, provided I remember to point the camera at the ground or a shadow area as well as the subject, and think about the results before setting the exposure.
Click to expand...

Which is why I prefer the simple approach where there's nothing to forget, and less to consider before setting the exposure. Then again, I'm using a hand held meter.
 
Provided you point an incident meter from the directon of the subject toward the camera lens. The exposue will reproduce the tones exactly as you see them.

Landscapes are no different ... just ensure that you are standing in the same light as illuminating the landscape, the distance makes no difference at all.

Incident meters are especilly effective when shooting portraits . The exposure shown will ensure dark skin reproduces as dark, and light as light. You can darken or lighten the skin tone by increasing or decreasing the exposure, but it really is not necessary for black and white shots.

Incident meters measures the light falling (incident) on the subject not reflected by it. So are unifluenced by the tones or reflectance of the subject. In this way they are reproduced as their true values.

Incedent meters are the intrument of choice for all transparency potography as the highlights are pegged and never burn out.
This is also the case for studio flash photography where they are the only realistic choice.

At one time I was chief photographer for an aerial photography outfit. I discovered than that taking an incident reading on the ground was an excellent and accurate stand in for aerial shots of the ground.
 
Last edited:
This might be a good place to ask one of those really stupid questions that I should know the answer to, but dont.

I'm reminded of the British general, Lord Raglan perhaps, who had to ask his batman how to shave.

If I'm taking an incident metering of a face in harsh direct light, half in light, half in deep shade, where do I take the reading from?

This has been bugging me for a while.

Cheers.
 
Incident meter here. Slide film: normal reading pointed at the camera. Negative film: stick it in the shadows or shade the bulb with your hand. Spot on every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
You need to find a system that works for you, although standards such as the Zone System are a pretty fair starting point. The next step from this is "personal film speed" which requires testing of your preferred film & developer combo with your camera and meter to establish your personal film speed for that combo. I spent a whole day on a course doing this many years ago and it came out as the box speed for me. T'was an enjoyable day out at the college though. :rolleyes:
 
john.margetts said:
I am never sure how people take incident readings of a landscape with the main elements being several miles away. Incident readings are excellent for portraits but reflective readings are much better for landscapes.
Click to expand...

True..as some of the scene might be in shadow...h'mm well in that case you would have to travel to the shadow part and take an incident light reading from there, pointing the meter towards the camera from say 50 yards to a mile away :eek: (as well as the sunny parts in the scene). The expensive answer would be to use a spotmeter and take a reading from some thing equivalent to Kodak grey in shadow and in sun, but the pros might do it but the cheap way is to take the reading of the scene and any shadow areas in the scene just add a stop or whatever and compensate in the darkroom or these days in Photoshop.
 
When out and about with neither incident nor spot meter but with a reflective one hand-held or in the camera (and this is for film developed by the roll, not by the sheet) - for transparency film, average metering of the scene at film-box speed. then modify if thought necessary according to any peculiarities of highlight and shadow areas - but in average circumstances what now seems to be called ettl (groan) for good density and saturation and a bit of highlight protection. For neg film, either meter off a shadow area with the meter set at film-box speed, or just take an average reading but having set the meter to a film speed significantly less than film-box speed.

Rough and ready I know, but mostly worked for me. Slide film of course being the most demanding. But know your meter anyway, because variation by up to a stop is common!
 
Thanks
excalibur2 said:
True..as some of the scene might be in shadow...h'mm well in that case you would have to travel to the shadow part and take an incident light reading from there, pointing the meter towards the camera from say 50 yards to a mile away :eek: (as well as the sunny parts in the scene). The expensive answer would be to use a spotmeter and take a reading from some thing equivalent to Kodak grey in shadow and in sun, but the pros might do it but the cheap way is to take the reading of the scene and any shadow areas in the scene just add a stop or whatever and compensate in the darkroom or these days in Photoshop.
Click to expand...


That idea is like political scaremongering.... there is no problem at all with parts of the landscape being in shadow. The incident reading pegs the highlights and all the tones under them. The shadows are dark tones, and that is exactly where they will fit in the final image.

If the entire image is in shadow and you are in full sun, that is a different story. And you would need to take a proxy reading in some shadow area near yourself. But that situation is vanishingly rare, and I am struggling to think of a real situation like that. Edit... thought of one ...the dark and sunny side of the pitch in a football stadium. But that is easy as it will always be the same difference, so you only need to measure that once. And it only applies to telephoto shots of one side or the other.

Another nice thing about using an incident meter is that for muc h of the day the power of the sun is constant, so you do not need to keep ta king readings unless the situation changes . For the most part you can take readings toward and away and sideways from the sun and remember them. Then you can use the appropriate settings.

Cinema cameramen use nothing else, as it is important for them to peg exposures scene to scene. And for much the same reason that you lock exposure when shooting panoramas.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Landscapes are no different ... just ensure that you are standing in the same light as illuminating the landscape, the distance makes no difference at all.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't get clouds where you are. I'm not saying you don't get good exposures using incident metering any more than I don't get good exposures with Sunny 16. It's a just a strange way of doing landscapes
 
john.margetts said:
You obviously don't get clouds where you are. I'm not saying you don't get good exposures using incident metering any more than I don't get good exposures with Sunny 16. It's a just a strange way of doing landscapes
Click to expand...

It is not at all strange. But I do find that many photographers today have never been taught to use an incident meter, even though the first ones came into this country soon after the war... In fact I had to get an import licence for my first one from America in the 50's. Clouds are no more a problem for incident meters than they are for reflective meters. If you want consistent results with a full range of tones they are the way to go.
 
As it stands at the moment all I have to meter with is an app on my phone or my a6000, not ideal!
 
Ben johns said:
As it stands at the moment all I have to meter with is an app on my phone or my a6000, not ideal!
Click to expand...

I am sure it will work well enough to get you going.
If you continue with film you will eventually want something better. But there is no rush.
 
Have a good read up on Sunny 16. EDIT: It's worth practising for a few weeks. Apart from anything else, shooting without a light meter for a while really teaches you to think about the light falling on the subject and the rest of the frame in a way it's too easy to avoid when relying on the automation of a meter.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
there is no problem at all with parts of the landscape being in shadow. The incident reading pegs the highlights and all the tones under them. The shadows are dark tones, and that is exactly where they will fit in the final image.
Click to expand...

HuH! You'll have a problem taking a shot of a village when half the street is in shadow and the other half in bright sun light...if the buildings on both sides are light red or Cotswold grey you could probably get away with using the camera meter for reflective and decide whether to take an exposure of each and divide by two or look after the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves.
OR get a T90 take eight spot metering of the scene in memory and on taking the shot the camera auto averages the exposure...mind you, I've yet to use this on my one. :rolleyes:
 
I don't see any problem, on the assumption that such a scene is possible to photograph - which is implied by your saying that a T90 could manage it. Since the "managing" is a function of film and exposure, rather than the camera used (unlike digital) then it appears that such a scene can be recorded. And on that basis, an incident light reading from the "sunny side of the street lighting" will correctly expose that side. Since if the sunny side is correctly exposed (by a T90) then the shaded side will also be exposed correctly, and be reproduced in darker tones - as it should be.

My "palm of hand" method works perfectly and is at root an incident light reading, because it depends only on the amount of light falling on my hand and not on the reflectance of the subject. I hope I won't get involved in the same argument I've had before (probably not here) with those who say that an incident light reading can only be done with a white plastic disk; that is simply one method of getting a reading that depends only on the light and takes the subject reflectance out of the equation.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I don't see any problem, on the assumption that such a scene is possible to photograph - which is implied by your sayiong that a T90 could manage it. Since the "managing" is a function of film and exposure, rather than the camera used (unlike digital) then it appears that such a scene can be recorded. And on that basis, an incident light reading from the "sunny side of the street lighting" will correctly expose that side. Since if the sunny side is correctly exposed (by a T90) then the shaded side will also be exposed correctly, and be reproduced in darker tones - as it should be.

My "palm of hand" method works perfectly and is at root an incident light reading, because it depends only on the amount of light falling on my hand and not on the reflectance of the subject. I hope I won't get involved in the same argument I've had before (probably not here) with those who say that an incident light reading can only be done with a white plastic disk; that is simply one method of getting a reading that depends only on the light and takes the subject reflectance out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Well as said if everything in the scene (shadows and sun) is the equivalent of Kodak grey the T90 should give the correct reflective average exposure, anyway I've never used incident light readings and for newbies it's all quite simple if you remember film and light meters are calibrated to Kodak grey, so anything in a scene that is Kodak grey must be correctly exposed....film meters can't see colours but e.g. green grass, deeper blue sky, light reds etc etc are near as damn it Kodak grey and lucky most of subjects in normal shots are roughly Kodak grey so we are all happy with snaps\shots. Of course this is just the basics of exposure (for newbies) and anyone might want to adjust exposures for their type of results.
 
StephenM said:
I don't see any problem, on the assumption that such a scene is possible to photograph - which is implied by your sayiong that a T90 could manage it. Since the "managing" is a function of film and exposure, rather than the camera used (unlike digital) then it appears that such a scene can be recorded. And on that basis, an incident light reading from the "sunny side of the street lighting" will correctly expose that side. Since if the sunny side is correctly exposed (by a T90) then the shaded side will also be exposed correctly, and be reproduced in darker tones - as it should be.

My "palm of hand" method works perfectly and is at root an incident light reading, because it depends only on the amount of light falling on my hand and not on the reflectance of the subject. I hope I won't get involved in the same argument I've had before (probably not here) with those who say that an incident light reading can only be done with a white plastic disk; that is simply one method of getting a reading that depends only on the light and takes the subject reflectance out of the equation.
Click to expand...

The hand palm method works perfectly well. Most white people have hands that reflect between 12 and 20 percent, which is not far off the calibration of a light meter. What is more important than the exact figure is that it is consistent.
Also you are correct about the scenario you describe. Provided the contrast range is within the limits of the ability of the emulsion to record it, every tone will be correctly positioned, and importantly the highlights will not be burnt out. If you know the contrast range is indeed too great, you could always develop the film to a lower gamma.
Which is where the idea of exposing for the shadowsand developing for the highlights came from.

This idea was used when measuring exposure with an SEI photometer, where you could take a reading on the lowest dark tone you wanted to retain detail, and also a highlight...this would give you the bridgtness range you needed to capture. If you set the exposure accordingly and develop to that gamma, all tones between would be captured. This workd fine on individual sheets of film, but is not realistic for entire films.
 
excalibur2 said:
HuH! You'll have a problem taking a shot of a village when half the street is in shadow and the other half in bright sun light...if the buildings on both sides are light red or Cotswold grey you could probably get away with using the camera meter for reflective and decide whether to take an exposure of each and divide by two or look after the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves.
OR get a T90 take eight spot metering of the scene in memory and on taking the shot the camera auto averages the exposure...mind you, I've yet to use this on my one. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

On the contrary, an incident meter is not concerned about the subject at all, it only measures the light faling on it. An entire scene is always captured with the tones at their right value. This is why they are so acurate. A reflective reading taken from a shadow area always exposes it as if it was very much lighter. Of course if you want that to be the case with an incident meter you can always take the the reading in the shadow as well, pointing toward the camera. However any parts of the image lit by the full sun., would be grossly overexposed.
 
Last edited:
On the question of the availability lightmeters. In todays market only incident meters are generally available.
Either in the form of flash meters but more usually with the ability to measure ambient light as well, so as to be able to balance the two.

They can also be used to measure brightness ranges between light sources especially in the studio setting.

Digital camers now do a similar thing as they can measure the light falling on individual pixels and calculate both a histogram and an over all exposure that will capture the entire contrast range. However in auto mode, what they find more difficult, is to peg the exposure, so that the tones in the resulting image match that of the origional scene.
 
excalibur2 said:
For newbies (or anyone) who wants to get serious about exposure https://luminous-landscape.com/zone-system/
Click to expand...


Absolutely not...unless you want to complicate matters beyond any reasonable level.
the zone system was devised for exposing and developing individual plates, and before practical Incident meters were invented by Don Norwood... to solve the Key light problem in Cine Photography.
This is the same problem that the Zone system is trying to solve in black and white stills photography.

I still have my norwood super director that I imported from America in 1958 at the extortionate price of $19.95+ import duty (that is the equivalent of $170 today + duty.) It still works....;.Though I have recently replaced it with the latest model as the original dome has yellowed over time.

The purpose of the Zone systems is to peg the tones to set visual values in the resulting image.
This is something an Incident meter does by default. and by direct reading.
 
If I'm in a forest say, in dappled light, do I take an incident readingin the light or in the shade?
 
simon ess said:
If I'm in a forest say, in dappled light, do I take an incident reading in the light or in the shade?
Click to expand...

If you want it to look like the original and capture the dappling realistically, then it should be taken with the light falling on the meter that is pointing from the subject towards the camera.
If you want to let the highlights burn out and lighten the shadows then take the reading in a shadow area , again with the meter pointing at the camera.

Your choice might be decided by the relative importance and size of the areas. splitting the difference might seem to be the way to go, but it rarely is.
If the bright areas are not too large, you can get a light and airy feel by letting the highlights burn out by using the shade reading.

But in reality in such situations the ambiance is dark not light.
 
Sorry to be a pain Terry. I'm not trying to be awkward; I get more confused the more I read about incident metering. The zone system is far easier and more intuitive to me.

Earlier you said,

Terrywoodenpic said:
On the contrary, an incident meter is not concerned about the subject at all, it only measures the light faling on it. An entire scene is always captured with the tones at their right value.
Click to expand...

How does that square with your last post?
 
If I may attempt an answer...

Think of the white plastic dome as an artificial white highlight whose presence tells the meter to give the exposure that will reproduce this as a white highlight should be. If the reading is taken in the shade, any white highlights in the shaded areas will come out white, which implies that the more brightly lit ones in the sunny areas will be relatively overexposed. If the reading is taken in the sun, the converse applies. An incident reading ensures that highlights situated in the same lighting as the reading was done from will be correctly exposed.

This matters more with slide film (and digital) since blown highlights are lost forever.

If the subject brightness range falls within the capability of the film to record, then this method works perfectly well with negative films. It only fails when the subject brightness range exceeds that of the film to record. This latter property can be adjusted by development time, which is where the Zone System comes from to ensure that on the one hand all the required tones can be printed and that they fall on the correct shade of grey in the print. The Zone System also has a built in assumption that may not always be true in that it assumes darkroom printing and the limited (relatively) tonal range of darkroom papers. Step outside this scenario to scan and digitally print, and the tonal bottlenecks become different.
 
simon ess said:
Sorry to be a pain Terry. I'm not trying to be awkward; I get more confused the more I read about incident metering. The zone system is far easier and more intuitive to me.

Earlier you said,

How does that square with your last post?
Click to expand...

My last post gave an alternative between the pegged highlight giving the correct exposure for the whole scene, as against, considering the scene as two images one lit by the sky and reflected light, and the other directly by sunlight. In both cases they are measuring the incident light not the subject
I gave the solution to both and their advantages and drawbacks.

Incident meters can be used in many ways, if you understand what you are doing, and also understand Why and How they work. They are in fact as amenable to any form of working, and can place tones any where you wish, much in the way the Zone system attempts to do. Most of the models available today can also take individual direct reflected readings. However in getting on for 60 years of using them, I have yet to have cause to do so.

I am confused that you are confused about using incident meters.

If you tried one you would find just how simple and consistent they are. Which is probably why they are the only hand meters still made, except for one or perhaps two, specialist spot meters mainly used for scientific measurement of illumination rather than photography.

The Zone system works by sliding all the tones up or down the characteristic curve so as to put any particular tone in the middle. this is done by your estimation of what you want a particular grey to look like. When it does this it lightens all other greys proportionately. What it can not do, is extend when shadows block up or highlights burn out.

An incident meter is more like the Digital exposing to the right process. It places all the tones on the curve such that the 50% grey is in the middle of the curve and the highlights lay just before they burn out at the top of the curve. with everything else sits in its natural position. However just like the Zone system you can slide the tones up or down by increasing or decreasing the measured exposure.
 
Last edited:
Is the Zone System actually easier? Decide on the deepest shadow and meter that; then the brightest highlight ditto. Then see if the number of stops difference is correct, and if not decide on increased/reduced development. The alternative is to take an incident meter and point it towards the camera from the subject position (or in the same lighting as the subject) and take one reading. Or put the palm of my :)D) hand in the same lighting, take a reflected reading and open up a stop. Palms by the way don't tan like the backs of hands...

The only problem is if the tonal range is too great, and in this case you are in to development adjustments which are simpler with sheet film (or medium format if you can use interchangeable backs) than 35mm (unless you have a Contarex).
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
If you tried one you would find just how simple and consistent they are. Which is probably why they are the only hand meters still made
Click to expand...

I have tried numerous times to work this out. I obviously have a blind spot.

My modern Sekonic can be used for reflective and incident metering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top