Exposure compensation

[Terrywoodenpic]

My list of options wasn't exhaustive and I do the same as you when I'm using aperture priority; setting up the options in the preferences to help the camera decide what to do.

And many people just measure a judged by eye "mid-tone", or a caucasion flesh tone, and give a stop more than suggested.

I had forgotten sekonic used 14%

One of the good things, I think, of going through the pain of learning, and then the satisfaction of applying, the zone system, is I can remember studying all of these things once upon a time.

On your last point, and I know not everyone agrees, I still find an underlying theoretical understanding is useful when trying to solve an otherwise inexplicable 'real world" photography problem.

Absolutely, the more you both know and understand the better.
Surprisingly little becomes totally out of date.
Even less becomes uninteresting.

 

[myotis]

Absolutely, the more you both know and understand the better.
Surprisingly little becomes totally out of date.
Even less becomes uninteresting.

Indeed, I think the more you learn, the more you realise how things that "today" might appear irrelevant or uninteresting can become relevant and very interesting in the future.

And, as there is no way of predicting what will or will not become relevant in the future, it feeds an even greater need to learn about things. Even if things are out of date, they can still provide a sound foundation for learning new things. Even if this can be a disadvantage at times e.g. getting your head around how the workings of ISO with digital isn't the same thing as the workings of ISO is with film.

Nothing to do with photography, but when I was at University, I fought very hard to avoid a "soils" module, which was compulsory, but clashed with the animal behaviour module, which is what I wanted to do, as I couldn't see the relevance of learning about soils. Eventually, I was allowed to take the animal behaviour module.

My first job after graduating involved badger behaviour, and to understand badger behaviour, you need to understand earthworm ecology, and to understand earthworm ecology, you need to understand soils!!

And while I was still better off having taken the animal behaviour module, I hadn't expected how quickly after graduation I would need to start studying soils.

 

[Barney]

To get every tone where it lays on a scale of black to white, the only way is to take an incident light reading either with a dedicated meter or by taking a camera reading from a grey card, or perhaps equally well, from the palm of a hand, that is in the same light as the subject.

Good Morning Terry,

Thanks for you input here, I have been using incident metering quite a lot in my film explorations, but for some reason, lack of knowledge most probable, have considered it an inferior method. I thought that it had benefits over my other option, sunny 16, but I always felt that I should be looking for some better method to include in my exposure calculations.

You have put that to bed with your comments. I will try to more fully appreciate my incident metering process. Have you, in your wonderfully extended career in photography, been able to identify or could you possibly recommend films that favor one end of the tone scale or the other, or is that aspect mostly taken care of in development?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

INCIDENT METERING
Correct use of a meter when taking an incident meter is essential. The reading should be taken from the subject directly towards the camera lens. When the subject is distant it should be on a line from the centre of the subject towards the lens. Contrary to some mistaken online instructions, it should not be taken by pointing the meter at the light source.
With distant subjects, provided the light falling on the meter is the same as on the subject an exact reading will be obtained, day and sunlight is not affected by distance.
Unlike flash which changes with ithe inverse square law. Flash incident readings should be taken as close from the subject as possible.

Incident readings are always used by the film industry as each shot must exactly match previous ones or the difference between exposure becomes obvious and distracting.
The various exposure modes used in film and digital cameras are devised to match, as closely as possible, to those obtained by an incident meter, as an incident meters can not be built into through the lens systems, for obvious reasons.

However digital sensors do provide the possibility of calculating exposures, as every pixel can, at least theoretically, be used in the measurement and calculation.
However this does not produce equally exposed consecutive frames.

FILMS CONTRAST AND DEVELOPMENT.

I have no idea which are the best films available today, it seems that all of them are now reformulated so as to be coated in small batches, on what was previously test and experimental coating machines. The previous production machines are no longer economically viable with the smaller runs needed today.
That being said some photographers seem to be getting good results from some of the better ones from the likes of what was Ilford..
However from what I have seen results are far from consistent. I would suggest sticking to one, not chopping and changing.

A graph of the resulting density on film, from a step wedge of equal tonality steps, is very different from that on a digital sensor.
A sensor produces an almost perfect straight line graph, with density matching light intensity.
Whereas film produces what is known as an S shaped graph. With a central straight line portion with the foot (shadow portion ) Flattening off to zero.
And the shoulder( highlights) also flattening off to a maximum density.
The slope of the straight line portion represents the contrast of the resulting negative.
This slope and contrast (gamma) can be adjusted by changing the duration and temperature of the development, the contrast increases with time and temperature.
Increasing these factors also increases general density and grain.
Changing exposure moves the included tonal range up and down the straight line portion of the graph, so that either more of the shoulder or more of the toe is included.
Moving the exposure away from the toe or shoulder, moves either the shadows or the highlights further on to the straight line portion. This results in better separation of those tones. Either the shadows or highlights become more detailed. Not both.

Beautifully graduated prints, from film, rely on both suitable exposure and appropriate development. And of course excellent printing technique. (Which has similar considerations) Some degree of dodging and burning is almost always necessary.

It takes a great deal of practice to become a good bromide printer. It took me from the age of 10 to 15 and hundreds of prints before i considered my self a "good" printer.
By the time I went to photographic college, after military service. I was at professional standard.
I never found exposure, development or printing difficult, however some people are not prepared to put in the time to learn or put in the necessary practice to achieve high quality results.

 

[Phil V]

sunlight is not affected by distance

Absolute pedantry, for which I apologise, but sunlight also suffers from the inverse square law. But as it’s 147 million km away, the extra few meters away from your subject are inconsequential. For clarity Venus is roughly a stop closer to the light source.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the mid 50' I imported my first incident light metter, a Norwood super director, which was later to become better known as the Sekonic studio deluxe mod L-398.
I still have the Norwood and a recent Sekonic.
Those very early meters also included instructions for another method of using the incident meter. Called duplex readings.
This. Was thought to give better readings in 90 degree side light. For this. Two readings were taken, one directly towards the light and the other towards the camera and the average of the two readings used. However by the 60's. When Sekonic took over all production, this method was no longer recommended. While doing it could help to prevent highlights burning out in fierce sunlight, it also produced variations between sets of images.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Absolute pedantry, for which I apologise, but sunlight also suffers from the inverse square law. But as it’s 147 million km away, the extra few meters away from your subject are inconsequential. For clarity Venus is roughly a stop closer to the light source.

for all those of us who are earth bound. The inverse square law, related to sunlight. Is the least of our worries, and way beyond our ability to measure.
For all intents and photographic purposes sunlight arrives on earth virtually parallel. However depending on latitude and time of day and season of the year arrive at various angles to the surface. This falloff was used as a factor in various exposure calculators, as was the extent and type of cloud cover.

 

[sk66]

Absolute pedantry, for which I apologise, but sunlight also suffers from the inverse square law.

Even more pedantic...
The sun is nowhere near a point light source, and the ISL only applies to point sources. When the light source is smaller than the distance, to the point where it's extent cannot be measured, it can be considered to be a point source within that system; and the rate of falloff will be in accordance with the ISL (1/Dsq). When the light source is significantly larger than the distance (significant in extent) it cannot be considered to be a point source and the rate of falloff is slower (1/D). The sun is somewhere in between.

 

[sk66]

for all those of us who are earth bound. The inverse square law, related to sunlight. Is the least of our worries, and way beyond our ability to measure.
For all intents and photographic purposes sunlight arrives on earth virtually parallel. However depending on latitude and time of day and season of the year arrive at various angles to the surface. This falloff was used as a factor in various exposure calculators, as was the extent and type of cloud cover.

The main reason most of these things worked (18% gray cards, sunny 16 rule, etc) is because they take advantage of the latitude of negative film. In fact, early film was rated at half speed for the same reason. Sometime around the early sixties they suddenly decided they didn't need/want that buffer and film speeds were suddenly doubled... I think it might have been due to the increasing popularity of positive slide film use; which does not have the same kind of exposure latitude.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Sometime around the early sixties they suddenly decided they didn't need/want that buffer and film speeds were suddenly doubled... I think it might have been due to the increasing popularity of positive slide film use; which does not have the same kind of exposure latitude.

As I recall what was written in the magazines at the time; and discussed when cameramen and darkroom technicians got together, it was to do with the, then new, thin emulsions and a shift in developer formulae, to softer working chemistry.

This change, combined with the better gradation available on the new paper emulsions, meant that a competent photographer could achieve prints that looked cleaner and more detailed than previously. The improvements in "letterpress" ink printing and the rapid rise in offset litho image quality, raised the expectations of image buyers in the lucrative magazine and brochure markets, as well as elsewhere.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even more pedantic...
The sun is nowhere near a point light source, and the ISL only applies to point sources. When the light source is smaller than the distance, to the point where it's extent cannot be measured, it can be considered to be a point source within that system; and the rate of falloff will be in accordance with the ISL (1/Dsq). When the light source is larger than the distance (significant in extent) it cannot be considered a point source and the rate of falloff is slower (1/D). The sun is somewhere in between.

Nice one. That is much the same reason spot lights do not follow the ISL especially when focussed.

You would think, Pinhole cameras would be sharper if the hole could be smaller, however diffraction comes into play and all pinhole cameras are diffraction limited.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As I recall what was written in the magazines at the time; and discussed when cameramen and darkroom technicians got together, it was to do with the, then new, thin emulsions and a shift in developer formulae, to softer working chemistry.

This change, combined with the better gradation available on the new paper emulsions, meant that a competent photographer could achieve prints that looked cleaner and more detailed than previously. The improvements in "letterpress" ink printing and the rapid rise in offset litho image quality, raised the expectations of image buyers in the lucrative magazine and brochure markets, as well as elsewhere.

It was at that time that Weston and ASA speeds fell into line with each other, there had been a 2/3rd stop difference.
photographers have always established their own working film speeds. To suit their own exposure methods and development practices.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

photographers have always established their own working film speeds.

Indeed.

In the 1960s, it seemed that every photographic magazine was constantly telling us to "establish our own ASA rating" for our favourite films. Being an impecunious schoolboy, I used "Sunny Sixteen" to choose my best guess. Then I took three shots of the same subject, varying the shutter speed from twice the guess to half the guess. Whichever exposure seemed best on grade 2 paper was my "personal" speed rating.

Hey, it worked for me.

 

[realspeed]

Exposure compensation is best when you keep your clothes on

 

[sk66]

That is much the same reason spot lights do not follow the ISL especially when focussed.

And fresnel lenses, parabolics, beauty dishes, softboxes within 1x, etc.