A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

reflected light vs incident light metering



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 12th 04, 07:41 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering

sreenath wrote:

Hi All,

I was reading Kodak Color handbook (a very old collection of booklets
from Kodak, possibly late 60's), where there is a long treatment of
various techniques.

There is a statement in that book that surprised me:

"Field studies have shown that pictures made using reflected metering
appear to be more pleasant than those made with incident light
metering"

I may not be repeating exact words, but this is the idea.

How is it that pictures made using reflected light metering are "more
pleasant"?


Considering that it was an old book, the views at that time may have
been very different. Hand held light meters are much better now than
they were in the distant past. A modern comparison of Incident .vs.
Reflected metering is at:

http://www.sekonic.com/BenefitsOfIncident.html The images show the
comparison nicely.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

  #2  
Old July 12th 04, 08:08 PM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering


"sreenath" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

I was reading Kodak Color handbook (a very old collection of booklets
from Kodak, possibly late 60's), where there is a long treatment of
various techniques.

There is a statement in that book that surprised me:

"Field studies have shown that pictures made using reflected metering
appear to be more pleasant than those made with incident light
metering"

I may not be repeating exact words, but this is the idea.

How is it that pictures made using reflected light metering are "more
pleasant"?

Thanks,
Sreenath


It doesn't surprise me in the least (let the flames begin). If you think
about it, incident metering makes little
sense in either vision or photography (another cue for dissenting opinions).
What gives an object color, shape, and texture is the light that it REFLECTS
back to your eye or your film/digital sensor. Take this to the extreme, and
consider that you want to photograph a black hole (so dense, even light
doesn't escape...remember that light behave both like a particle and a
wave)...it REALLY DOESN'T matter how much light falls on it, none is coming
back so it just appears to be a black area with no shape, color, or texture.
I'm sorry, but the human eye and photographic processes ARE NOT sensitive to
how much light FALLS on an object, only on how much comes back to the sensor
(eye, digital sensor, film, etc.).

So, careful (so as not to be deceived by a non-representative area)
reflected metering yields results more like what you see and attracted you
to the subject in the first place. Incident metering can yield results
unlike what you are seeing so if the scene is unremarkable, you might prefer
those results.

[INSERT OPPOSING VIEWS HERE]


  #3  
Old July 12th 04, 08:08 PM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering


"sreenath" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

I was reading Kodak Color handbook (a very old collection of booklets
from Kodak, possibly late 60's), where there is a long treatment of
various techniques.

There is a statement in that book that surprised me:

"Field studies have shown that pictures made using reflected metering
appear to be more pleasant than those made with incident light
metering"

I may not be repeating exact words, but this is the idea.

How is it that pictures made using reflected light metering are "more
pleasant"?

Thanks,
Sreenath


It doesn't surprise me in the least (let the flames begin). If you think
about it, incident metering makes little
sense in either vision or photography (another cue for dissenting opinions).
What gives an object color, shape, and texture is the light that it REFLECTS
back to your eye or your film/digital sensor. Take this to the extreme, and
consider that you want to photograph a black hole (so dense, even light
doesn't escape...remember that light behave both like a particle and a
wave)...it REALLY DOESN'T matter how much light falls on it, none is coming
back so it just appears to be a black area with no shape, color, or texture.
I'm sorry, but the human eye and photographic processes ARE NOT sensitive to
how much light FALLS on an object, only on how much comes back to the sensor
(eye, digital sensor, film, etc.).

So, careful (so as not to be deceived by a non-representative area)
reflected metering yields results more like what you see and attracted you
to the subject in the first place. Incident metering can yield results
unlike what you are seeing so if the scene is unremarkable, you might prefer
those results.

[INSERT OPPOSING VIEWS HERE]


  #4  
Old July 12th 04, 09:03 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering

George wrote:



I'm sorry, but the human eye and photographic processes ARE NOT sensitive to
how much light FALLS on an object, only on how much comes back to the sensor
(eye, digital sensor, film, etc.).


You're correct that a sensor can only detect what is being thrown
at it; however for a given scene if a given amount of light falls
on it, an incident reading of that light indicates what will be
detected by the recording sensor (at that setting). Some objects
may reflect an amount of light that falls below (or above) the
latitude of the sensor, and they will be unrecorded or burned
out... but that's an issue with film (sensor) not the meter.


So, careful (so as not to be deceived by a non-representative area)


That is a very good reason to use incident. It cannot be
deceived by the non-representative subject or metering object.

reflected metering yields results more like what you see and attracted you
to the subject in the first place. Incident metering can yield results
unlike what you are seeing so if the scene is unremarkable, you might prefer
those results.



The meter in the camera (exception: Nikon F5, D70 RGB metering,
not sure about D100 and the D2/D1x, ) is calibrated for white
light reflecting off of an 18% grey surface. Hence, what you
point the meter at is affecting the accuracy of the reading. You
can always bring along a grey card but that is no less
inconvenient than an incident meter.

The popularity of reflected metering (in-camera) is mainly due to
convenience (and possibly cost)... It is always more convenient
to meter through the viewfinder, and reduces the equipment count
and load. However, there aren't always representative objects to
meter which means some judgement is required to get the desired
effect...

Both are of course useful ways to meter, if well understood, but
the most consistent results come from incident metering, not
in-camera spot or weighted metering. An exception here is if
using the in-camera meter to make a measurement and determine the
correct setting, that that setting (or reciprocals of it) be used
in manual mode for all subsequent shots in the same lighting and
close to same orientation.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

  #5  
Old July 12th 04, 09:37 PM
Joseph Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering

George wrote:
"sreenath" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

I was reading Kodak Color handbook (a very old collection of booklets
from Kodak, possibly late 60's), where there is a long treatment of
various techniques.

There is a statement in that book that surprised me:

"Field studies have shown that pictures made using reflected metering
appear to be more pleasant than those made with incident light
metering"

I may not be repeating exact words, but this is the idea.

How is it that pictures made using reflected light metering are "more
pleasant"?

Thanks,
Sreenath


It doesn't surprise me in the least (let the flames begin). If you
think about it, incident metering makes little
sense in either vision or photography (another cue for dissenting
opinions). What gives an object color, shape, and texture is the
light that it REFLECTS back to your eye or your film/digital sensor.
Take this to the extreme, and consider that you want to photograph a
black hole (so dense, even light doesn't escape...remember that light
behave both like a particle and a wave)...it REALLY DOESN'T matter
how much light falls on it, none is coming back so it just appears to
be a black area with no shape, color, or texture. I'm sorry, but the
human eye and photographic processes ARE NOT sensitive to how much
light FALLS on an object, only on how much comes back to the sensor
(eye, digital sensor, film, etc.).

So, careful (so as not to be deceived by a non-representative area)
reflected metering yields results more like what you see and
attracted you to the subject in the first place. Incident metering
can yield results unlike what you are seeing so if the scene is
unremarkable, you might prefer those results.

[INSERT OPPOSING VIEWS HERE]


In theory, incident metering eliminates the problem of how to photograph
snow, or grass or shadow etc. Your meter will never be off because of the
subject and each part of the subject will be recorded on the film in at the
expected density.

The theory sort of falls apart due to the limits of the film. It can't
always record all light levels.

Reflective averaging makes sure the average density of the subject is
grey, which is usually right, but not always.

Now if you use the zone system you get around this, and can use it to
your creative advantage, if you have the skill and time.

In the real world, there is no best, only what works.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math



  #6  
Old July 12th 04, 09:37 PM
Joseph Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering

George wrote:
"sreenath" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

I was reading Kodak Color handbook (a very old collection of booklets
from Kodak, possibly late 60's), where there is a long treatment of
various techniques.

There is a statement in that book that surprised me:

"Field studies have shown that pictures made using reflected metering
appear to be more pleasant than those made with incident light
metering"

I may not be repeating exact words, but this is the idea.

How is it that pictures made using reflected light metering are "more
pleasant"?

Thanks,
Sreenath


It doesn't surprise me in the least (let the flames begin). If you
think about it, incident metering makes little
sense in either vision or photography (another cue for dissenting
opinions). What gives an object color, shape, and texture is the
light that it REFLECTS back to your eye or your film/digital sensor.
Take this to the extreme, and consider that you want to photograph a
black hole (so dense, even light doesn't escape...remember that light
behave both like a particle and a wave)...it REALLY DOESN'T matter
how much light falls on it, none is coming back so it just appears to
be a black area with no shape, color, or texture. I'm sorry, but the
human eye and photographic processes ARE NOT sensitive to how much
light FALLS on an object, only on how much comes back to the sensor
(eye, digital sensor, film, etc.).

So, careful (so as not to be deceived by a non-representative area)
reflected metering yields results more like what you see and
attracted you to the subject in the first place. Incident metering
can yield results unlike what you are seeing so if the scene is
unremarkable, you might prefer those results.

[INSERT OPPOSING VIEWS HERE]


In theory, incident metering eliminates the problem of how to photograph
snow, or grass or shadow etc. Your meter will never be off because of the
subject and each part of the subject will be recorded on the film in at the
expected density.

The theory sort of falls apart due to the limits of the film. It can't
always record all light levels.

Reflective averaging makes sure the average density of the subject is
grey, which is usually right, but not always.

Now if you use the zone system you get around this, and can use it to
your creative advantage, if you have the skill and time.

In the real world, there is no best, only what works.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math



  #7  
Old July 12th 04, 10:13 PM
Phil Stripling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering

Gordon Moat writes:

they were in the distant past. A modern comparison of Incident .vs.
Reflected metering is at:

http://www.sekonic.com/BenefitsOfIncident.html The images show the
comparison nicely.


I mildly disagree with that page; not a big deal to me, but it _is_ written
by a company promoting its incident meters.

My very humble opinion is that no meter readings should be followed
mindlessly. If one is using a reflected meter, one must think about where
the gray should fall in the scheme of the values present in the scene. I
think reading various items in a scene with a reflected meter gives me
better control over which item I place as my main 'correct' reading. It may
be that I would want a black plate black, but I may not want a shadow which
would be rendered 'correctly' black to _be_ black in the final exposure. (I
shoot slides, so my among my concerns are the limited lattitude of the film
and blown out highlights.) I think the test shot on that page is rigged.
:- It doesn't reflect the things _I_ take pictures of, incidentally.

"Mercilessly recording all things as medium gray," as that Web page says is
really the photographers' "Mindlessly reading all things a medium gray,"
not the meter's fault. Mindlessly following an incident meter will not
guarantee that the result is what I _want_.

I've read the original post and its quote, and I have no clue what the
context was for that quote. I also question the source's use of "field
tests" or whatever the phrase was. I remember Kodak surveying photographers
for years about what they wanted, and the replies always were 'accurate
colors.' Then Fuji showed people images and asked which they
preferred. Accurate colors lost every time to the "bright golden haze on
the meadow," as Rogers and Hammerstein wrote back in the 50s.

I may not even want the accurate colors the incident meter mindlessly
promises. And the "highlight and shadow areas [that] will fall naturally into
place" may be outside my film's latitude.

Shrug. People get to make their choices, and I have no idea what tests
showed that reflected readings were more pleasing (I suspect the tests were
skewed, but who knows), but using any meter without considering the
range of readings, the reflectivity of the items in the shot, and what the
photographer wants the subject of the image to be drives me to post my
mild rant.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
  #8  
Old July 13th 04, 06:35 PM
Loiskelly1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering

George wrote-
Take this to the extreme, and
consider that you want to photograph a black hole (so dense, even light
doesn't escape...


OK, let's consider it. If an EV of 8 falls on the subject, an incident meter
would call for some combination of exposure equivalent to f2.0 at 1/60. A
reflected light meter would call for the maximum exposure possible. In both
cases the photo would record the maximum black that the medium allows.
Now if we were to photograph a pair of black slacks, rather than a black hole,
things would be quite different, as well as much easier. Under the same
lighting conditions as above, the incident meter would still call for the same
exposure, and the pants would be rendered as black. A reflected light meter
would, however, call for a much higher setting, rendering the pants
overexposed.




--
Eschew obfuscation!
  #9  
Old July 14th 04, 02:07 AM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
George wrote:



I'm sorry, but the human eye and photographic processes ARE NOT

sensitive to
how much light FALLS on an object, only on how much comes back to the

sensor
(eye, digital sensor, film, etc.).


You're correct that a sensor can only detect what is being thrown
at it; however for a given scene if a given amount of light falls
on it, an incident reading of that light indicates what will be
detected by the recording sensor (at that setting). Some objects
may reflect an amount of light that falls below (or above) the
latitude of the sensor, and they will be unrecorded or burned
out... but that's an issue with film (sensor) not the meter.


Incident metering wouldn't detect the light that will be detected by the
recording sensor UNLESS
the recording sensor is located at the subject pointed toward the camera
position. Correct? And
locating your camera at the subject and pointing away from it would be quite
a different picture.


Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--



  #10  
Old July 14th 04, 02:07 AM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflected light vs incident light metering


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
George wrote:



I'm sorry, but the human eye and photographic processes ARE NOT

sensitive to
how much light FALLS on an object, only on how much comes back to the

sensor
(eye, digital sensor, film, etc.).


You're correct that a sensor can only detect what is being thrown
at it; however for a given scene if a given amount of light falls
on it, an incident reading of that light indicates what will be
detected by the recording sensor (at that setting). Some objects
may reflect an amount of light that falls below (or above) the
latitude of the sensor, and they will be unrecorded or burned
out... but that's an issue with film (sensor) not the meter.


Incident metering wouldn't detect the light that will be detected by the
recording sensor UNLESS
the recording sensor is located at the subject pointed toward the camera
position. Correct? And
locating your camera at the subject and pointing away from it would be quite
a different picture.


Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exposure values and light metering mode guidelines for beach Renee Digital Photography 0 June 24th 04 04:18 AM
Incident Metering and Senics - Oil & Water? Dan Quinn Medium Format Photography Equipment 24 May 24th 04 08:25 PM
Light meters, ratio lighting Alan Browne Photographing People 5 May 6th 04 05:27 PM
How to determine distance from KEY light to subject Phil Lamerton Photographing People 12 April 27th 04 05:49 PM
Metering light w Photographing Nature 1 December 4th 03 07:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.