Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
I'm about to begin the process of evaluating/purchasing an incident light meter for field use. Needs to be pocket size and accordingly, be able to take a bit of punishment. Any thoughts on: features? models? etc.? Otis Wright Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Using any meter (including the one in the camera) requires some knowledge and common sense. A spot meter makes sense with a view camera and the zone system. However, I think that an incident light meter is better for general photography. It gives you an 18% gray reading every time. If you want more detail in the shadows you open up one or two stops. For more highlight detail you close down a stop. You can not have both, no matter what type meter you use. If you want maximum detail over all the incident meter will nail the center and the film latitude will will give you the widest highlight to shadow range. Your paper grade will determine the final contrast range on the print for BW, for color an incident meter will nail the best exposure every time. Using these techniques I have several times had lab people comment how consistent my exposure from frame to frame was. --Tom Shel Belinkoff wrote: Maybe ... but essentially I disagree with that statement. If the scene is an average scene, then an incident meter can be useful. However, add some deep shadows and some very bright highlights, and you're not going to get a reading that will allow for the best exposure, i.e., relying on what the incident meter tells you won't give you the opportunity to place shadow or highlight values. Further, there will be little opportunity to really learn about light and exposure. With a 1-degree spot meter you you can meter every part of the scene, and know exactly where the values will be and what you have to do to properly expose the film and what development will be needed. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
The Gossen Luna Pro SBC is a gem of a meter for both incident and reflected measurements and uses common 9-volt batteries. It can be purchased used for a reasonable amount of money. It will fit in a shirt or coat pocket but there are smaller meters. Len --- -Original Message- From: Otis Wright, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) I'm about to begin the process of evaluating/purchasing an incident light meter for field use. Needs to be pocket size and accordingly, be able to take a bit of punishment. Any thoughts on: features? models? etc.? Otis Wright - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Though, strictly speaking, spotmeters are not incident light meters, you can put an 18% grey card at the subject position and read the light reflected from it and get pretty much the same results. Len --- -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) - Original Message - From: Otis Wright, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 5, 2001 5:56 AM Subject: Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) I'm about to begin the process of evaluating/purchasing an incident light meter for field use. Needs to be pocket size and accordingly, be able to take a bit of punishment. Any thoughts on: features? models? etc.? Well, to stay on topic, there is the Pentax Digital Spotmeter. It has one moving part (the trigger switch) and is quite compact. It is also built like a tank. If you shoot a lot of black and white, you can get a version if it from Calumet that has the Zone VI modifications that make the meter see light the same way that film does. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Hi, this is what I use: http://www.sekonic.com/Products/L-398M.html it's called a studio meter, but I've never used it in a studio. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, June 05, 2001, 12:56:03 PM, you wrote: I'm about to begin the process of evaluating/purchasing an incident light meter for field use. Needs to be pocket size and accordingly, be able to take a bit of punishment. Any thoughts on: features? models? etc.? Otis Wright - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
I remember using one that looked like that in the distant past. I think it was called a Brockwood, or something like that. I forget who made it. It was a good meter, too. Len --- -Original Message- From: Bob Walkden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 1:03 PM To: Otis Wright, Jr. Subject: Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) Hi, this is what I use: http://www.sekonic.com/Products/L-398M.html it's called a studio meter, but I've never used it in a studio. --- Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Is it necessary to buy a spotmeter with a sighting scope? These are extremely expensive, but without one I do not see how you can accurately point it at a spot you want to meter. Without being able to accurately line up, you could only do general or incident readings surely? This is why I think you may be better off using the TTL spotmeter which you can aim accurately rather than a handheld which you hope you pointed in the right direction. I ask this because my MZ30 does not have spotmeter and I would go and buy a cheap lightmeter if it could be aimed accurately. Otherwise I have to think long and har whether to spend the extra dosh on one with a scope - it would be cheaper to take a second body to use as a lightmeter (although obviously I would lose the incident metering)!! I am currently waiting to see whether to buy MZ-S (favourite at the moment), Z1P or MZ5N but in the meantime would like a spotmeter - just not sure which one and whether its worth the money. I dont want to spend hundreds, but I dont really want one which is not as good as that which I will get in my upgraded camera when that happens. Yours confused Rob Brigham Bill Robb of this list impressed upon me the value of a spot meter, and his comments motivated me to get one. I bought a Pentax Spotmeter V and took it everywhere. I pointed it at trees, at shadows, at faces, at the sky ... I measured everything and was surprised at the results. For weeks I never took a picture, I just used the Pentax meter, and since i already had an understanding of the Zone System, what I was learning from the meter made sense. Soon after that I got a completely manual, meterless camera, and it took a few months of shooting almost every day to become completely comfortable with it and the spot meter. I am an amatuer photographer and I don't have capital to go for a spot meter though it is very helpful to have one. Do you think that it would be impossible for me learn about exposure without a spotmeter? I will always try to get one spotmeter, but what about if I fail in doing so? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
- Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 3:13 AM Subject: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) Is it necessary to buy a spotmeter with a sighting scope? These are extremely expensive, but without one I do not see how you can accurately point it at a spot you want to meter. Without being able to accurately line up, you could only do general or incident readings surely? This is why I think you may be better off using the TTL spotmeter which you can aim accurately rather than a handheld which you hope you pointed in the right direction. I have seen hand held light meters with spot attchments. These give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron the subject is far more accurate. I ask this because my MZ30 does not have spotmeter and I would go and buy a cheap lightmeter if it could be aimed accurately. Otherwise I have to think long and har whether to spend the extra dosh on one with a scope - it would be cheaper to take a second body to use as a lightmeter (although obviously I would lose the incident metering)!! Would a cheap light meter be more accurate? Perhaps a better choice would be to buy a longish lens, so that you could turn your present in camera meter into a spot meter of sorts. I am currently waiting to see whether to buy MZ-S (favourite at the moment), Z1P or MZ5N but in the meantime would like a spotmeter - just not sure which one and whether its worth the money. I dont want to spend hundreds, but I dont really want one which is not as good as that which I will get in my upgraded camera when that happens. Cheap light meters are not a good investment, IMO. The have a tendency to not be accurate, not have good linearity and not be colour blind (a fatal flaw in most light meters). As an aside, spot meters are not the easiest things to learn how to use. It is not enough to just point the thing at a spot on the subject and transfer the reading to the camera. You have to be able to estimate accurately where on the tonal range of the film the area you are metering will fall, you have to know if your meter shows colour bias towards what you are measuring, and if so, how much so that it can be accounted for. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
William Robb wrote: I have seen hand held light meters with spot attchments. These give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron the subject is far more accurate. Maybe ... but essentially I disagree with that statement. If the scene is an average scene, then an incident meter can be useful. However, add some deep shadows and some very bright highlights, and you're not going to get a reading that will allow for the best exposure, i.e., relying on what the incident meter tells you won't give you the opportunity to place shadow or highlight values. Further, there will be little opportunity to really learn about light and exposure. With a 1-degree spot meter you you can meter every part of the scene, and know exactly where the values will be and what you have to do to properly expose the film and what development will be needed. Cheap light meters are not a good investment, IMO. The have a tendency to not be accurate, not have good linearity and not be colour blind (a fatal flaw in most light meters). I agree 100%. As an aside, spot meters are not the easiest things to learn how to use. It is not enough to just point the thing at a spot on the subject and transfer the reading to the camera. You have to be able to estimate accurately where on the tonal range of the film the area you are metering will fall, you have to know if your meter shows colour bias towards what you are measuring, and if so, how much so that it can be accounted for. And that was my original point in suggesting that some knowledge beforehand (Adams' Zone System, for example) is an important consideration when using a spot meter. The spot meter makes more demands of the user, but, in time, the user will better understand light and exposure. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use. - Sam Abell - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
The point is whether or not you use modern tecknology for getting lazy or for realizing photographic vision. If you are concious of light no old mechanical camera or separate light meter will ever make you able to put the exposure value accurately to the camera for demanding slide film like Velvia. You have shutterspeed setting in 1 stop increments and slide film like Velviua need 1/3 stop accuracy. You then have to brackett and you could then just as well use the camera on fully automatic and brackett from there. With print film the issue is somewhat different and there you can really get away with sloppy metering and even sloppy shutters. The fact remains that modern cameras makes it possible to nail exposure more accurately than ever before. If a photographer fails to do this, then it tells more about the photographer than anyone else. Pål - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:09 AM Subject: Learning To make a Photograph There's been some discussion here about how many of us have felt that our photographs are not of the quality we'd like them to be. I have some thoughts on that, which, I hope, will lead to further discussion and help a few list members improve their skills and creativity. I firmly believe that using AF gear and automatic metering does not help one to really learn about making photographs (notice I said making, not taking). Recently I've returned to using 100% manual cameras - they don't even have light meters. The first thing I've become more conscious of is light, and the quality of light. Not that I didn't think about it before, but now I must pay more attention to it. I've been using a hand held spot meter and paying careful attention to what's in the shadows and where the specular highlights fall. My negs are looking a lot better, and my ability to read the light has improved to the point where using a meter is no longer as necessary as it had been. There are those who will argue against my position, and that's all well and good. However, to those people I'd say go out and start shooting with fully manual cameras again, eliminate the use of TTL metering and eschew autofocus and zoom lenses. It'll be some work, but in time I can almost guarantee that your pictures will improve. Why? Well, when you better understand the light, you'll get better images. But more than that, you'll be able to concentrate more on composition rather than being distracted by lights, needles, and a plethora of information in the viewfinder, and the need to fiddle with knobs, dials, and buttons to put the camera into the correct mode. You don't need all that stuff to make a photograph. And when you better understand focus and DOF - by focusing yourself, which I believe you can do more critically with a fully manual camera - and you start to understand where the zone of sharp focus is, you can begin to become more competent and creative. Stay away from zoom lenses with variable apertures. You never know for sure what the aperture is, or the focal length is, and how can that help your creativity in the long run. Sure, those lenses make taking a picture easier, and built-in meters make taking a picture easier, and autofocus makes taking a picture easier, but it doesn't always help you to ~make~ a superb photograph. Grab a fully manual camera, a prime lens, and go out and practice. Shoot every day. Process the film quickly and review the results. Learn from your mistakes, and go out and shoot another roll, and another, and another. Don't rely on the latitude of the film to carry you through. Learn to understand what the perfect exposure is for each frame you shoot, even if it means that you have to work slowly at first, and perhaps miss some great shots. Most of our great shots are crap anyway. When I returned to a fully manual camera I was surprised at how lazy I'd become. Somehow it seemed easier to let the camera's meter set the exposure, but then I had to think about the metering pattern, and how that might effect the exposure I wanted. How much simpler it is to read the light first and then just concentrate of shooting, and finding the best way to capture the subject. Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but carefully examine the work of the great photographers, regardless of their style. Look at the work of photo journalists, those who do documentary work, fashion photographers, and the like. Look at their prints whenever you can rather looking at their books or photos in magazines. I'm willing to bet that there are people on this list who have never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or HC-B, or Helmut Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in books or magazines. Look at the work of less experienced photographers, too. Go to galleries and exhibitions. Examine the prints
Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Shel wrote: snip Try this some time: go out on a bright, sunny day and focus on a dark or medium colored car, but don't include the bright highlights from the chrome trim in the metering. Then move the camera slightly to pick up the bright specular highlights. I'll bet the exposure set by the camera changes, yet the light in the scene is the same. Thank you. I agree that with a handheld spotmeter you would essentially get the details of what your cameras meter is seeing, affording the photographer more control. An additional observation (probably picking it to death)... If the exposure set by the camera changes, then that means the light entering the lens has changed. The light in the scene is not the same and the meter is doing exactly what it should. I would assume that the cameras meter would give readings indicating a shorter exposure would be necessary when including the highlights. But I think, what you are saying in the example is that this could lead to underexposing the main subject, the car, whereas the specular highlights may be burnt out regardless of how the car itself is exposed. If the difference between lightest/darkest parts of the scene were not as drastic, the onboard camera metering may work just fine. And this probably is just repeating what you said... in both the portrait example and the car example, the key factor is not the overall scene, but which part of the scene you are most interested in metering for and exposing correctly. In the portrait scene you would not sacrifice the person for the sky. (Boring analysis finished) Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Hi, I wrote the following earlier today to be a reply to Shel's post. Some of it has been superceded by other people's replies, but I thought I'd send it anyway. The type of photography that I most enjoy looking at, and trying to emulate, is exemplified by the Magnum agency. In many, perhaps most, of the instances where I've seen the data, it seems that the photographers, although they frequently use hi-tech cameras with tons of automation options, tend to use incident meters to measure the light. This implies that their exposure automation features are switched off. An example I saw recently was a short video documentary of Don McCullin shooting his 'AIDS in Africa' project last year, and there were examples in a recent edition of one of the US photo mags when some Magnum photographers were discussing their technique. Of course, there are also plenty of counterexamples. For instance, Steve McCurry has said on many occasions that he relies completely on his Nikon matrix metering; similarly, one of my friends relies outside the studio on his Nikon matrix meters exclusively. However, neither of them is a beginner. I prefer to use incident light rather than reflected light, and now, having started all-manual and been briefly seduced into AE by the LX, prefer not to use AE in non-standard situations. The trick is to recognise the non-standard situations. I do use the 'spot' meter in my cameras quite a lot now that I have them - they're the first spotmeters I've used - but that is for situations where I can't physically get the incident meter into the same light that I want to measure. And I always try to spot-meter a mid-tone because I'm not going to get into the Zone system - it's just not appropriate for what I do. It seems to me that spotmeters - that is, 1-degree meters, rather than the ones built into cameras - are most useful when you want to sample the range of measurements in a scene with a view to using that information later when you're processing and printing. This lends itself mainly to quite static subjects, but is not much use if you're covering a fairly dynamic situation, which is why it's popular with Ansel Adamites but less so with Bob Capa-bles. From the point of view of the beginning photographer it is surely simpler and easier to use incident light measurements than it is to take multiple spot measurements, write them down, choose one for setting the camera, and use the remainder for the darkroom calculations. Like any learning process it is more likely to be successful if it is built on incremental steps. It seems to me that there is so much to learn in the zone system that it is not worth it for the beginning 35mm photographer, who will be more successful, more quickly, using incident readings as the basis of their understanding of exposure. For anybody who might be thinking of buying a spotmeter because they are not happy with their in-camera readings I would recommend buying first an incident meter and seeing how you get on with that. An incident meter is nice and neutral, uninfluenced by reflectivity of tone and colour. If the problem is about measuring *reflected* light then a spotmeter may not help to solve the problem. An incident meter is also likely to be cheaper than a spot meter, and some of them come with spotmeter attachments. The zone system, after all, really has nothing to do with photography per se. It is a workround designed to overcome the different technical limitations of film and paper and their inability to handle the full subject brightness range or even the same sub-range within it. It's about trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. If these limitations did not exist, I don't believe anybody would have invented the zone system. So for a learner who's interested primarily in understanding light and metering I would suggest that the zone system, and by implication spot-metering, is likely to confuse rather than help because there are so many inter-dependent variables. That was certainly my experience 25+ years ago. It's certainly useful to understand the principles of the zone system in this less-than-ideal world, but an ideal film and an ideal paper, both able to handle the full brightness range that we ordinarily meet, would make the zone system redundant (all other things being equal). Such a 'film' paper will become available as digital capture inkjet printing technology improve. The print will be the end product of the photographic process, which is precisely the situation we have now in the fine-art photography world. One instance where the end justifies the means. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, June 04, 2001, 4:39:07 PM, you wrote: William Robb wrote: I have seen hand held light meters with spot attchments. These give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron the subject is far more
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
Shel wrote: very snipped Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but carefully examine the work of the great photographers, regardless of their style. Look at the work of photo journalists, those who do documentary work, fashion photographers, and the like. Look at their prints whenever you can rather looking at their books or photos in magazines. I'm willing to bet that there are people on this list who have never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or HC-B, or Helmut Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in books or magazines. Look at the work of less experienced photographers, too. Go to galleries and exhibitions. Examine the prints not only from a contextual POV but from a technical perspective as well. Are your prints as sharp? Do your prints have the detail in the shadows? Are your highlights blown out? Why is their print less/more grainy than yours - you both use the same film? Shel, I'm really not clear on this email. You go on about how having a completely manual camera will force one to make decisions about exposure as well as learn quality of light and critical focusing. Clearly, an all manual camera will certainly go a long way to helping you show what you don't understand about the mechanics of taking a picture. But then you mention photographs by Gene Smith, HC-B, and Helmet Newton. Gene Smith was an excellent photographer and printer, although many of his photographs were staged and heavily manipulated. And, there are times when he would print for days on end fueled by stimulants. HC-B didn't do his own printing and half his photographs show clear exposure errors, are not pin sharp, excessively grainy, and have poor shadow detail. Maybe cause he didn't do his own printing. I don't know if he even did his own developing. One story I've read indicated that he shot most things at 1/125th @ f8 and let the printers figure the rest out. Helmet Newton, who's photography you know I love, has produced some of the most garish prints I've seen. Many are blurry. Often, there is crappy shadow detail, excessive grain, blown out highlighs, and a whole lot of contrast. Hell! He uses Tmax 100! Yuck! Despite that, I love all three of those photographers' work. Why? Not cause they shot manual cameras without meters or decided to go on some quest to make sure they aren't lazy and understood every minute detail of making a photograph. They had a vision, an artistic drive. They produced images that went far beyond the technical and penetrated the psyche. In fact, their images succeed despite all the technical flaws. Can you argue that owning an all manual camera will give you an artistic vision? Cause I didn't catch that part in your diatribe... G Mark - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
Mark Dalal wrote: snip They had a vision, an artistic drive. They produced images that went far beyond the technical and penetrated the psyche. In fact, their images succeed despite all the technical flaws. Can you argue that owning an all manual camera will give you an artistic vision? snip Mark While many of us appreciate the technical side of things, and while some of us choose, MF, AF, metering TTL or handheld, in the end the only thing that counts is whether we like the results. Most of us also care a wee bit about whether anyone else likes the results. I've noticed for quite a while that you can have all the head knowledge in the world about film, photography, cameras and that doesn't make a great shot. Apply that knowledge to your shooting and combine it with artistic vision, and you'll get some great shots. Heck, you may have virtually no knowledge and still get some great shots if you have the eye for what looks good and the ability to capture what excites you on film, in a way that it still excites you and others when you look at it again, and then again. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Learning To make a Photograph
I'm glad you wrote this, now I don't have to. A camera is only a tool in a larger toolbox of skills and equipment. Sending someone off with a manual camera is like sending someone off to build a structure using only s stone ax. It may be appropriate, it may not. Seriously, to me, being a competent photographer has almost nothing to do with equipment, but (as is pointed out) in vision. Shel seems to think that mastering the equipment will automatically make the user more artistic. I have seen professional work done only with a Holga or Diana camera, grainy, warped, misexposed, but artistic none the less. There seem to be many here who have trouble coming to grips with the 21st century (basing this on the discussion of computers and digital photography some weeks ago). I prefer to have the tools at my disposal and how I use them (well...or not so well) is part of what makes photography both technical and artistic at the same time. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Learning To make a Photograph Shel wrote: very snipped Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but carefully examine the work of the great photographers, regardless of their style. Look at the work of photo journalists, those who do documentary work, fashion photographers, and the like. Look at their prints whenever you can rather looking at their books or photos in magazines. I'm willing to bet that there are people on this list who have never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or HC-B, or Helmut Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in books or magazines. Look at the work of less experienced photographers, too. Go to galleries and exhibitions. Examine the prints not only from a contextual POV but from a technical perspective as well. Are your prints as sharp? Do your prints have the detail in the shadows? Are your highlights blown out? Why is their print less/more grainy than yours - you both use the same film? Shel, I'm really not clear on this email. You go on about how having a completely manual camera will force one to make decisions about exposure as well as learn quality of light and critical focusing. Clearly, an all manual camera will certainly go a long way to helping you show what you don't understand about the mechanics of taking a picture. But then you mention photographs by Gene Smith, HC-B, and Helmet Newton. Gene Smith was an excellent photographer and printer, although many of his photographs were staged and heavily manipulated. And, there are times when he would print for days on end fueled by stimulants. HC-B didn't do his own printing and half his photographs show clear exposure errors, are not pin sharp, excessively grainy, and have poor shadow detail. Maybe cause he didn't do his own printing. I don't know if he even did his own developing. One story I've read indicated that he shot most things at 1/125th @ f8 and let the printers figure the rest out. Helmet Newton, who's photography you know I love, has produced some of the most garish prints I've seen. Many are blurry. Often, there is crappy shadow detail, excessive grain, blown out highlighs, and a whole lot of contrast. Hell! He uses Tmax 100! Yuck! Despite that, I love all three of those photographers' work. Why? Not cause they shot manual cameras without meters or decided to go on some quest to make sure they aren't lazy and understood every minute detail of making a photograph. They had a vision, an artistic drive. They produced images that went far beyond the technical and penetrated the psyche. In fact, their images succeed despite all the technical flaws. Can you argue that owning an all manual camera will give you an artistic vision? Cause I didn't catch that part in your diatribe... G Mark - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Using any meter (including the one in the camera) requires some knowledge and common sense. A spot meter makes sense with a view camera and the zone system. However, I think that an incident light meter is better for general photography. It gives you an 18% gray reading every time. If you want more detail in the shadows you open up one or two stops. For more highlight detail you close down a stop. You can not have both, no matter what type meter you use. If you want maximum detail over all the incident meter will nail the center and the film latitude will will give you the widest highlight to shadow range. Your paper grade will determine the final contrast range on the print for BW, for color an incident meter will nail the best exposure every time. Using these techniques I have several times had lab people comment how consistent my exposure from frame to frame was. --Tom Shel Belinkoff wrote: Maybe ... but essentially I disagree with that statement. If the scene is an average scene, then an incident meter can be useful. However, add some deep shadows and some very bright highlights, and you're not going to get a reading that will allow for the best exposure, i.e., relying on what the incident meter tells you won't give you the opportunity to place shadow or highlight values. Further, there will be little opportunity to really learn about light and exposure. With a 1-degree spot meter you you can meter every part of the scene, and know exactly where the values will be and what you have to do to properly expose the film and what development will be needed. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
I was going to post something more on this subject, but after this, anything I put in would be redundant. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 12:38 PM Subject: Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) Hi, I wrote the following earlier today to be a reply to Shel's post. Some of it has been superceded by other people's replies, but I thought I'd send it anyway. Insert a terrific post here --- Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 9:39 AM Subject: Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) William Robb wrote: I have seen hand held light meters with spot attchments. These give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron the subject is far more accurate. Maybe ... but essentially I disagree with that statement. If the scene is an average scene, then an incident meter can be useful. However, add some deep shadows and some very bright highlights, and you're not going to get a reading that will allow for the best exposure, i.e., relying on what the incident meter tells you won't give you the opportunity to place shadow or highlight values. Further, there will be little opportunity to really learn about light and exposure. With a 1-degree spot meter you you can meter every part of the scene, and know exactly where the values will be and what you have to do to properly expose the film and what development will be needed. Pleas allow me to obfuscate further, the muzzification that I was attempting to induce in your less than obtuse mind.G For me, there is pretty much always a SUBJECT in the photograph. If I can walk up to that subject and stick a meter in it's face and get a reading, then I know exactly how much light is falling on it. I am about to admit to the world, something that I probably shouldn't admit. I don't give a rats ass about metering. I meter the subject, I decide where on the film curve I want it placed. I look (not meter, but look) at the subject in its context and decide what development strategy to follow with the negative I am about to expose. I then set aperture based on needed DOF and my shutter to give what I figure will give me a nice fat negative to play with. As I get older, I find that fat isn't so bad. I carry three empty film boxes with me. One is marked -, one N and one +. - gets 20% less development, and + gets 20% more, than normal. Sometimes. I will put the film sheet from one side of the film holder into one box, and the other into a different box. Sometimes I just expose one sheet, sometimes I expose a dozen on the same (exactly) scene and spread them indiscrimanately through all the boxes. I like to be where the fish are. Sometimes, I cast my hook and get a mermaid. Sometimes, just an ugly old carp. When I was younger, a pretty carp would pass as a mermaid. This is no longer the case. The only way to get better is to raise the bar above your head. Cheap light meters are not a good investment, IMO. The have a tendency to not be accurate, not have good linearity and not be colour blind (a fatal flaw in most light meters). I agree 100%. As an aside, spot meters are not the easiest things to learn how to use. It is not enough to just point the thing at a spot on the subject and transfer the reading to the camera. You have to be able to estimate accurately where on the tonal range of the film the area you are metering will fall, you have to know if your meter shows colour bias towards what you are measuring, and if so, how much so that it can be accounted for. And that was my original point in suggesting that some knowledge beforehand (Adams' Zone System, for example) is an important consideration when using a spot meter. The spot meter makes more demands of the user, but, in time, the user will better understand light and exposure. Personally, I think that anyone who wants to learn photography (Latin for painting with light) needs to use completely manual equipment. This is the only way to get to know what you are doing to the point it is second nature. Exposing film is not rocket science. It is driving a car, or a nail. Eventually, you can do it without a lot of concious thought. I suspect that the reason I am so lassez faire about my technique is because I know light. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
- Original Message - From: aimcompute Subject: Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) William Robb wrote: Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron the subject is far more accurate. Bill, Could you offer an explanation as to why this may be the case? No, Sorry, that is a postulate. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
Shel, Thank you for writing this. I am more of a lurker than an active participant on this list, but posts like this are why I love this list. I have both auto and manual on my Pentax. 95% of the time I leave it on all manual, but sometimes the laziness bites me and I switch to automatic. To protect myself, I am keeping my eyes open for a manual only. Having the option for auto makes me lazy. And I learn nothing from those shots. Thanks, Caleb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:09 PM Subject: Learning To make a Photograph There's been some discussion here about how many of us have felt that our photographs are not of the quality we'd like them to be. I have some thoughts on that, which, I hope, will lead to further discussion and help a few list members improve their skills and creativity. I firmly believe that using AF gear and automatic metering does not help one to really learn about making photographs (notice I said making, not taking). Recently I've returned to using 100% manual cameras - they don't even have light meters. The first thing I've become more conscious of is light, and the quality of light. Not that I didn't think about it before, but now I must pay more attention to it. I've been using a hand held spot meter and paying careful attention to what's in the shadows and where the specular highlights fall. My negs are looking a lot better, and my ability to read the light has improved to the point where using a meter is no longer as necessary as it had been. There are those who will argue against my position, and that's all well and good. However, to those people I'd say go out and start shooting with fully manual cameras again, eliminate the use of TTL metering and eschew autofocus and zoom lenses. It'll be some work, but in time I can almost guarantee that your pictures will improve. Why? Well, when you better understand the light, you'll get better images. But more than that, you'll be able to concentrate more on composition rather than being distracted by lights, needles, and a plethora of information in the viewfinder, and the need to fiddle with knobs, dials, and buttons to put the camera into the correct mode. You don't need all that stuff to make a photograph. And when you better understand focus and DOF - by focusing yourself, which I believe you can do more critically with a fully manual camera - and you start to understand where the zone of sharp focus is, you can begin to become more competent and creative. Stay away from zoom lenses with variable apertures. You never know for sure what the aperture is, or the focal length is, and how can that help your creativity in the long run. Sure, those lenses make taking a picture easier, and built-in meters make taking a picture easier, and autofocus makes taking a picture easier, but it doesn't always help you to ~make~ a superb photograph. Grab a fully manual camera, a prime lens, and go out and practice. Shoot every day. Process the film quickly and review the results. Learn from your mistakes, and go out and shoot another roll, and another, and another. Don't rely on the latitude of the film to carry you through. Learn to understand what the perfect exposure is for each frame you shoot, even if it means that you have to work slowly at first, and perhaps miss some great shots. Most of our great shots are crap anyway. When I returned to a fully manual camera I was surprised at how lazy I'd become. Somehow it seemed easier to let the camera's meter set the exposure, but then I had to think about the metering pattern, and how that might effect the exposure I wanted. How much simpler it is to read the light first and then just concentrate of shooting, and finding the best way to capture the subject. Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but carefully examine the work of the great photographers, regardless of their style. Look at the work of photo journalists, those who do documentary work, fashion photographers, and the like. Look at their prints whenever you can rather looking at their books or photos in magazines. I'm willing to bet that there are people on this list who have never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or HC-B, or Helmut Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in books or magazines. Look at the work of less experienced photographers, too. Go to galleries and exhibitions. Examine the prints not only from a contextual POV but from a technical perspective as well. Are your prints as sharp? Do your prints have the detail in the shadows? Are your highlights blown out? Why is their print less/more grainy than yours - you both use the same film? Be critical of your work, and of your gear. Don't settle for pretty good. Your reach should exceed your grasp. Think about making large prints instead of those
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
Congratulations!! I had a similar experience a few year back. I dug out one of my old Spotmatics, armed it with a few lenses and went on a hike (bushwalk in OZ). I had not used the camera for 15 years and, all of a sudden a switch was thrown. I had used the camera when my favourite emulsions was Kodachrome 35 and Pantatomic X. With those films, you had to learn to meter! The results were such that I sold my PZ1p and 28-105 lens. I have since added several manual bodies to my collection and my favourite is the MX although I do like my LX as well. Of note, I am not afraid of mounting my old 55 f 1.8 on either camera. For me, it still runs circles around the 50s f 1.4 and 1.7. That is MHO. I feel the same way about the 35 f 3.5 although I found and purchased a K 35 f 3.5 and sold my 2.8. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
Could it be that, sometimes, modern technology steer our attention away from what is really essential? In my case, I do feel overwhelmed by too many resources at times... Once I took a bag full of gear to try and shoot an specific subject. I was less than happy about the photographs I got. It made me think that maybe I could have done better with a Spotmatic K1000 and a single lens... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
Hi Shel! Many thanks for such a nice mail. I really liked your mail. In fact, many experienced photographers with whom I interacted told me exactly the same thing. Most of the time, I use metered manul mode in my camera but while making candid street photographs, I am forced to switch to aperture priority mode and let the camera take care of the exposure. Of course, I don't learn anything about exposure while making those photographs. (This is not a good quality being a photographer.) On the other hand, I concentrate only on the composition to catch the right moment. I think that I don't have the sense of understanding light and therefore I couldn't perform well, even in metered manual mode for candids. But I readily agree with you about the control of exposure in a photograph provided that the photographer has feel for light. With kind regards, Ayash K. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Learning To make a Photograph
Ayash Kanto Mukherjee wrote: Most of the time, I use metered manul mode in my camera but while making candid street photographs, I am forced to switch to aperture priority mode and let the camera take care of the exposure. Why are you forced to let the camera take over? Of course, I don't learn anything about exposure while making those photographs. So why not take the time to go fully manual and learn. You may make some mistakes, but you'll learn from those errors. On the other hand, I concentrate only on the composition to catch the right moment. And how are your photographs? Are you satisfied with their quality? I think that I don't have the sense of understanding light and therefore I couldn't perform well, even in metered manual mode for candids. May I suggest reading a few books about light and exposure. While many people feel that Ansel Adams' Zone System is an outmoded method of exposure and development, I believe it offers great insight into how film works and can give one a good understanding of light and proper exposure technique. I also feel that working with BW negative film, and processing your own negatives, will help you understand more about exposure than shooting with color film. But I readily agree with you about the control of exposure in a photograph provided that the photographer has feel for light. Then you must start working with it. Perhaps if you got a spot meter and carried it with you all the time, and used it to measure light in the scenes you see, even if you're not making photographs. Bill Robb of this list impressed upon me the value of a spot meter, and his comments motivated me to get one. I bought a Pentax Spotmeter V and took it everywhere. I pointed it at trees, at shadows, at faces, at the sky ... I measured everything and was surprised at the results. For weeks I never took a picture, I just used the Pentax meter, and since i already had an understanding of the Zone System, what I was learning from the meter made sense. Soon after that I got a completely manual, meterless camera, and it took a few months of shooting almost every day to become completely comfortable with it and the spot meter. You will never learn if you keep falling back on your automatic camera. You must allow yourself to make mistakes, and learn from them. Good luck ... and keep at it. Cheers! -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
