How to get INCIDENT light reading with DSLR?

[I Simonius]

How can one reliably get an incident light reading using the meter in a DSLR (20D/30D/5D/1D ETC)?

The reason I ask is that I used to be able to with my film SLRs but that metod doesn't work with DSLRs

I still have a small piece of plastic that sat (like the expodisk but cheaper) over the lens to give an incident reading ( when pointed to the light source) but it doesn't seem to work with my DSLR - any ideas why?

[SkipD]

To do what you want, you would have to have a specially designed translucent white dome made to go over your lens. The amount of light that gets through it would be critical, as you need to have the light seen by the sensor on the inside of the dome be identical to the light that would be reflected from a standard gray card.

My strong suggestion would be to forget it and get a decent handheld meter that can do incident readings. The handheld meter will be FAR easier to use, even if you could solve the rather significant engineering problems and production costs to make an adapter for your camera's metering system.

[coreypolis]

get a light meter that takes ambient readings. Getting a reading from camera position would be pointless the majority of the time, as the light is falling on the subject ata different angle and intencity as the camera

[I Simonius]

To do what you want, you would have to have a specially designed translucent white dome made to go over your lens. The amount of light that gets through it would be critical, as you need to have the light seen by the sensor on the inside of the dome be identical to the light that would be reflected from a standard gray card.

My strong suggestion would be to forget it and get a decent handheld meter that can do incident readings. The handheld meter will be FAR easier to use, even if you could solve the rather significant engineering problems and production costs to make an adapter for your camera's metering system.

Surely an Hand held incident light meter, is just a meter with a light dome over it? Why should it be any better than a correctly designed dome over the camera meter?

I used to have one that went over the camera lens and did the job PERFECTLY, but for some reason the same one won't work with my DSLRs meter. There was noting complicated with te one I used before and it was CHEAP, but it worked flawlessly!

[cdifoto]

Maybe it has something to do with the reflective properties of the camera's sensor.

[I Simonius]

get a light meter that takes ambient readings. Getting a reading from camera position would be pointless the majority of the time, as the light is falling on the subject ata different angle and intencity as the camera

Whether one has a Hand held Light meter or one on the camera the ability to take incident readings would be the same for both instances, all that it required is that the same light falls on you as on the subject. A light meter that makes incident readings is no better at this than a camera with a plastic dome to cover the lens. (obviously you point the camera meter toward the light source not the subject!:rolleyes: )

I have never heard of a meter that takes 'Ambient' readings. Surely 'ambient' light defines all light EXCEPT the direct incident light or reflected light, both of which normally would be what you wanted to meter over and above ambient light, i..e a reflected light reading would auotmatically include ambient light as well, whereas an incident reading would exclude it, but to meter ambient light alone would only be useful if you had reason to suspect that it was so strong as to confuse an incident reading, as I said it would make no difference witha normal reflected reading surely?

[I Simonius]

Maybe it has something to do with the reflective properties of the camera's sensor.

How do you mean?

My thought is that it is probably more to do with the new highly intelligent 'evaluative' systems that would require a very even spread over the metering area to be forced to average out. Whatis probably happening is that it interprets the light from the dome (cover) as one of the scenes in it's program and adjusts accordingly. Unfortunately that adjustment throws it off.

What I might try again is using the plastic I used to use but just set the camera to average metering, and in fact now that the camera has spot I migt see if that works with the plastic cover.

Certainly (using manual mode) I used to find incident readings more reliable than reflected for most outdoor scenes

[cdifoto]

I mean the fact that a digital camera sensor is mirror-like and bounces light back from it, it might be incompatible with your meter dome. It's possible that the ambient light through the lens is being bounced back and messing it up.

I have never seen nor heard of the device you're talking about so I'm just wildly guessing. I'm assuming by "doesn't work" and "throws it off" you mean the readings are inaccurate...not that it simply will no function at all. The reflective properties of the sensor could be the cause.

What kind of inaccuracy are we talking about? Underexposure? Overexposure? The reason I ask is E-TTL flash metering falls victim to the same scenarios...a mirror in your scene will render the scene nearly black when shooting in E-TTL unless you adjust the FEC to compensate.

[I Simonius]

I mean the fact that a digital camera sensor is mirror-like and bounces light back from it, it might be incompatible with your meter dome. It's possible that the ambient light through the lens is being bounced back and messing it up.

I have never seen nor heard of the device you're talking about so I'm just wildly guessing. I'm assuming by "doesn't work" and "throws it off" you mean the readings are inaccurate...not that it simply will no function at all. The reflective properties of the sensor could be the cause.

What kind of inaccuracy are we talking about? Underexposure? Overexposure? The reason I ask is E-TTL flash metering falls victim to the same scenarios...a mirror in your scene will render the scene nearly black when shooting in E-TTL unless you adjust the FEC to compensate.

I only tested it on my 20D and it was wildly off so I never gave it another thought, I can't remember if it was over or under, I need to do more testing now I have the 5D!

Expodisk (.com?) still make them but the one I had was FREE and did the job just as well

[SkipD]

Surely an Hand held incident light meter, is just a meter with a light dome over it? Why should it be any better than a correctly designed dome over the camera meter?While you might make up something that lets the camera function as an incident meter, it surely would not be convenient to use. Whenever I am using an incident meter, my camera is usually on a tripod. I wouldn't want to pull the camera off the tripod, potentially messing up my setup, just to measure the lighting. A handheld meter is the only thing that makes sense to me.

In addition, there's absolutely no way that the camera's meter can function as a flash meter. If you want to use a meter in a studio situation with flash lighting sources, the camera/filter solution is totally useless.

The minimal cost of a good meter like a Sekonic L-358, as compared to the combined cost and aggravation of alternatives, makes all the sense in the world.

[I Simonius]

While you might make up something that lets the camera function as an incident meter, it surely would not be convenient to use. Whenever I am using an incident meter, my camera is usually on a tripod. I wouldn't want to pull the camera off the tripod, potentially messing up my setup, just to measure the lighting. A handheld meter is the only thing that makes sense to me.

In addition, there's absolutely no way that the camera's meter can function as a flash meter. If you want to use a meter in a studio situation with flash lighting sources, the camera/filter solution is totally useless.

The minimal cost of a good meter like a Sekonic L-358, as compared to the combined cost and aggravation of alternatives, makes all the sense in the world.

Not interested in using such a thing in the studio, outdoors only, and never for flash

Actually it is really easy to use and I used to find it very handy and accurate. Just can't get one for the DSLR

[PhotosGuy]

I used to have one that went over the camera lens and did the job PERFECTLY, but for some reason the same one won't work with my DSLRs meter. There was noting complicated with te one I used before and it was CHEAP, but it worked flawlessly! Film meters go for 18% gray. Digital seems to key on the highlights.
Gray card: Why your meter may be lying to you! I started out to check one thing & learned about another.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54281
Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58677

[I Simonius]

Film meters go for 18% gray. Digital seems to key on the highlights.
Gray card: Why your meter may be lying to you! I started out to check one thing & learned about another.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54281
Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58677

Thanks yeah seen those posts before and one other just like it on the net but lost the link

Digital exposing is a new ball game - I thought I had exposure down to a'T' until I went digital, now it's like having Tansparancies, negatives AND digital to consider. It needs its own protocol

There is an edge to the white plastic I put over the lens which does produces a highligt of sorts and that is probably what it throwing tings off

All the same Incident light readings rock, if you can get them!

[mbze430]

using a 18% gray card at the subject is an incident reading.

[coreypolis]

using a 18% gray card at the subject is an incident reading.

thats reflective metering, the same thign the camera already soes, just ensuring that you are correctly metering a middle tone.


i still don't get why you would want ot meter from camera position, as it would be few and far between times when the light on you and the subject is the same

[I Simonius]

using a 18% gray card at the subject is an incident reading.

Look guys I don't want to get into semantics here..

what I am talking about is metering the light FALLING on the subject not the light REFLECTED from the subject or reflected from anything else (gray card or not) in the same position as the subject (which is what happens when you metter of a card at the same location as the subject)

[I Simonius]

thats reflective metering, the same thign the camera already soes, just ensuring that you are correctly metering a middle tone.


i still don't get why you would want ot meter from camera position, as it would be few and far between times when the light on you and the subject is the same

Not true actually when I'm outside the times that the same light are on me and on the subject are very frequent.

You are right that there would be few times when you would want to doo this indoors or ina studio - then it would be very complicated.

However when outside it is one of the most RELIABLE and EASY ways to meter especially when you are a long way from your subject.

I didn't realise this was going to be so new to people it was all the rage in "film' days :lol:

[cdifoto]

what I am talking about is metering the light FALLING on the subject not the light REFLECTED from the subject or reflected from anything else

Three words:

Handheld. Light. Meter.

You're making it far more complicated and troublesome than it has to be. Incident meters can be had fairly inexpensively and with far less stress.

[PhotosGuy]

Three words:

Handheld. White. Paper. ;)

Meters are useful. But paper works as well for me.

[I Simonius]

Three words:

Handheld. Light. Meter.

You're making it far more complicated and troublesome than it has to be. Incident meters can be had fairly inexpensively and with far less stress.

what could be cheaper and less stressful than a piece of plastic you put over the lens?:rolleyes:

[I Simonius]

Three words:

Handheld. White. Paper. ;)

Meters are useful. But paper works as well for me.

Sounds great-

OK just imagine the scenario... I'm walking the Norfolk flats, it's cloudy,it's wet, it's muddy, it's windy.. it's been peeing it down for the last hour, but there's a break in the clouds over me and over the subject in the distance, .., quick get the bit of white paper out - 'OH look it's got all soggy! Never mind I'll just lay it over there - ooops no it's blown away'. :lol: :lol: Might work great indoors but I'm talking outside! ( as I've said several times)

How is that easier than putting a piece of white plastic over the lens and pointing it at the sun, or even if it's still cloudy at the grey sky?

- INCIDENT light readings are the BEST for landscape but no one seems to use it , or even know about it anymore!:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[PacAce]

Why not just figure out how much your incident reading with the plastic dome is off by and just dial that in every time you want to take an incident reading using the dome? Seems simple enough for me.

[condyk]

... quick get the bit of white paper out - 'OH look it's got all soggy! Never mind I'll just lay it over there - ooops no it's blown away'. :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: That's exactly why I don't use white paper ... plus the idea lacks sufficient elegance, but each to their own ;)

[mbze430]

Look guys I don't want to get into semantics here..

what I am talking about is metering the light FALLING on the subject not the light REFLECTED from the subject or reflected from anything else (gray card or not) in the same position as the subject (which is what happens when you metter of a card at the same location as the subject)

Incident and Grey Card (http://www.nyip.com/tips/tip_graycard.html)

Must I do this everytime I make a suggestion?

[I Simonius]

Incident and Grey Card (http://www.nyip.com/tips/tip_graycard.html)

Must I do this everytime I make a suggestion?

I think you have misinterpreted the article it says incident AND grey card readings NOT that grey card readings are incident readings, but their explanation leaves it open to abiguous interpretation. I.e. it could look like they are saying that grey card reading is incident, but they aren't "- either read the light off a gray card or take an incident reading"

Nice link though;)

[mbze430]

Method One is to take a gray-card reading. A gray-card is a piece of cardboard that is colored a precise tone that reflects 18% of the light that strikes it. This tone is 18% gray.

© NYI Staff
You take a reading of a gray card using either your camera's built-in meter or a hand-held. Just make sure the card is tilted so that the light that falls on it is similar to the light that is falling on your subject. You already know that your meter is calibrated to give you a reading that will produce an 18%-gray tone on your film. This means the tone of the gray-card would be duplicated perfectly on the film. It also means that all other tones, lighter or darker, will be faithfully reproduced on the film too. So whether your subject is blonde or brunette, snow or coal, red or green, it will be faithfully reproduced and properly exposed on your film.

An incident-reading with a hand-held meter gives you the same result. <snip>

The milky plastic dome transmits only 18% of the light it sees <snip>

If you understand how a light meter works when it takes a incident reading, than you understand why the 18% grey is the same effect when reflecting agaist the light source.


Anyone with a grey card and a meter can verify that this is TRUE

When I was doing my photography in school, that is exactly what they taught us, and I have verified MANY times that this is true.

[cdifoto]

I can vouch for that. My grey card and my Sekonic L-358 give me the EXACT same exposure settings under my studio hot light. If that ain't proof I dunno what is.

[I Simonius]

snip

When I was in photography school, that exactly what they taught us. If you are not prepare with a meter, find a 18% and reflect it against the light source, and take the reading, and it is your incident reading.

WRONG - sorry, they are incorrect if they CALLED it an 'incident' reading, it isn't, it is still reflected light not incidental light. (Both methods do give you an 18% gray reading though)

NB they do NOT say on their site that that method (grey card) is an 'incidental' reading.;)

No one is suggesting that you will get a different reading using an incident reading over a grey card reading, only that the terminology ('incident' light reading)cannot correctly be applied to both methods.

When you meter from a grey card you are still reading the REFLECTED light FROM the card.

With an incident reading you are not reading any reflected light but the light FALLING directly from the SOURCE onto the meter (albeit via a filter - the incident light dome) i.e. you are reading NON-REFLECTED light. Whether using a hand held meter or piece of plastic over a lens the principle is the same

As I said already the explanation on the site can be interpreted the wrong way (i.e.is ambiguous). With all due respect If you still disagree I recommend taking it up with your tutors because they have confused you.

The expodisk USED to be the thing for incident light readings but it has been demoted to a white balance gadget, which can only mean that you can no longer use the same method with digital cameras - so back to my original question - why not?

FWIW:From a quick google on expodisk:
http://www.expoimaging.net/Reviews_Testimonials/testimonials.aspx

[I Simonius]

I can vouch for that. My grey card and my Sekonic L-358 give me the EXACT same exposure settings under my studio hot light. If that ain't proof I dunno what is.

proof of what?:lol:

The arguement is NOT about whether you can get a proper reading from one method over another!:rolleyes: it is about what the term 'incidental' means;) :D

[mbze430]

How can one relaibly get an incident light reading using the meter in a DSLR (20D/30D/5D/1D ETC?

I still have a small piece of plastic that sat (like the expodisk but cheaper) over the lens to give an incident reading but it doesn't seem to work with my DSLR - any ideas why?

Not according to your original post. You were NOT asking about the definition of what is Incident reading. Sounds like you were trying to figure out HOW to get an incident reading without using a meter. I have given you that.


So please don't try to change the subject.

If you understood how an incident light meter works, you would have picked up my other BOLD sentence. In order for YOU to get your little cap to work, you need to get a cap that only allow 18% light through to turn your camera in to an incident meter. Than point your camera towards the light source to get the reading.

I am sure you going to ask me why face it against the light source but not the area where you going to be shooting... that's because the cap is most likely to be flat. Which is exactly lilke having the dome of the meter in the retracted mode. Which can only read a single source lighting. If you were to find a cap in a dome, you can than point the camera to the area you are planning to shoot to get the incident reading.

But of course YOU need to find a cap that will only allow 18% light...

[I Simonius]

Why not just figure out how much your incident reading with the plastic dome is off by and just dial that in every time you want to take an incident reading using the dome? Seems simple enough for me.

Yeah I did think of that but ti didn't consistantly go in one direction

I will do some extensive tests with the average metering set, and also the spot and partial, it may just have been the evaluative that was throwing it off.

I would have done it today but only ducks and fish can survive out there with the weather as it is at the moment:lol: :lol:

[I Simonius]

Not according to your original post. You were NOT asking about the definition of what is Incident reading.

You're right but that's what it has become

Sounds like you were trying to figure out HOW to get an incident reading without using a meter. We have given you that.

have you? I missed that! Surely that is what the discussion has become about - you being convinced that you have answered the original question when you haven't:rolleyes:

So please don't try to change the subject.
It's my thread it can go where I like:lol:

sorry if I rattled your cage mate, I'm not trying to be unfriendly, it's not my fault if you've been misinformed. I have tried to explain reasonably what the problem is with your understanding of the term 'incidental', how you equate that to my trying to change the subject baffles me, I'm trying to be helpful for Chrissakes!:D

[I Simonius]

SO far it is clear (from those that understand the term) that it is no longer possible to get a device that reliably provides 'INCIDENTAL' light readings on a DSLR. (not using evaluative metering anyway)

I'll do some more trials tomorrow weather permitting:cool:

[SkipD]

I didn't realise this was going to be so new to people it was all the rage in "film' days :lol:I've been into photography since well before "digital" was even a word that meant anything but something related to your fingers (digits), and I never heard of anybody doing anything so silly (my opinion) as trying to convert a camera with a built-in meter into an incident meter.

Lots of folks in the "olden days" would use a gray card and effectively have precisely the same thing as what an incident meter would provide, but even that was much more inconvenient.

A handheld meter with incident and reflected modes (plus flash modes these days) is the only thing that really makes sense, assuming you can afford the meter. If you can't afford a handheld meter, the standard gray card comes in second.

[PhotosGuy]

... plus the idea lacks sufficient elegance, Maybe now we're getting down to it? Several months ago a member said he wanted a handheld meter so he "Could look more profshinal"! :D

[mbze430]

You're right but that's what it has become



have you? I missed that! Surely that is what the discussion has become about - you being convinced that you have answered the original question when you haven't:rolleyes:


It's my thread it can go where I like:lol:

sorry if I rattled your cage mate, I'm not trying to be unfriendly, it's not my fault if you've been misinformed. I have tried to explain reasonably what the problem is with your understanding of the term 'incidental', how you equate that to my trying to change the subject baffles me, I'm trying to be helpful for Chrissakes!:D

Go back to page two (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1567086&postcount=30)and read my post about the cap. It clearly explain how to do it.

[mbze430]

Sorry to say, I AM properly educated and informed. You are the one that is lacking. I am not the one asking, and someone already confirms the use of Grey card to get incident reading. Anyone else is more than welcome to try.

You can argue all you want about the definition what is incident reading is. Which I will agree this is not "incident" with a grey card, but it is the same method how Incident reading are acquired.

But the end results is, getting the right reading. Which using a 18% card reflecting the light source and reading from a spot meter will do.

[coreypolis]

Sorry to say, I AM properly educated and informed. You are the one that is lacking. I am not the one asking, and someone already confirms the use of Grey card to get incident reading. Anyone else is more than welcome to try.

You can argue all you want about the definition what is incident reading is. Which I will agree this is not "incident" with a grey card, but it is the same method how Incident reading are acquired.

using a gray card to get an incident reading is reflective metering. you're measuring the light bouncing off the card, it just also happens to be the same as the light falling off of it. thats really no help to his problem at all, and it would be just as easy to get a reflective reading off of your palm or deep blue sky of dark green grass

[I Simonius]

I've been into photography since well before "digital" was even a word that meant anything but something related to your fingers (digits), and I never heard of anybody doing anything so silly (my opinion) as trying to convert a camera with a built-in meter into an incident meter.

Lots of folks in the "olden days" would use a gray card and effectively have precisely the same thing as what an incident meter would provide, but even that was much more inconvenient.

A handheld meter with incident and reflected modes (plus flash modes these days) is the only thing that really makes sense, assuming you can afford the meter. If you can't afford a handheld meter, the standard gray card comes in second.

Somehow were missing the point here: how for example would you use a grey card on a hopping bird, or a swimming seal 500 yards away?, e.g.if it was in a pool with dark grey clouds behind it and light sand in front of it but with the direct sun on its body what could be easier than an incident reading?

i.e. you meter the sun falling on you, it is the SAME as that falling on the subject, so despite it being in an awkward spot to meter using anything but spot metering, (even that is difficult ona moving subject), incident readings very simply with no fuss give you the reading you need in those circumstances

Whether you like to carry a seperate meter (extra wheight and bulk) or simply hold a piece of calibrated plastic over the lens for a couple of seconds facing the opposite way, is a matter of choice. Personally I found the latter worked very well and very cheaply for years

Im not trying to persuade you to like the method, I couldn't care less whether it makes sense for you or not. I Also used to have a pentax spotmeter but left it at home when shooting landscapes. Never found it necessary for outdoors shooting with the combo of the incident method and spot metering on my F1ns

[I Simonius]

Sorry to say, I AM properly educated and informed. You are the one that is lacking. I am not the one asking, and someone already confirms the use of Grey card to get incident reading. Anyone else is more than welcome to try.

You can argue all you want about the definition what is incident reading is. Which I will agree this is not "incident" with a grey card, but it is the same method how Incident reading are acquired.

But the end results is, getting the right reading. Which using a 18% card reflecting the light source and reading from a spot meter will do.

Now you are just plain contradicting yourself:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[I Simonius]

Go back to page two (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1567086&postcount=30)and read my post about the cap. It clearly explain how to do it.

Ah yes I see. Well you are stating the obvious I'm afraid. That is exactly what I was using and the method, what I wanted to know is, why when it used to work with SLRs does it not work with DSLRs?

I wasn't asking HOW to use an incident light meter, sorry for not making that clear
( I have edited my original post to make it less ambiguous)

[I Simonius]

using a gray card to get an incident reading is reflective metering. you're measuring the light bouncing off the card, it just also happens to be the same as the light falling off of it. thats really no help to his problem at all, and it would be just as easy to get a reflective reading off of your palm or deep blue sky of dark green grass

Exactly!

[mbze430]

Well good luck, unless you can find a cap that only allow 18% light through its pretty pointless... get an exposedisc. It supposed to be based on it. Which is still pointless, because you would still have to walk to your subject, point the camera to where you where going to shoot from, take the reading.. walk back.. turn around again.. and take the shot.

[I Simonius]

Well good luck, unless you can find a cap that only allow 18% light through its pretty pointless... get an exposedisc. It supposed to be based on it.

Well that's the thing, the plastic cap I have from the old days DOES only allow 18% through, and as I said, worked very well with the film cameras

Also expodisk no longer claim their product is useful for incidental readings, only white balance.( i'd be interested to know why that changed)

I will do some more tests tomorrow and see if I can work out why it won't work with the DSLR

[jfrancho]

Hey Simon! I'm going to stray off topic a bit, but what is the primary advantage to metering a landscape this way?

[mbze430]

well without able to see your histrogram in seperated channel it hard to say.
And than we need to compare a film strip as well.

[coreypolis]

Hey Simon! I'm going to stray off topic a bit, but what is the primary advantage to metering a landscape this way?

incident metering in general holds a lot of advantages, as every tone will be replicated as it is naturally. reflective metering (how your camera meters) is easy so skew, so if you have a primarily dark or light toned subject it wants to render it middle gray. the whole premice is that reflective metering lends everything 18% gray, so where and how and what mode you meter with plays a part.

now using a incident metering system from camrea position to me is useless, as the there are other variables to account for, but to each their own. It sounds like Simon is looking for a cheep and fast solution to metering rather than going the convential way of metering from the subject

[I Simonius]

Hey Simon! I'm going to stray off topic a bit, but what is the primary advantage to metering a landscape this way?

It depends on the lighting conditions, but mostly it is useful when the subject is a long way away, but IN THE SAME LIGHT as you. especially when the subject moves from one background lighting to another quickly but is in a consistant light itself, or when a lot of the area around the subject is of greatly varying tones.

[someone recently asked in another post how to meter for a white bird in the distance against a very dark background shadow - the bird was in the same light as the photographer - perfect scenario for the simplicity of an incident light reading]

Or when the subject is in the same light but there is a lot of things near the subject that could throw the metering off, e.g. snow, sand, black soil, dark rocks.

Easy example: Suppose you want to shoot the kids running on a wet backlit sandy beach, sometimes they pass in front of the dark sea defences ( the defences are in shaow but the kids are in bright sun, or diffuse light , whatever), sometimes the sky is the background sometimes the water, as they run all over, going from very bright background to very dark.

An incident reading lets you set a manual setting without having to work out how many stops to compensate for each of the different backgrounds. Otherwise suppose you metered off the wet sand with the sun on the kids would just be a silhouette, but if you metered off the dark groynes or shaded area behind them they';d be over exposed. You could try to get close enough to them to meter them or use the palm of your hand, but these have their own inherent problems ( what if your palm is sweaty and held at the wrong angle? It will reflect too much light and put the reading off)

Another scenario is where you are in sunlight, a feature (or creature) in the landscape is, or you hope soon will be, in sunlight , but most is in shadow. You can meter from the light falling on you, and take the pic when the clouds clear to release the same light on your subject. Or the opposite.

I.e. an incident light reading makes life very easy in ANY complicated metering situation where the light fallijg on the part of the subject you want to meter is the same as the light that FALLs on you (NOT reflected off you, as in some situations that can be different)

So for a landscape, depending on what you visualise, if the light falling on you is the same as that falling on the part of the landscape you want to expose correctly, it makes life VERY easy and accurate

Does that help?
:)

[I Simonius]

incident metering in general holds a lot of advantages, as every tone will be replicated as it is naturally. reflective metering (how your camera meters) is easy so skew, so if you have a primarily dark or light toned subject it wants to render it middle gray. the whole premice is that reflective metering lends everything 18% gray, so where and how and what mode you meter with plays a part.

now using a incident metering system from camrea position to me is useless, as the there are other variables to account for, but to each their own. It sounds like Simon is looking for a cheep and fast solution to metering rather than going the convential way of metering from the subject

That's right; it isn't good for every situation, but the situations it is good for it is very good for and so EASY!

I have no problems metering from the subject but there are times when you are not 100% sure so even if you just use incident as a check it is still useful. Most of the time though it simply makes life easier, it must be one of the most uncomplicated ways to meter.

Although due to film or sensor latitude you may still need compensation for very bright or very dark scenes

[SkipD]

Somehow were missing the point here: how for example would you use a grey card on a hopping bird, or a swimming seal 500 yards away?, e.g.if it was in a pool with dark grey clouds behind it and light sand in front of it but with the direct sun on its body what could be easier than an incident reading?Any of the methods for measuring the amount of light falling on a subject - a real incident meter (with the translucent hemisphere), taking a reflected reading off a standard gray card, measuring light reflecting off your hand (after doing experimental "calibration" of that method - understanding that you need to change by so much to match the 18% gray card reading, etc.), or your adapter to use the camera as an incident meter would work equally well for the outdoor situation you are describing. The assumption is, of course, that the light falling on your position is the same intensity as that falling on the subject of interest.

One advantage of the gray card or handheld incident meter is that you can emulate whatever changes there may be at a distant subject. For example, if you know the subject is under a shade tree, you could hold the gray card or the incident meter) under something that shades the card or meter in about the same way as the shaded subject.

With outdoor photography, once you have enough experience, you can pretty closely estimate exposure settings. If you use either a handheld meter or mentally note exposure settings in an automated camera, you will find that you are seeing very repeatable light levels outdoors. Of course, a cloudy day is different from a bright sunny day, but it isn't hard to estimate either after enough experience with a meter. This, of course, assumes that you pay attention to the meter readings (handheld or built-in) while using it.

[I Simonius]

Any of the methods for measuring the amount of light falling on a subject - a real incident meter (with the translucent hemisphere), taking a reflected reading off a standard gray card, measuring light reflecting off your hand (after doing experimental "calibration" of that method - understanding that you need to change by so much to match the 18% gray card reading, etc.), or your adapter to use the camera as an incident meter would work equally well for the outdoor situation you are describing. The assumption is, of course, that the light falling on your position is the same intensity as that falling on the subject of interest.

One advantage of the gray card or handheld incident meter is that you can emulate whatever changes there may be at a distant subject. For example, if you know the subject is under a shade tree, you could hold the gray card or the incident meter) under something that shades the card or meter in about the same way as the shaded subject.

With outdoor photography, once you have enough experience, you can pretty closely estimate exposure settings. If you use either a handheld meter or mentally note exposure settings in an automated camera, you will find that you are seeing very repeatable light levels outdoors. Of course, a cloudy day is different from a bright sunny day, but it isn't hard to estimate either after enough experience with a meter. This, of course, assumes that you pay attention to the meter readings (handheld or built-in) while using it.

Sure any scene can be metered by any method, however some wanted to know when it might be useful to use incident.

I hope this isnt turning into an incident versus other metering methods debate, it was never my intent to extol its virtues over and above other methods. I'm not suggesting these scenes can't be metered by nreflected readings just that it is just as easy to use incident, and sometimes easier depending on what you're most familar with

[jfrancho]

I guess I'm just not sold on incident metering for landscapes. Thanks all for the explanations. The various metering tools available in camera, as well as AEB work well enough for me. I suppose there are some issues with reflections off various surfaces, which would be a problem with what Simon is suggesting - taking a light reading where you're standing and applying it to a large scene. In a more controlled setting, the meter is a very useful tool, especially when using strobes and reflectors. Cuts the math down to simple "on your fingers" computations.

[I Simonius]

I guess I'm just not sold on incident metering for landscapes. Thanks all for the explanations. The various metering tools available in camera, as well as AEB work well enough for me. I suppose there are some issues with reflections off various surfaces, which would be a problem with what Simon is suggesting - taking a light reading where you're standing and applying it to a large scene. In a more controlled setting, the meter is a very useful tool, especially when using strobes and reflectors. Cuts the math down to simple "on your fingers" computations.

Incident readings are just another tool, it is not an indispensable one by any means but just a handy (and EASY!) thing to have available if you can.;)