Light meter....incident or reflective...

I have a question about using an old school light meter, Gossen Luna Pro with the battery adapter. I shot my first roll of medium format film last week and using my 30d to meter the scene. It works and the shots were a bit overexposed. With the Gossen Luna Pro light meter, I can meter the scene with ambient light or reflective. Let say I want to take a light reading of some tree during the fall foliage and there is a body of water (lake) in between me and the trees. The sun is at my back, 8 o clock. Do I meter this scene with the incident mode? Or do I meter off the reflective light coming from the trees? Would the reflective mode be accurate even when I am no where near my subjects?

I always use mine in incident because you are measuring the light falling on the subject. In reflective mode your meter is subject to the same issues that befalls your camera meter. Namely the reflectivity of the subject. And since the light falling on your is the same as that falling on the subject you should be good to go, unless there is a variable that I'm missing in the description.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15135307
I always use mine in incident because you are measuring the light falling on the subject. In reflective mode your meter is subject to the same issues that befalls your camera meter. Namely the reflectivity of the subject. And since the light falling on your is the same as that falling on the subject you should be good to go, unless there is a variable that I'm missing in the description.

Now, what if my locations is a bit shady. Won't the incident reading is reading off only the ambient lighting at where I am standing? Not where I am shooting at?

TooManyShots wrote in post #15135333
Now, what if my locations is a bit shady. Won't the incident reading is reading off only the ambient lighting at where I am standing? Not where I am shooting at?

Sure, if the light you are standing in is different than the light falling on the subject then incident at the point of shooting wont work. I was just generalizing about a setup where you have a lake in the middle, but the light is the same. The distance between you and subject doesnt really matter provided you are in the same sunlight. The problem with reflective metering, unless you have the spot attachment, is that at any distance you are metering pretty much the entire scene and anything in it. With a spot meter attachment, if one is available for your meter, then you can measure part of a scene in reflective mode. Of course you can do the same thing in your camera so why bother with the handheld meter in reflective mode.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15135369
Sure, if the light you are standing in is different than the light falling on the subject then incident at the point of shooting wont work. I was just generalizing about a setup where you have a lake in the middle, but the light is the same. The distance between you and subject doesnt really matter provided you are in the same sunlight. The problem with reflective metering, unless you have the spot attachment, is that at any distance you are metering pretty much the entire scene and anything in it. With a spot meter attachment, if one is available for your meter, then you can measure part of a scene in reflective mode. Of course you can do the same thing in your camera so why bother with the handheld meter in reflective mode.

Thanks. This makes sense. No, I am shooting my Yashica Mat. Since I have a light meter, I don't want to carry around a DSLR, 30D, just to use it to meter the scene.

I have a yashicamat and two old rollieflex, they are fun to mess with. I used my luna pro F with them too

gonzogolf wrote in post #15135391
I have a yashicamat and two old rollieflex, they are fun to mess with. I used my luna pro F with them too

I find the scans, depending where you scan them, to be very good too and needless to say I am in love with medium format film right now.

Not implying that you need one, but here's a quick primer on meters.

Essentially, a meter measures the quantity of light present and provides an exposure value (shutter speeds/apertures) to render that quantity of light as middle (18%) gray. It does this in both the incident and reflective modes, but they both work a little differently and the choice of which to use depends on what you're looking to do.

If you were to take a reflective reading off of a black wall, you'd get an exposure value that would render that wall as medium gray. If you were to take a reading off of a white wall, you'd get an exposure value to render that wall as medium gray. In fact, an interesting test of this is to use your dslr to do just that. Fill the frame with a black wall and shoot with the meter centered, do the same for a white wall...both images *should* look about the same when you review them.

An incident reading (with the white dome in place and the meter pointed at the camera) isn't affected by the subjects reflective qualities and really only measures quantity of light, so, in theory anyway, if you were to take an incident reading (Meter pointed at the camera) while standing in front of the black wall, it would be rendered closer to a black wall than a gray wall and the same with the white. Interesting aside...most cinematographers have traditionally only used incident readings for motion picture film, IIRC.

If you are using a reflective meter from any distance (as in your landscape images) it's really difficult to say what reflective factors are influencing the meter, and the exposure value may or may not be appropriate...your call. Generally though, there are sufficient light/dark/middle values that will average out to produce an 'average' exposure....but, if you've inadvertently included too much sky in the metering area for example, it could seriously under-expose the tree that you're really interested in....because it will provide an EV to turn that sky (based on whatever percentage that you've included it in the reading) into middle gray.

I'm not a landscape photographer, so can't offer specific advice, but I think for most scenes that include a wide range of values, and where the reading is taken from the camera position, an incident reading might be best.

And yes, when using an incident meter, you want to be in the same light as your subject.

Foodguy wrote in post #15135446
Not implying that you need one, but here's a quick primer on meters.

Essentially, a meter measures the quantity of light present and provides an exposure value (shutter speeds/apertures) to render that quantity of light as middle (18%) gray. It does this in both the incident and reflective modes, but they both work a little differently and the choice of which to use depends on what you're looking to do.

If you were to take a reflective reading off of a black wall, you'd get an exposure value that would render that wall as medium gray. If you were to take a reading off of a white wall, you'd get an exposure value to render that wall as medium gray. In fact, an interesting test of this is to use your dslr to do just that. Fill the frame with a black wall and shoot with the meter centered, do the same for a white wall...both images *should* look about the same when you review them.

An incident reading (with the white dome in place and the meter pointed at the camera) isn't affected by the subjects reflective qualities and really only measures quantity of light, so, in theory anyway, if you were to take an incident reading (Meter pointed at the camera) while standing in front of the black wall, it would be rendered closer to a black wall than a gray wall and the same with the white. Interesting aside...most cinematographers have traditionally only used incident readings for motion picture film, IIRC.

If you are using a reflective meter from any distance (as in your landscape images) it's really difficult to say what reflective factors are influencing the meter, and the exposure value may or may not be appropriate...your call. Generally though, there are sufficient light/dark/middle values that will average out to produce an 'average' exposure....but, if you've inadvertently included too much sky in the metering area for example, it could seriously under-expose the tree that you're really interested in....because it will provide an EV to turn that sky (based on whatever percentage that you've included it in the reading) into middle gray.

I'm not a landscape photographer, so can't offer specific advice, but I think for most scenes that include a wide range of values, and where the reading is taken from the camera position, an incident reading might be best.

And yes, when using an incident meter, you want to be in the same light as your subject.

Yes, that makes sense. With a DSLR, you can just frame the shot (zoom) to cut the sky as much as possible and the meter value should be accurate enough.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15135408
I find the scans, depending where you scan them, to be very good too and needless to say I am in love with medium format film right now.


Unfortunately, to get good scans, it is a bit pricy. $20 for a roll of 120, developed, scanned, uploaded, and returned. I really have to be careful what I shoot.

Have you stopped to find out the pixel resolution of scans of your film?
I did 135 film process and scan a number of years ago, and the scan resolution was pathetically low in pixel count.

Wilt wrote in post #15136786
Have you stopped to find out the pixel resolution of scans of your film?
I did 135 film process and scan a number of years ago, and the scan resolution was pathetically low in pixel count.

2070x2070 since it is a square format, 6x6. This lab even offers enhanced scans at almost twice the resolution. http://www.richardphot​olab.com/pricelist.htm​l

This was my first roll and so still trying to see which labs would do a good job cheaper.

Here is another lab offering their enhanced scan at 4k resolution. Unfortunately, they don't offer web viewing and so the total return around time can be longer than a week. http://www.northcoastp​hoto.com/film_developi​ng_scans.html

TooManyShots wrote in post #15137860
2070x2070 since it is a square format, 6x6. This lab even offers enhanced scans at almost twice the resolution. http://www.richardphot​olab.com/pricelist.htm​l

This was my first roll and so still trying to see which labs would do a good job cheaper.

Here is another lab offering their enhanced scan at 4k resolution. Unfortunately, they don't offer web viewing and so the total return around time can be longer than a week. http://www.northcoastp​hoto.com/film_developi​ng_scans.html

That is not much different resolution per millimeter than what I got from 135 format!

• The first time I tried, I was provided with super pathetic 640x432 resolution (276k) via the drugstore processor.
  
• The second time I tried, I was provided with still pathetic 1600x1200 resolution (1.92 MPixels) by Fuji lab.
  
• Since the 2-1/4 frame is 55mm, the same pixel density as the 2MPixel 135 format scan which I obtained would result in 2.3x more pixels in each direction, or 2760x2760-- yet you only got 2070x2070

Wilt wrote in post #15138393
That is not much different resolution per millimeter than what I got from 135 format!

• The first time I tried, I was provided with super pathetic 640x432 resolution (276k) via the drugstore processor.
  
• The second time I tried, I was provided with still pathetic 1600x1200 resolution (1.92 MPixels) by Fuji lab.
  
• Since the 2-1/4 frame is 55mm, the same pixel density as the 2MPixel 135 format scan which I obtained would result in 2.3x more pixels in each direction, or 2760x2760-- yet you only got 2070x2070

I would not consider their 'normal resolution' ever again, but only use the double resolution option. Otherwise you lose the real value of shooting medium format!

From the 24x36mm 135 format frame, I think of 4 MPixel file size as just at threshhold of 'acceptable'.

I did my scans with this lab actually, www.thedarkroom.com I could have gone to the other labs I mentioned earlier since they charge the same but offering you with an even more, higher resolutions.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15135408
I find the scans, depending where you scan them, to be very good too and needless to say I am in love with medium format film right now.

Unfortunately, to get good scans, it is a bit pricy. $20 for a roll of 120, developed, scanned, uploaded, and returned. I really have to be careful what I shoot.

I'm just not that in love with my old cameras to make that sort of effort anymore. I had to be dragged screaming and kicking into the digital world, but now that I'm here, I'm liberated. I'm glad you are enjoying them however.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15138561
I'm just not that in love with my old cameras to make that sort of effort anymore. I had to be dragged screaming and kicking into the digital world, but now that I'm here, I'm liberated. I'm glad you are enjoying them however.

Hahahaha.....I have a choice. Back then, you didn't. Besides, I need a bit of change of pace but still satisfy my lust for pixel peeping and acceptable sharpness. 35mm film didn't do it for me even though I could have used all of my L lenses.