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

I went out this morning but didn't get any shots. Instead, did a bunch of readings. The answer is reflective. All of the readings were verified and confirmed with my 30D and the historgram. Yeah, you just can't meter the incident lighting when the subject is too far away from you. I first metered the sky since the reading should be constant. Then, I pointed my light meter to the scene in front of me. If the exposure difference is no greater than 1 stop, which means I meter too much of the sky. Then, I pointed my light meter a bit to the ground/water, the exposure difference is now more than 1 stop. That's the correct reading.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15138604
I went out this morning but didn't get any shots. Instead, did a bunch of readings. The answer is reflective. All of the readings were verified and confirmed with my 30D and the historgram. Yeah, you just can't meter the incident lighting when the subject is too far away from you. I first metered the sky since the reading should be constant. Then, I pointed my light meter to the scene in front of me. If the exposure difference is no greater than 1 stop, which means I meter too much of the sky. Then, I pointed my light meter a bit to the ground/water, the exposure difference is now more than 1 stop. That's the correct reading.

I very frequently use an incident meter for shots of stuff at a distance. I just determine that I'm in the same light as the "subject" and it works just fine.

Even with my 1° spot meter attachment, if I'm making reflected-light readings I have to be very careful of the color and reflective qualities of the subject and often make corrections to the meter's readings based on my experience. There's a lot less of the need for corrections when using an incident meter.

SkipD wrote in post #15138782
I very frequently use an incident meter for shots of stuff at a distance. I just determine that I'm in the same light as the "subject" and it works just fine.

Even with my 1° spot meter attachment, if I'm making reflected-light readings I have to be very careful of the color and reflective qualities of the subject and often make corrections to the meter's readings based on my experience. There's a lot less of the need for corrections when using an incident meter.

X2.

An incident meter tells you the nominal exposure to accurately record tones at their inherent level of brightness (e.g. 18% grey is a middle tone), and if the scene is in the same light as you are (even if it is 1-100 miles away) the incident reading applies. If your scene is shaded from the sun, but you are in the sun, the fact that you are 10' from the scene is irrelevant...you have to enter similar light to take a valid incident meter reading. An incident reading is never a victim of 'subject failure' (what Kodak calls pointing a reflected light reading at something not 18% grey)

A spot meter allows you to read the brightest highlight and the darkest shadow, so that you know the tonal range of the scene. By itself, the spot meter is fooled by you pointing it at something white vs. something black vs. something of the correct 18% tonal value, unless you compensate the reading appropriately...it is not immune to 'subject failure'.

When you combine both, you then know how the dynamic range of the scene fits, relative to the nominal (incident) exposure, and you can decide which part of the dynamic range to sacrifice from the photo (when scene dynamic range > camera dynamic range)

Wilt wrote in post #15138826
An incident meter tells you the nominal exposure to accurately record tones at their inherent level of brightness (e.g. 18% grey is a middle tone), and if the scene is in the same light as you are (even if it is 1-100 miles away) the incident reading applies. If your scene is shaded from the sun, but you are in the sun, the fact that you are 10' from the scene is irrelevant...you have to enter similar light to take a valid incident meter reading. An incident reading is never a victim of 'subject failure' (what Kodak calls pointing a reflected light reading at something not 18% grey)

A spot meter allows you to read the brightest highlight and the darkest shadow, so that you know the tonal range of the scene. By itself, the spot meter is fooled by you pointing it at something white vs. something black vs. something of the correct 18% tonal value, unless you compensate the reading appropriately...it is not immune to 'subject failure'.

When you combine both, you then know how the dynamic range of the scene fits, relative to the nominal (incident) exposure, and you can decide which part of the dynamic range to sacrifice from the photo (when scene dynamic range > camera dynamic range)

The thing is I am shaded from the sun by trees behind and over me. The scene I am capturing is 1k feet+ in front of me with a clear sky overhead. There is no way my incident reading, where I am standing, can apply to the scene which is 1k feet in front of me. I even confirmed and cross reference checked with my 30d and the historgram and even to have the photo to show it. The 30D was reading the reflective light from the scene. The reading matches to my light meter in the reflective light mode. The way I see it, incident light reading would work if I am shooting in a wide open area the subject, like a mountain, is miles away from me.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15138861
The thing is I am shaded from the sun by trees behind and over me. The scene I am capturing is 1k feet+ in front of me with a clear sky overhead. There is no way my incident reading, where I am standing, can apply to the scene which is 1k feet in front of me. I even confirmed and cross reference checked with my 30d and the historgram and even to have the photo to show it. The 30D was reading the reflective light from the scene. The reading matches to my light meter in the reflective light mode. The way I see it, incident light reading would work if I am shooting in a wide open area the subject, like a mountain, is miles away from me.

It sounds like your method is working, but its subject to being fooled by the reflectivity of the subject as its metering the the light being reflected at the sensor. At 1000 feet away I can only imagine the degree of coverage but that could include a significant amount of sky which can be a problem in certain scenes.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15138891
It sounds like your method is working, but its subject to being fooled by the reflectivity of the subject as its metering the the light being reflected at the sensor. At 1000 feet away I can only imagine the degree of coverage but that could include a significant amount of sky which can be a problem in certain scenes.

Yes, obviously, if the subject isn't big enough to cover the sky, too much of sky would be metered off. Since I already know how much the sky is being exposed, I just have to make sure I am not shooting at the same exposure as the sky, to the subject in front of me. Yeah, I can get a spot meter attachment to my Lunar Pro but I will see how much I can get away with using my method first. The attachment is another $30 shipped. BTW, my incident reading showed about 3 stops difference than my reflective reading off the scene in front of me.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15138861
The thing is I am shaded from the sun by trees behind and over me. The scene I am capturing is 1k feet+ in front of me with a clear sky overhead. There is no way my incident reading, where I am standing, can apply to the scene which is 1k feet in front of me. I even confirmed and cross reference checked with my 30d and the historgram and even to have the photo to show it. The 30D was reading the reflective light from the scene. The reading matches to my light meter in the reflective light mode. The way I see it, incident light reading would work if I am shooting in a wide open area the subject, like a mountain, is miles away from me.

As you stated, you were not IN THE SAME LIGHT, so no one competant with an incident meter would even try to take a reading with the incident meter. But if the sky was clear and cloudless, you could have walked a number of feet into a clearing and taken the incident reading, with confidence that it would work!

Wilt wrote in post #15138929
As you stated, you were not IN THE SAME LIGHT, so no one competant with an incident meter would even try to take a reading with the incident meter. But if the sky was clear and cloudless, you could have walke a number of feet into a clearing and taken the incident reading with confidence that it would work!

No, I can't walk into an open area because I would be swimming in the lake.....

TooManyShots wrote in post #15138910
Yes, obviously, if the subject isn't big enough to cover the sky, too much of sky would be metered off. Since I already know how much the sky is being exposed, I just have to make sure I am not shooting at the same exposure as the sky, to the subject in front of me. Yeah, I can get a spot meter attachment to my Lunar Pro but I will see how much I can get away with using my method first. The attachment is another $30 shipped. BTW, my incident reading showed about 3 stops difference than my reflective reading off the scene in front of me.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15138938
No, I can't walk into an open area because I would be swimming in the lake.....

You've described a situation where a spot meter (the narrower the better - I suggest 1°) would be ideal. The meter in your camera could not possibly provide the same information that a true spot meter could.

As Wilt suggested, a spot meter can provide readings of the brightest and darkest areas of interest. If the range does not exceed the latitude of the film or digital camera you're using, then you can choose a setting midway between the upper and lower limits.

For most outdoor events, an incident reading works extremely well. Often, just after I set the exposure settings based on my incident reading(s), I will use the camera's meter to make a reading of a grassy area or a paved street, for example, to use as a reference. I note the position of the "meter" in the viewfinder. Assume for a moment that it's 1/2 stop to the right. If clouds start to cut the available light, I might see that the camera meter's reading (on the same grass or pavement) is now 1/2 stop to the left. I then make a 1-stop adjustment to one of the three variables and I'm back to where I want to be for exposure.

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.

Amen...most places scan at 1-3 MP...horrendous quality. That's why I bought my own film scanner...w00t w00t...then 2 weeks later moved halfway across the world...so I've yet to use it :'(