incident light vs reflected light?

[student]

No need to be so condescending. I have taken pictures for many, many years and part-owned a commercial studio before, so thanks for the tip that I need to study a little more. Maybe you forgot that incident metering reads the intensity of light falling on the subject so when you said, you are in fact describing how a reflected meter reading works.

Point taken but I did agree that a spot meter would give a precise reading. I have also stated that if one doesn't have a spot meter on hand, an incident reading can be used assuming the light levels are somewhat similar. Certainly not as precise as a spot reading but it can give a workable estimation of the exposure value. Was it really necessary to ask if I have worked with landscape photographers? Short answer, yes I have.


Bro, your first example in post #8 was of lighting values of the right and left side of the face, in which you said, I respectfully disagree with you on this as I have used incident readings so many times this way and even comparing with a spot meter that can measure ambient and flash readings, the incident readings are pretty accurate.

Next you talk about determining the lighting ratio of a petal 5 cm with an incident meter!:nono: Please understand if you want to measure something so small, yes I could use a spot meter or or use a Booster II to my Minolta handheld meter (reflected light reading) or better still use a mini receptor (incident light reading). Do note there are macro and micro photographers who do use a mini receptor to take incident readings of small objects and inacessible areas where the meter will not fit between the lens and the subject.

Please stop telling others that they are confused as your last sentence is clearly incorrect.

If my subject to photograph was a shirt; whether the shirt is black, grey or white in colour, the exposure should all be similar if you take an incident reading from the subject towards the camera. An incident reading here is gonna be accurate because it is not affected by the reflective nature of the subject. So nothing to do with "reflective nature within the subject."

Never mind.

Frankly I do not care a damm if you own a thousand studios, or had photographed a thousand years!

What you wrote about the incident meter is absolutely correct. I am not disputing that. You clearly have no idea what I was talking about. I have already said what I needed to say. If you and others do not understand what I wrote, it is either my inability to explain properly, or your inability to comprehend what I wrote.

I will not waste time on this topic anymore, nor on you.

 

[Tetrode]

After reading through the whole thread, I have to agree with what Creampuff has explained/described. They match my understanding and experience with lightmeters exactly.

WRT to metering a mountain miles away, if the sky is not clouded over your end and over the mountain, the amount of light falling on the mountain and on you should be the same. So an incident reading taken at your location should be fine.

 

[creampuff]

Never mind.

Frankly I do not care a damm if you own a thousand studios, or had photographed a thousand years!

What you wrote about the incident meter is absolutely correct. I am not disputing that. You clearly have no idea what I was talking about. I have already said what I needed to say. If you and others do not understand what I wrote, it is either my inability to explain properly, or your inability to comprehend what I wrote.

I will not waste time on this topic anymore, nor on you.

Whoa! No need to get you so worked up, it is just that I think it is important that anyone reading this thread get a clearer understanding of the topic and to me clearly some parts of your explanation seemed erroneous. Like when you said

To illustrate, I will use my own photography processes.

Let us say I am making a photograph of a flower next to a window. There is some light differences obviously on different parts of the petals. In my previsualisation, I wish to make the differences even more that what the amblient light was. In other words, I want to increase the contrast more than the ambient light. If I were photographing this flower digitally, I will just use curves to tweak the contrast. But since I am using B&W film, I will have to increase the development to increase contrast.

and here

I did not want to talk about the ZS. I was afraid it would overwhelm the mental capacity of most people here.

In your example of photographing by a window one would probably find the light values to be fairly even but even if there were variances in exposure readings on different parts of the petals, subject contrast is likely to be low.

If you really familiar with the Zone System, I'm curious why you would need to increase or "push" development (corresponding increase in graininess, and poorer quality tonal reproduction) just to increase contrast unless you encountered underexposure throughout the entire roll of film and needed to retain shadow detail.

Assuming you didn't have underexposure but got the exposure right, you could just develop the film normally but print on a different grade of paper or dodge and burn the print to achieve the higher contrast yet try to attain the full range of tonal values from Zone III to Zone VIII.

"A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing" - Alexander Pope

 

[synapseman]

Wah piang. Talk about incident light also can fight...

/end

 

[creampuff]

Wah piang. Talk about incident light also can fight...
/end

No lah, nothing to fight about, can agree to disagree. Just that sometimes some people overreact and take offence when their lengthy explanations are shown to be off the mark. So they come up with statements like:
"...overwhelm the mental capacity of most people here"
"you failed to read properly",
"you confused yourself",
"you don't understand what I wrote",
"your inability to comprehend what I wrote",
when they find it hard to bring themselves to admit they could have gotten it wrong. So naturally they respond by getting angry... which is kinda sad.

 

[antitrust]

guys guys, chill.

we're all here to learn and share our knowledge. no need to get so offensive.

thanks for all the replies. i will make sure i will read them over and over again until i've understood it so as not to disappoint you all okay!