Metering - What You Need to Know Part II - Incident Meters, Spot Meters, Zone System & More 

Many thanks for the kind words! Just hearing the words “Zone System” used to scare me, I’ll admit. And I guess it can get quite technical when you include the development and printing methods. But for metering, I was surprised at how un-complicated it could be. Now, I’m thinking about doing an episode on the development adjustments. I’m sure I’d learn a lot in the process. Honestly, I tend to learn something new every time I do one of these. Lots of stuff I discover along the way. And lot’s of ideas come from comments. I appreciate you watching! Cheers!

I agree. Watched it all the way through.

Thanks so much! I do appreciate it!

Glad it was helpful! And thanks for watching!

I appreciate that, and I’m glad you enjoy the content. Also glad my accent is bearable :-)) Thanks for watching!

Awesome! Glad you found this helpful. “Proper” exposure has always been an enigma of sorts. Thus all the different methods of going about it. I used to be 100% for incident metering. But, like just about anything, dealing in absolutes isn’t always the best route. Have fun on your journey and don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions! Thanks for watching!

My pleasure!

You’re too kind :-) but many thanks. Hope it will be helpful!

Many, many thanks! And thanks for watching!

Thanks so much! And best of luck!

Holy mackerel - 1/32000! I mean, I know that is one FINE camera, but I had no idea that was possible. I love it when I learn something new! Cheers!

So glad it was helpful! And that's quite the compliment :-)

A very good question to camera producers would be”why did you privilege the development of matrix for film and digital, and not multiple spot metering?” I’m sure more pictures in the world would have been exposed better. lol

That’s a very astute observation. Why, indeed? I’ll hazard a guess and say it came down to economics. The multi-spot is very similar to Matrix. The main difference being with MS, the photographer chooses the measuring areas. But perhaps the accuracy didn’t outweigh the costs? I don’t know. I’ve definitely had bad exposures in cameras with matrix metering, but hardly ever using one with multi-spot.

The trial and error is certainly not as affordable as with digital, to be sure. I find that using the multi-spot feature is generally fool-proof though. I think you’ll have good luck with it. Cheers!

Yes, the modern electronic shutters are really a game-changer. I had no idea they were capable of such high speeds, though. Incredible! Thanks so much for watching!

Excellent! I’d love to see either of those in action. The Mir is certainly an eye-catching camera. And I’ve been playing around with the idea of picking up a 9 for a while now. Thanks for watching!

Thank you! And thanks for watching!

Excellent! So glad it's helpful. I do need to get out with that LF and shoot. I've been neglecting it, sadly.

Many thanks! And probably is worth a follow up regarding development adjustments for reducing/increasing contrast. And would be a good reason to put that 4x5 to work. So noted….

Thanks so much! We should start a Sunny-11 revolution! It just doesn't roll off the tongue as well :-) In regards to the averaging of the highlight and shadow exposures, I think you are 100% correct IF we do indeed pick the right ones to measure. But as I said, those are probably the easiest to identify. I tend to enjoy the multi-spot method when I don't want to take the time to try to discern the actual brightest and darkest area. So for me, multi-spot just enables my laziness. And I'm not sure what all the steps are with your Sekonic (jealous-btw), but multi-spot is super fast when implemented in-camera. All this being said, I do tend to rely on my spotmeter's highlight and shadow "averaging" more than any other method. That works well 95% of the time. And the only time it's not a perfect choice is when the contrast range is enormous. But even then it's not really bad.

My Sekonic is an L-758DR, which is an older, outdated model - basically an incident meter with a built-in 1 degree spot meter. I paid about $650 for it new, and see them now on Ebay for just about the same amount. The current model is the L-858D, which is basically the same meter, only with more modern touch screens than buttons. The SOP on the Sekonic Spot meter is very basic and straight forward - you take as many readings as you want (up to nine), saving each one as you go. Then press the Average button for the averaged result. Afterwords, you simply press the Memory Clear button to clear out all the current readings. The meter also has a "Mid Tone" button, which will identify Zone V, and can then indicate the distance away from the mid tone for any further readings.

That is def a top-tier instrument. The end-all, be-all of metering. I’ve seen some of those prices, and they’re right scary. But at least now I know why.

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks so much! Behind the scenes isn't always so calm :-)

@@vintagecameradigest you’re welcome. As the presenter / host you achieved the result of PRESENTING it calmly, you got to that end result so that’s fine . P.S. I was glad to see the Minolta in action with the spot metering card. I have seen so intruded by them that I’ve bought a little group of the cards and am still on the hunt for a decent camera body

Yes, that expansion card in particular has got to be Minolta’s best-kept secret - for better or worse. I acquired a few different ones, myself. And I’m sure it’s gimmicky/kitschy, but I’m really interested in what the “Fantasy” card will do. Have yet to try it, tho.

@@vintagecameradigest I’ve managed to get multi spot , fantasy, exposure bracket and sport action

Many thanks!

Many, many thanks! So appreciated!

I know that is indeed the case for me. I’d love to have a darkroom to make traditional prints. But I seriously doubt I could produce one as good as I can do in Photoshop. And as for metering, the “expose for the shadows” technique is hardly ever a bad move. Thanks for sharing your method. We should all give that a shot. Thanks for watching!

That would’ve been a LOT of fun, no doubt! Hope you’re doing well, my friend!

Glad you enjoyed it! Many, many thanks!

YES! Thanks for bringing that up. I did overlook that. That is another really handy feature of the Minolta meter. Minolta actually put that into their Maxxum 9000 camera, too. Cheers!

Thanks! And thanks for the suggestion. Maybe an evolution of in-camera metering type of thing, and explaining the different patterns. I think I’ll add that to the list!

Many, many thanks! This will go toward more film! 🙏🏼

Yes, it does seem that would be the case. Unless - after all these years of believing it to be so - “middle” gray is just a misnomer, and it actually does skew one way or the other. When studying up on the Zone System, I was referencing a book from the 1980s. It defined the zones as 0-9 - which means 5 can’t really be in the middle. And it seems the 11-zone system (0-10) is a more recent application of the over-arching principles? I don’t know. But the fact that there is some disagreement over the number of actual zones is a little worrying, I’d say.

Thank you for this info! I’ve never heard of this one, but now I’m anxious to try it. I love learning new things!

Should be a piece of cake - especially if you go the route of setting the shadows at zone 3. Meter what you think the important shadow area is, then set the exposure to underexpose that by two stops.

I will give that a try. Thanks!

Thanks so much for the kind words! And congratulations on putting together a darkroom so you can experience the entire process. I enjoy shooting film for many reasons, but the “process” is near the top for me. The process and everything it entails. And black and white photography has nuances that color film and processing just don’t provide. It will always be my favorite medium. You’ll find there is always something to learn and explore. Thanks for watching!

Excellent question. As much as we'd like to think that the Zone System is a bullet-proof technique, at the metering level at least, it's going to "point you in the right direction" at best. When you add the development process, it's not as clear-cut. And there are some very smart Zone System wizards out there that will tell you straight up that equating each zone to an individual "stop" of light is not really the way it works. However, when METERING, that is exactly how we tend to look at it. Regarding development, though, the key is to understand how the negative is affected by development time. Shadow areas will reach their maximum density and stop - regardless of how much time you add to the process. So Zones 0-4, let's say, aren't affected much by over-development. They are what they are. The higher zones, though, are absolutely affected by development time. The more time you give it, the more density builds up. So, what you're doing by increased dev time is really just increasing the overall contrast. The shadow areas remain much the same while the highlights get brighter and brighter. Taking a look at the result on the bridge photo after assigning the shadow I picked to Zone 3 showed the upper mid-tones stretching into higher zones than I would have liked. The overall contrast (brightest white to darkest black) is just too much. So, a shorter development time (as I referred to above) won't affect the shadows as much as the highlights. The shadows stay relatively the same, just the upper zones are shifted down. And the uppermost zones are the most affected by this decrease in time. Contrast is reduced as the result. This is exactly what happens when push-processing film. The shadow areas are the least affected. The highlights become more dense. If there wasn't enough exposure to record good shadow detail to begin with, push-processing isn't going to fix that. What you will get is an image with a lot more contrast. Shadow areas stay dark, but the highlights get more and more dense. Add to all of this that your choice of film will also play a huge part in how the negative develops. I was using Kentmere 100 for these tests because it's what I had on hand. I know from previous testing that Kentmere has a tendency to shift mid-tones toward the high end of the scale. And its negatives show an obvious density increase over other films of the same ISO. So, I could also (probably) change the entire result by using FP4 or similar. I'm guessing that the overall contrast would have been more workable. Even though the Kentmere result wasn't too bad once I was able to do a little tweaking. I hope this helps. The key is to always shoot so that you get good shadow detail without overexposing everything. Then you can adjust contrast by development and/or printing. Thanks again for the excellent question!