Metering for roll film...hypothetical help?

[Grant Young]

I've begun shooting film when I go out, rather than strictly digital, and I'm a but weary of what it is I am capturing as I am shooting. I've read about the zone system by Ansel Adams and halfway follow the mentality but everything I read says it does not work for 35mm or 120 film cameras, let alone digital. I want to better my understanding and process of shooting film so I have come to you guys for help. I have a couple older light meters that I can use for readings but I feel that I may need to dial in how I am using them.

Say I am taking a photo of a lone tree in an area that I can access to take readings close up. Do I take a reflective or incident reading given the chance to take both? Say I take a reflective reading as follows...

I find the shadows to be f/8 1/30 and the highlights to be f/8 1/500. Roughly a 4 stop range, but do I over expose the highlights more so or do I under expose the shadows more so? I am talking about a general proper exposure, no "feel" that I am going for. I just want detail throughout the tonal range.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I'm far from being an expert, but I suggest using one roll of film for test shots of the same object, same conditions, using different settings.

 

[Grant Young]

Rob, I'm curious. Would this benefit me in conditions outside of that situation? I don't mind doing what you say, I want to learn this camera and use it for years to come. I typically will be shooting landscapes and portraits with this camera (Yashica D with 80mm). I may get creative every now and again, but that is where I see myself going with this camera. I imagine an incident reading is best for the portraiture work, but landscape/nature I worry about losing details at either end.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Id shoot that scene at f8 an 125th and have it done with ...
i don't use the zone system, far too much faff for my liking ... But I can't see why it wouldn't work with digital, 35mm, 120, whatever ... It's just about breaking an image into zones of exposure, it doesn't matter the size of the photosensitive surface?

 

[Pete Askew]

The comment about not working with roll film etc goes back to the origins of the zone system. It allowed one to previsualise a scene and decide how much detail was going to be in shadows, where the highlight should fall etc and inform the photographer how to deviate from 'standard' exposure to achieve that. Once the plate / sheet was exposed it was developed for a period of time that deviated from a specified amount from the normal development time (N) that had been previously worked out for that film / developer combination. Because each combination was unique it mean that, in theory, it could not be used in the same way with a roll of film as each exposure would have to be developed in a different way. Of course the system was simply modified to allow at least some of the concepts to be employed for roll films. And with digital we again have the option to 'develop' each frame individually and there are digital zone systems around.

This really deserves a much more in-depth answer and some of that has been given in the tutorials Paul wrote. Maybe we should try and expand it a bit more (especially now you are shooting sheet film Hamish!).

 

[Grant Young]

Id shoot that scene at f8 an 125th and have it done with ...
i don't use the zone system, far too much faff for my liking ... But I can't see why it wouldn't work with digital, 35mm, 120, whatever ... It's just about breaking an image into zones of exposure, it doesn't matter the size of the photosensitive surface?

So find a middle ground in the range and go for it. Gotcha. I'll probably shoot the rest of this roll for a certain subject just to get an idea of how tri-x reacts.

Thanks guys.

 

[Brian Moore]

I'm not sure I agree with Hamish, here. You're essentially taking a spot reading of the tree. If the objective is the tree I'd go with exposing it properly and accepting the blown highlights. (But I find the "look" of blown highlights is sometimes very appealing to my own eye.)

 

[Pete Askew]

Given that you can get to the tree I would use an incident reading to set the exposure. Spot readings would then tell you whether you detect detail in shadows or highlights. If you spot meter the tree, it would depend how much it deviated from 18% grey. If it were darker you would end up over-exposing.

 

[Grant Young]

I don't have a spot meter as of now, only a handheld reflective/incident meter. Seems I can use my DSLR and a zoom lens if need be. I'd rather buy a meter to suit though. One step at a time.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Grant - I went through my own Zone discovery last year, and did a write-up on how it worked out (using digital)

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/specialist-method-equipment/7977-your-camera-may-lying-you.html

A spot meter seems key - and then the rest is you deciding how the shades in the image will be represented in the final image.

I never really got it until I read the Adams book, and then worked through some examples with my meter and camera - now it makes sense and is actually quick and easy to use in the field

 

[Grant Young]

I saw your post previously, and it got me thinking. I failed to realize that a spot meter would still be just as helpful I guess. I realize you used one, I guess it just slipped my mind. No worries though.

The sekonics are expensive. The old pentax spot meters are getting there. Is there another option?