Re: [Leica] incidently

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

Mike Durling wrote:
> 
> I'm not going to argue that reflected or incident metering is inherently
> better.  I just think that people who knock incident metering miss the
> point.  You are measuring the light.  An incident reading, taken at face
> value, will allow the relationships between tones in a photograph to
> approximate the relationships that exist in the original scene.  After the
> reading the placement of tones for creative expression is the same mental
> exercise regardless of metering technique.
> 
> Most motion picture photography, something I have a lot of experience with,
> is done with incident meters.  The reason is purely practical, it helps to
> ensure consistency between shots that have to cut together.
> 
> There are many different techniques for incident metering.  I took a seminar
> with a Hollywood cinematographer who used a flat disk on his meter and only
> measured the key (primary) light.  He then lit the rest of the scene by eye.
> Takes a lot of experience but it certainly worked for him.
> 
> Mike D
> 
I have seen documentaries and read about the great cinematographers at work and
I find it an enigma on the fact that they all seem to use incident light
readings. Could it be they never had an Ansel Adams? Don't know. I can't see the logic.
But a flat disk does what exactly I thought it might be for copy work?
Mark Rabiner