I suggest you go and study a little more, or read carefully what I was actually saying.
Correct. Now please explain how and why.
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,
An incident light metering measures the amount of light falling on the subject. If the subject is black the amount of light reflected will be little and the sensor/film will record black. If the subject is white, there will be much reflection, and the sensor/film will record the subject as white.
you are in fact describing how a reflected meter reading works.
I am sure that you can understand that the word "acceptable" is not the same as "accurate". Have you work with landscape photographers before? Real landscape photographers?
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.
Again you failed to read properly. I did not say that incident meter is not accurate. I said that for the purpose of determining the relative light values such as between both sides of the face, or the relative light values on a 5 cm petal, the incident meter cannot do a good job, and therefore will be useless to me to determine how much development adjustment to make.
Please go an try to determine the lighting ratio on a petal 5 cm diameter with the incident meter.
I did not want to talk about the ZS. I was afraid it would overwhelm the mental capacity of most people here.
Bro, your first example in post #8 was of lighting values of the right and left side of the face, in which you said,
the incident metering will not be extremely accurate, because the measurement is often from a light sensitive dome which receives light from all over
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:
No incident metering can tell me the difference between the lighter and darker area of this petal. Only the spotmeter can do that.
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.
Again you confused yourself. The meter of course is not affected by the reflectivity of the subject because the meter measures light falling on the subject. I was explaining why the incident meter will give a reading and render the relative values accordingly. That one can use the incident meter is precisely the result of reflective nature within 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."