DSLR as lightmeter??

[Kburg928]

Hey everyone,

I'm wondering if anyone has used a DSLR as a light meter and if they've had any luck with it?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Yes. You might enjoy a brief search of the archives. This is a common topic.

[Walter Calahan]

A handheld light meter is smaller and lighter to lug around. As Jack wrote, this question is a regular visitor to this forum.

[Jim Noel]

A handheld light meter is smaller and lighter to lug around. As Jack wrote, this question is a regular visitor to this forum.

And also cheaper and more durable.

[Kburg928]

Thanks.

Not worried about cost, I shoot 50% of my stuff with a 5D and the rest between a rolleiflex and a linhof.

I guess I have some testing to do, thanks again

[coops]

I am fairly new to LF so I take my Canon 20d to check exposure with color film. But I do use the spotmeter first and compare, so I know if I am on the right track or not. As I get more confident I use the DSLR less and less, but for a while it was good to know I was not wasting film shooting at the wrong exposure.

[Frank Petronio]

I think they work great and feel very comfortable basing my exposures on digital camera readings. Even a pocket camera like a Ricoh GRD or Panasonic LX-3 is fine and those are smaller than most meters and a lot more useful.

[Jay Decker]

Digital cameras are excellent light meters. I frequently take my DSLR when shooting LF. With the ISO set to the film speed, set aperture priority program mode, get happy with the DSLR exposure and then apply the exposure information in the LF shot. It works great!

A couple considerations:

1) More Stuff to Distract You from the Subject: I shoot 8x10 primarily, so I'm hauling a lot of equipment already and the addition of the DSLR is not a major logistical consideration. However, I find the more I have to monkey with when shooting, like the DSLR, the more my attention is distracted from the subject I'm photographing. Distraction from your subject is bad. So, I use a light meter when I can not do anything about the lighting. Ansel might roll over in grave if he heard this, but I usually just set the exposure based on a zone III reading and shoot it.

2) Use the DSLR to Set Your Lighting: If you can adjust the lighting, use the DSLR to set your lighting and then shoot it in film. I do this in the field and my home studio. One of the things that it encourages me to do is to experiment with lighting and avoid getting in a rut where I use the same lighting, because I don't want experiment on film, have the experiment fail, and then loose both a photograph of the subject and effort involved in shooting with LF film.

[D. Bryant]

Digital cameras are excellent light meters. I frequently take my DSLR when shooting LF. With the ISO set to the film speed, set aperture priority program mode, get happy with the DSLR exposure and then apply the exposure information in the LF shot. It works great!

A couple considerations:

1) More Stuff to Distract You from the Subject: I shoot 8x10 primarily, so I'm hauling a lot of equipment already and the addition of the DSLR is not a major logistical consideration. However, I find the more I have to monkey with when shooting, like the DSLR, the more my attention is distracted from the subject I'm photographing. Distraction from your subject is bad. So, I use a light meter when I can not do anything about the lighting. Ansel might roll over in grave if he heard this, but I usually just set the exposure based on a zone III reading and shoot it.

2) Use the DSLR to Set Your Lighting: If you can adjust the lighting, use the DSLR to set your lighting and then shoot it in film. I do this in the field and my home studio. One of the things that it encourages me to do is to experiment with lighting and avoid getting in a rut where I use the same lighting, because I don't want experiment on film, have the experiment fail, and then loose both a photograph of the subject and effort involved in shooting with LF film.

Jay and all,

+1 on both points though I really don't wish to carry any more equipment than necessary and as Jay points out a digital camera becomes a distraction so to speak. Same goes for a film SLR. I know a rather well know photographer who used to carry a Pentax 6x7 with him to meter and frame with. He finally got a spot meter and speaking of which most any really good meter is a lot cheaper than a good digital camera. Nothing against digi-cams I have mine and like to use them.

Don

[paulr]

It's funny, I'm coming at this from the opposite side. I just got a dslr which I'm using on a tripod in a more or less view camera-like way. And I'm finding that I want to use a separate spot meter, rather than the built in meter on the camera, since it's not possible to point the built in meter wherever you want once the camera is mounted and set up. I'd like to be able to handle contrasty lighting situations without bracketing and without blind faith in any programmed exposure modes.

Sadly, my trusty pentax spot meter seems to be dying, so excessive bracketing and proofing on a tiny screen are in my immediate future.

[Bob McCarthy]

Honestly, it all comes down to : how good are you with a lightmeter

The dslr is a computer that uses in-camera metering to adjust to a scene in its internal database and give a recommendation. Nothing to do with spot metering, middle grey, Zone III or anything else. It might agree with an hand held meter, then again it may not.

For those accomplished in metering with a spot, its not appropriate.

For those not very good at scene lighting interpretation and selecting the best exposure, the computer in the DSLR can really help.

DSLR can be pretty darn good with color film, not so with B&W.

bob

[John NYC]

My advice would be to learn the zone system and get a spot meter. It's not hard and you get the exact results you visualize instead of the DSLR "active D" whatever interpretation. (And learn to apply zone system principles to color neg and slide film as well.)

[roteague]

Hey everyone,

I'm wondering if anyone has used a DSLR as a light meter and if they've had any luck with it?

I don't use a DSLR, but I do occasionally use my Nikon F6 ... but, only if the light is changing too fast to use my Sekonic meter.

[paulr]

The dslr is a computer that uses in-camera metering to adjust to a scene in its internal database and give a recommendation. Nothing to do with spot metering, middle grey, Zone III or anything else. It might agree with an hand held meter, then again it may not.

Well, many have a spot meter function. Turn this on, switch the camera to manual, and you have a big clunky spot meter a bunch of extra buttons. It should agree very closely with any spot meter. My nikon is probably more accurate than my ancient analog spot meter ... although I still prefer the spot meter for ease of use. It's accurate enough.

[Frank Petronio]

To me the addition of a color histogram, preview image, and color temperature temperature information trumps the value of placing a vaguely defined 1-degree spot reading on a certain zone and dialing in the exposure knowing there is at least a stop open to interpretation in most middle to low contrast scenes. Go out and shoot on a foggy morning when there is a two-stop range and tell me what the right exposure is... all of them! At least with a DSLR you can get a feel for what's going on, especially if large format is new to you.

The metering "brains" of a consumer dslr body (other than a Canon!) trump the most loaded down Sekonic or Gossen meters and are arguably easier to learn and use properly. While meters are nice luxuries or useful for old-school darkroom junkies, for people coming into large format it is silly to discourage them away from using their DSLRs and add the expense and learning curve of another gadget.

I love Pentax digtial one-degree spots too, they're classics and worth getting in good time, but I'd hate to be a newbie and get presented with one of those to deal with on top of everything else.

[Brian K]

Most of the time I use Sunny 16, sometimes I use one of my spotmeters, and sometimes I play with the meter in a digicam. It can work well as a meter, but you need to do some testing to see how it and your chosen film translate.

[Bob Kerner]

for people coming into large format it is silly to discourage them away from using their DSLRs and add the expense and learning curve of another gadget........... but I'd hate to be a newbie and get presented with one of those to deal with on top of everything else.

From the newbie perspective, having had a Pentax years ago: I already have a DSLR, with the capabilities Frank refers to. So I see no reason to shell out another $400 on a used meter when I can get the same basic info from my Nikon. I'm accustomed to the histogram and find the preview helpful, and no stand-alone meters can do that. Yet.

I'd also share my own cautionary tale on using the DSLR as a meter. Like any tool, make sure you've set it properly. I trashed 5 sheets because I'd been using the DSLR to make photos, adjust the camera's ISO and did not reset it to match the film speed in the 4x5. Rookie mistake but I bet/hope I'm not the only one this has happened to and maybe it would be less likely had I not been using my "meter: to make pictures.

If you have a DSLR, use it and see how you like it. You can always add the handheld.

[Two23]

I shoot outdoors at night a lot, and a light meter just isn't going to work for me. I am in effect using the DSLR as I would a polariod. When I shoot flash I of course my Minolta flash meter.


Kent in SD

[Brian Ellis]

Honestly, it all comes down to : how good are you with a lightmeter

The dslr is a computer that uses in-camera metering to adjust to a scene in its internal database and give a recommendation. Nothing to do with spot metering, middle grey, Zone III or anything else. It might agree with an hand held meter, then again it may not.

For those accomplished in metering with a spot, its not appropriate.

For those not very good at scene lighting interpretation and selecting the best exposure, the computer in the DSLR can really help.

DSLR can be pretty darn good with color film, not so with B&W.

bob

I used a Pentax spot meter and the zone system with b&w for about twelve years. I used a Nikon D100 as a substitute for about a year. It worked perfectly. Have you ever actually used a digital camera with a spot mode as a meter? I don't ask to be sarcastic or rude but rather because you seem to be thinking that one just aims the camera at a scene and checks the exposure, which isn't how it's used. It not only works as well as a typical spot meter but it provides more useful information as well. And is absolutely compatible with the zone system.

[Bob McCarthy]

If your talking about a higher quality DSLR with the ability to select metering mode, and with spot metering available. Then some cameras may be useful as a basic light meter.

I checked my F5 (film) against my D2X (digi sensor) and they didn't agree a good bit of the time. Against a flat wall, yes, but not with more complex subjects. I equilibrated angle of view so that was not an issue

My F5 generally agrees with my hand held spot meter.

However what is interesting: is when using the matrix meter (computer scene recognition), both cameras pretty much nail exposure.

bob

[l2oBiN]

What would be the most lightest/compact digital cam that would have matrix metering?

[paulr]

However what is interesting: is when using the matrix meter (computer scene recognition), both cameras pretty much nail exposure.

bob

I'm guessing that your dslr, if it's like most, uses a loosely interpreted version of ISO ratings. If you check out the sensor tests at DXOmark.com, you'll see that there are a lot of discrepancies, especially at lower speed ratings. Your camera's software knows what its version of ISO 100 really means, so it can nail the exposure. But if you're translating that to film, it may be hit or miss.

I recently discovered this phenomenon ... it's a drawback if you want to meter for film with the things. Maybe you could look at the tests (or do your own against a spot meter) and write down the best ISO ratings to assign to your films.

[Frank Petronio]

What would be the most lightest/compact digital cam that would have matrix metering?

That's just a Nikon marketing term for a metering system that evaluates all of the scene but accounts for large subject areas and gives them great weight, it also tapers off the exposure if there seems to be a lot of sky in the image. Smarter and smarter versions can detect faces, night, flash, account for distance, etc. and compute exposure against know sample patterns. All the modern cameras have something more or less like it. But many people, including a lot of Canon users, will tell you that Nikon has one of the better metering systems.

My little Panasonic meters very well in "Matrix" or "Pattern" or "Wide Array" mode too.

If you apply a little experience and Sunny/16 common sense, the digital camera method of judging exposure is probably the most reliable up the full-on hardcore Zone System geeks. It certainly makes more sense than sticking the old Luna Pro out and calling the first click the exposure of the day.

[roteague]

I'm guessing that your dslr, if it's like most, uses a loosely interpreted version of ISO ratings.

One of the reasons I use my Nikon F6 as a backup; plus I have the advantage of having a 35mm slide of the same scene, if I choose to.

[neil poulsen]

Most of the time I use Sunny 16, sometimes I use one of my spotmeters, and sometimes I play with the meter in a digicam. It can work well as a meter, but you need to do some testing to see how it and your chosen film translate.

Mutt and Jeff.

[mdd99]

Don't worry about what others use. Use whatever works for you.

[John NYC]

Sorry, one last 2 cents/harping/preaching.

If you don't learn the Adams' and Minor White's Zone System (or something derivative, similar and equivalent), you'll never really understand exposures and what the "matrix meter" is doing... or trying to do. Worse, you will limit your ability to see creatively and realize your creative vision on the first go without trial and error. The fact is that the "matrix meter" could never understand that you want to hold the highlights of a particular small important area in the subject to Zone VIII so that you don't blow out your slide film... or that you want the darkest barks of the trees in Zone III to lend a dark drama that still has good texture.

It's just not that hard to learn when you have a DSLR that you can practice on and test yourself these days. What probably used to take months to become an intermediate, you can now probably do in a week. Actually, I shouldn't say probably. I did do this myself early last year in a week. I've since improved, but I had the basics down in a week of playing with the ideas in the evening in my house using the DSLR's built in spot meter and doing the exposure manually.

[mfratt]

I use my 50D to meter at night, especially when theres too little light to get a usable/accurate reading from my handheld meter.

I usually set the camera to f/2 and ISO12,800, spot meter to get an idea of what I want, take the shot, review it, and if the exposure looks good then I shoot on on the LF.

I carry around a few charts in a notebook or on my phone. One is a series of equations which allows me to convert my DSLR shutter speed at f/2 and ISO12,800 to various apertures on EI values, and the other is a reciprocity compensation chart for whichever film I'm using.

[dikaiosune01]

instead of starting a new forum; i have a few additional questions. Please bear with me.

so i got this crazy idea from kenrockwell about using your digital dslr as a spot meter...
okay, cool, i can save myself a few hundred dollars and i have something to use while i walk up to the location.

- does focal length matter?
- will a longer focal length get me a more accurate spot meter reading?
- should it be the equivalent focal length of my field camera to match composition?
- can i use my compact camera (Canon G10) as a light meter for my view camera?
(i think the last camera is more difficult because it will be difficult to get the correct aperture values above f/8, in case i want to shoot f/32 etc. - the smallest aperture on the canon G10)

[mfratt]

instead of starting a new forum; i have a few additional questions. Please bear with me.

so i got this crazy idea from kenrockwell about using your digital dslr as a spot meter...
okay, cool, i can save myself a few hundred dollars and i have something to use while i walk up to the location.

- does focal length matter?
- will a longer focal length get me a more accurate spot meter reading?
- should it be the equivalent focal length of my field camera to match composition?
- can i use my compact camera (Canon G10) as a light meter for my view camera?
(i think the last camera is more difficult because it will be difficult to get the correct aperture values above f/8, in case i want to shoot f/32 etc. - the smallest aperture on the canon G10)

Well I'm guessing here, but it seems to make sense that a longer lens would be a narrower window for the spot meter to look through, hence more accurate. All metering in those cameras is done TTL (through the lens), so I'd imagine the magnification of the lens would affect the meter's angle of view. That said, the spot meter is already looking at a pretty narrow window, so unless you're talking about going from an ultra-wide to a telephoto, I think the difference would be pretty negligible. Any normal lens should do.

This is strictly my opinion, so some may disagree, but don't even consider using your DLSR to help with composition. You see things entirely differently through the pentaprism viewfinder than you do on the ground glass (I prefer the latter). So I wouldn't go through too much trouble trying to match up the focal lengths of your lenses (remember, a 150mm lens is considered "normal" on a 4x5, 50mm is considered "normal" on a 35, and thats probably around a 35mm lens for your crop sensor). That said, if you happen to have lenses of about the same equivalent focal length, you might try scanning around with the DSLR to get an idea of framing, but I personally find that once I become comfortable with the frame and focal length of whichever camera/lens combo I'm using, that "frame" appears automatically in my mind, without the need for a camera.

You Canon G10 should work just fine, and its a lot more compact than a DSLR to boot. Don't worry about stopping down to f/32 (most DSLR lenses don't do this either), just memorize or write down the f-stops and remember that each stop is half as much light as the previous, requiring twice the shutter speed.

If you look at my last post, when I meter with my DSLR, I do it at f/2 then convert the shutter speed. I keep a chart with a bunch of equations on it, then just punch the numbers into my phone's calculator (to make things more complex, I use ISO12,800 as well, so I'm often multiplying shutter speeds by things like 16,384)

So, if you were using your Canon at f/8 and wanted to take a shot at f/32, you're stopping down 4 stops, requiring 2^4 (2x2x2x2 = 16) times as much light. Multiply your metered shutter speed by 16 (1/160 becomes 1/10, etc).

[roteague]

Well I'm guessing here, but it seems to make sense that a longer lens would be a narrower window for the spot meter to look through, hence more accurate. All metering in those cameras is done TTL (through the lens),

If you are going to use an SLR as a spot meter, then you might as well just use a spot meter; it's a lot less hassle to carry.

I would think that you would use a SLR in order to take advantage of its matrix metering capability - for those situations, where the lighting in the scene is either very complex, or changing too fast for accurate spot metering.

[mfratt]

If you are going to use an SLR as a spot meter, then you might as well just use a spot meter; it's a lot less hassle to carry.

I would think that you would use a SLR in order to take advantage of its matrix metering capability - for those situations, where the lighting in the scene is either very complex, or changing too fast for accurate spot metering.

I'm not sure that I'd trust matrix metering to either accurately translate onto film exposure, or to necessarily come close to my own visualization, but I could see it coming in handy when you don't have time to sit and figure it all out.

[roteague]

I'm not sure that I'd trust matrix metering to either accurately translate onto film exposure, or to necessarily come close to my own visualization, but I could see it coming in handy when you don't have time to sit and figure it all out.

Why not? They give good results when shooting 35mm. The matrix metering is going to take into account far more points than you will as the photographer. The meter on my F6 is stunningly accurate. I've never blown out a transparency yet with it. However, I rarely use it when shooting LF, unless, as I point out, the scene is too complex, or the light changing too fast. Otherwise, I just use a handheld light meter.

[mfratt]

Why not? They give good results when shooting 35mm. The matrix metering is going to take into account far more points than you will as the photographer. The meter on my F6 is stunningly accurate. I've never blown out a transparency yet with it. However, I rarely use it when shooting LF, unless, as I point out, the scene is too complex, or the light changing too fast. Otherwise, I just use a handheld light meter.

What if my scene has a small bit of highlight or shadow which I want to preserve detail in? Or what if I want to sacrifice highlights or shadows in order to expose another portion of the picture to how I want it? What if the meter sees a whole bunch of white and wants to make it middle grey?

Maybe it could be used as a starting point from which you could adjust based on what you're looking at (given a relatively simple scene), but even then you can't quite be sure what the meter is taking into account and what algorithms its passing its information through, making it very difficult to anticipate what will actually be exposed onto your film.

Also, more specifically to digital than to 35mm, theres no way of telling for sure (unless you actually want to test it) whether your cameras ISO values conform to your film's.

I mean, sure, matrix metering will give you an acceptable exposure in most cases, but unless more careful metering is simply not an option, for whatever reason, I'd much rather be conscious of how my scene is being exposed. Even in a rush, due to moving subjects or lighting or whatever, I can take a quick incident or spot reading of my deepest shadow and by brightest highlight and come up with an exposure estimate based on that. Heck, thats probably as quick as or quicker than taking a matrix reading with an SLR than translating it to the large format.

[roteague]

What if my scene has a small bit of highlight or shadow which I want to preserve detail in? Or what if I want to sacrifice highlights or shadows in order to expose another portion of the picture to how I want it? What if the meter sees a whole bunch of white and wants to make it middle grey?

That's what 35mm photographers have been learning for years. However, the metering on most modern cameras is so good, it overcomes a lot of the limitations. I'm sure it won't work on snow, but obviously, I have no way to test that. :)


Also, more specifically to digital than to 35mm, theres no way of telling for sure (unless you actually want to test it) whether your cameras ISO values conform to your film's.

I mean, sure, matrix metering will give you an acceptable exposure in most cases, but unless more careful metering is simply not an option, for whatever reason, I'd much rather be conscious of how my scene is being exposed. Even in a rush, due to moving subjects or lighting or whatever, I can take a quick incident or spot reading of my deepest shadow and by brightest highlight and come up with an exposure estimate based on that. Heck, thats probably as quick as or quicker than taking a matrix reading with an SLR than translating it to the large format.

I don't disagree, I'm just poining out that using a 35mm camera is a good acceptable compromise.

I can't tell you how accurate a DSLR is, I don't use one for such purposes. When I use a small camera in this circumstance, it's always my Nikon F6 loaded with the same film stock or film of the same speed as what I'm shooting in the LF camera.

[BetterSense]

I agree...the Nikon 35mm cameras I've used, including the F801s and the F4, were able to bang out perfectly exposed slides pretty much all of the time. I don't see why the results would be any different if you used their metering on a LF camera. I guess the 35mm lenses could have different transmission properties than LF lenses but do you take lens transmission into account when you use a hand-held meter anyway?

[Jack Dahlgren]

What if my scene has a small bit of highlight or shadow which I want to preserve detail in? Or what if I want to sacrifice highlights or shadows in order to expose another portion of the picture to how I want it? What if the meter sees a whole bunch of white and wants to make it middle grey?

Maybe it could be used as a starting point from which you could adjust based on what you're looking at (given a relatively simple scene), but even then you can't quite be sure what the meter is taking into account and what algorithms its passing its information through, making it very difficult to anticipate what will actually be exposed onto your film.

Also, more specifically to digital than to 35mm, theres no way of telling for sure (unless you actually want to test it) whether your cameras ISO values conform to your film's.

I mean, sure, matrix metering will give you an acceptable exposure in most cases, but unless more careful metering is simply not an option, for whatever reason, I'd much rather be conscious of how my scene is being exposed. Even in a rush, due to moving subjects or lighting or whatever, I can take a quick incident or spot reading of my deepest shadow and by brightest highlight and come up with an exposure estimate based on that. Heck, thats probably as quick as or quicker than taking a matrix reading with an SLR than translating it to the large format.

Most DSLR's provide a histogram of values and even blinky areas to indicate over exposure. At a glance you can see if you have small areas that you have over-exposed and also see if your camera totally blew the metering of the white cat on the white sofa.

Even in a rush, due to moving subjects or lighting or whatever, I can take a quick DSLR reading of the entire scene and come up with an exposure estimate based on that.

I think most people who are against this, haven't really tried it. The biggest issue is that you are carrying two cameras - that is why I carry a small light lightmeter instead.

[roteague]

Most DSLR's provide a histogram of values and even blinky areas to indicate over exposure. At a glance you can see if you have small areas that you have over-exposed and also see if your camera totally blew the metering of the white cat on the white sofa.

How does the histogram on the DSLR match the exposure range of film? The DSLR may flag something as being overexposed, where you might still have detail in the film. That's why I stick with 35mm film. I see very little value in a histogram with any of the film stocks I use.

[Jack Dahlgren]

How does the histogram on the DSLR match the exposure range of film? The DSLR may flag something as being overexposed, where you might still have detail in the film. That's why I stick with 35mm film. I see very little value in a histogram with any of the film stocks I use.

So take them as a warning, and if they are present, focus on the highlight and go to spot meter mode.

I personally think metering is overrated. In daylight conditions you can guess the exposure (especially given latitude of films like TMY) most of the time without a meter.

[BetterSense]

I agree completely. In fact I almost never have a meter with me when I need it, so I'm gradually just forgetting about the darn things.

Sunny? Use sunny 16, or a stop more.

Shade? 3-4 stops more if it's deep shade.

Bright overcast? S16+ 2 stops

Office lighting? S16+ 8-10 stops.

Heck, going handheld, a lot of the time it just boils down to exposing as much as I can given subject/camera motion and DOF constraints.

[mfratt]

How does the histogram on the DSLR match the exposure range of film? The DSLR may flag something as being overexposed, where you might still have detail in the film. That's why I stick with 35mm film. I see very little value in a histogram with any of the film stocks I use.

Very good point. Value on digital is determined by a hexadexinal value of 0-255. Anything below zero will be clipped to black and above 255 will clip to white. Film has a much more gradual (analog) transition before it will "clip" anday not line up with what a digital sensor will do. This is even more phased by the ability to process your film so as to comtrol you contrast.


So take them as a warning, and if they are present
focus on the highlight and go to spot meter mode.

I personally think metering is overrated. In daylight conditions you can guess the exposure (especially given latitude of films like TMY) most of the time without a meter.


I agree completely. In fact I almost never have a meter with me when I need it, so I'm gradually just forgetting about the darn things.

Sunny? Use sunny 16, or a stop more.

Shade? 3-4 stops more if it's deep shade.

Bright overcast? S16+ 2 stops

Office lighting? S16+ 8-10 stops.

Heck, going handheld, a lot of the time it just boils down to exposing as much as I can given subject/camera motion and DOF constraints.

I think this is heavily dependent on your style, but when I shoot lf, I like to be very specific and deliberate about everything, so guessing makes me very uneasy. I will often guess or take a single light reading for the day when shooting 35, but with lf, I feel a need to be in control of eveuthing.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Very good point. Value on digital is determined by a hexadexinal value of 0-255. Anything below zero will be clipped to black and above 255 will clip to white.

If you are interested in being deliberate and precise, decimal 0 to 255 = Hex 0 to FF.

As a side question, how do you get a light reading of below 0? :-)

[mfratt]

If you are interested in being deliberate and precise, decimal 0 to 255 = Hex 0 to FF.

As a side question, how do you get a light reading of below 0? :-)

Ugh anything other than base 2 or base 10 makes my head twirl. :confused:

And I know you were being coy with the second one, but to answer it anyway, there are values which exist below what the camera interprets at zero, though it won't render them.

[roteague]

I personally think metering is overrated. In daylight conditions you can guess the exposure (especially given latitude of films like TMY) most of the time without a meter.

Unfortunately, when shooting Velvia you can't get away with that.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Unfortunately, when shooting Velvia you can't get away with that.

I think you can. Bright sunlight with high contrast? Put the Velvia away :-)

[Ivan J. Eberle]

You have to know your DSLR's dynamic range to make use of the histogram (and it changes with ISO). It's mostly useful to me to quickly see how fully populated the range is to decide whether to shoot 4x5 in color transparency or print film (or a graduated neutral density filter).

I use a Nikon D200 with a dynamic range that's reasonably close to Astia 100F. The Spot Meter readings with it are derived from the same 1008 pixel RGB array that meters for the Matrix Metering. This is arguably more precise and immune to color temperature errors than any handheld spot meter (at least any with which I'm familiar).

[Frank Petronio]

Actually the short range of Velvia and digital probably match up pretty well.

[Brian Ellis]

If all anyone wants is a printable negative Sunny 16 and variations will work fine. If someone wants to place the shadows on a particular value and process the highlights to a particular value so that they can make a negative that will print the way they want the print to look, it's next to useless.

[Jack Dahlgren]

If all anyone wants is a printable negative Sunny 16 and variations will work fine. If someone wants to place the shadows on a particular value and process the highlights to a particular value so that they can make a negative that will print the way they want the print to look, it's next to useless.

What meter did Ansel use for Moonrise?

The sun is the sun
rocks are rocks
trees are trees
clouds are clouds

Sure, things vary, but I think you are selling your own judgement short.
Try this exercise, it is free and takes almost no time.

Look at the scene, guess the exposure.
Then take out your lightmeter and go about your normal routine.
Finally, compare your initial guess to the metered results.

I think it won't take you long before you are almost as good at guessing as your meter.

[roteague]

Actually the short range of Velvia and digital probably match up pretty well.

Except that Velvia holds more detail in the highlights than digital does.

[Frank Petronio]

Until that nuclear furnace starts running at half speed, you're still going to be able to place light values wherever you want them based on experience. Remember when Ansel worked this all out, light meters were pretty primitive and not very reliable at the high or low end. Actually they probably aren't reliable at the extremes now either.

[Frank Petronio]

Except that Velvia holds more detail in the highlights than digital does.

It just looks that way when they're surrounded by jet black quartertones and shadows ;-)

[Brian Ellis]

What meter did Ansel use for Moonrise?

The sun is the sun
rocks are rocks
trees are trees
clouds are clouds

Sure, things vary, but I think you are selling your own judgement short.
Try this exercise, it is free and takes almost no time.

Look at the scene, guess the exposure.
Then take out your lightmeter and go about your normal routine.
Finally, compare your initial guess to the metered results.

I think it won't take you long before you are almost as good at guessing as your meter.

For Moonrise Ansel didn't use a meter. But not because he thought it was preferable to guess using Sunny 16 or any other seat of the pants system. On the contrary, he wanted to use his meter but he couldn't find it. See Adams "Examples - The Making of 40 Photographs" 41 ("I had a clear visualization of the image I wanted . . but I couldn't not find my Weston exposure meter)."

I don't have any interest in trying to enter a contest with myself to see how well I can guess the correct exposure (and development time, which I also learn from using a meter or digital camera) for the print I want to make when I can use a spot meter and be sure. If you don't want to take the time or make the effort to use a meter that's fine for you and I certainly wouldn't try to change how you work. It just isn't how I prefer to work.

[gnuyork]

For me to carry my DSLR would be very impractical as it's one of the EOS 1 series - LARGE & HEAVY. Being fairly new to LF, as far as experience exposing film anyway, I think I would welcome my DSLR as an exposure meter for color slide film, however, I am making myself learn with the pentax spot. I did some sunset shots this august (and have yet to send them to the lab), but really didn't know where to point my spot to get the exposure.

My first set of Velvia that I did in the woods came out great, to my surprise. But I still need to work on composition and getting that compelling image. It was still sweet to see for the first time 4x5 chromes. Pretty exciting.

I think I said this in another thread about on this topic, but it would be nice to have a spot meter with an LCD preview and a histogram, but probably there's not much of a market for something like that.

[Greg Miller]

I did some sunset shots this august (and have yet to send them to the lab), but really didn't know where to point my spot to get the exposure.



For sunsets you will want to point the meter at a spot in the sky, but not a spot that is close enough to the sun to have the sun influence the reading. With a 1 degree spot meter this will be about anything allows you to look through the meter and not be blinded. Then just recognize that the meter wants to make that spot a medium gray tone. So you need to decide whether you want that spot to be rendered as a medium tone, or lighter or darker, and adjust the exposure accordingly.

The other thing to consider is the overall dynamic range of the scene. So you should also meter other objects in the scene to determine if you will blow out highlights or lose shadow detail.

[gnuyork]

For sunsets you will want to point the meter at a spot in the sky, but not a spot that is close enough to the sun to have the sun influence the reading. With a 1 degree spot meter this will be about anything allows you to look through the meter and not be blinded. Then just recognize that the meter wants to make that spot a medium gray tone. So you need to decide whether you want that spot to be rendered as a medium tone, or lighter or darker, and adjust the exposure accordingly.

The other thing to consider is the overall dynamic range of the scene. So you should also meter other objects in the scene to determine if you will blow out highlights or lose shadow detail.


thanks Greg, that's exactly what I did - meter a spot in the sky where the sun wasn't. I also tried to meter things in the foreground to see where they fell, though I was going for silhouette (if I recall)... still not sure how they will turn out, I am a newbie with the spot meter, even though I have had it for 7 years - just not much practice with it.

Was planning to send the chromes to the lab this wednesday, but when I got to the post office it was closed, must be for the holidays, though the bank was open... go figure.

[Greg Miller]

Good deal. Sounds like you can expect good results. I hope you got some keepers.

[Brian Ellis]

thanks Greg, that's exactly what I did - meter a spot in the sky where the sun wasn't. I also tried to meter things in the foreground to see where they fell, though I was going for silhouette (if I recall)... still not sure how they will turn out, I am a newbie with the spot meter, even though I have had it for 7 years - just not much practice with it.

Was planning to send the chromes to the lab this wednesday, but when I got to the post office it was closed, must be for the holidays, though the bank was open... go figure.

Actually you might or might not want to meter the sky, depending on what's in the foreground, how bright or dark it is in relation to the sky, how important it is to the photograph, etc. Few types of photographs tend to look more amateurish to me than a photograph of a great sunset and a solid black foreground.

[gnuyork]

Actually you might or might not want to meter the sky, depending on what's in the foreground, how bright or dark it is in relation to the sky, how important it is to the photograph, etc. Few types of photographs tend to look more amateurish to me than a photograph of a great sunset and a solid black foreground.


My subject was the sky with nice orange ball of a sun and the cloud patterns over the inlet to the ocean with a dock and some boats. There was not much in the foreground of importance to the image from what I recall. On the horizon was a bridge, and if it's silhouetted I don't think I would care, it's insignificant, but nice it's there to not be just another sunset shot.

I tried two different focal lengths - 90 and 210.

We'll see how it comes out. I'll post it here if it did not come out embarrassingly.

[mandoman7]

It just looks that way when they're surrounded by jet black quartertones and shadows ;-)

Totally. Highlight detail is hardly a strength of transparency film.

[mandoman7]

I carried a "DSLR" a couple of times, and decided I'd rather carry 2 more lenses, which is about the same weight. If you're only getting out once a month, the meter can be a life saver. If you're shooting every day, you begin to get the sense its telling you something you already know. ;)

[roteague]

Totally. Highlight detail is hardly a strength of transparency film.

While not a great strength Velvia still holds more detail in the hightlights than digital does.

[mandoman7]

Transparency film has a longer tonal range than a good digital camera?

[roteague]

Transparency film has a longer tonal range than a good digital camera?

What I said was that Velvia holds more details in the highlights than digital. I didn't say anything about tonal range.

[Greg Miller]

What I said was that Velvia holds more details in the highlights than digital. I didn't say anything about tonal range.

But most decent digital cameras have much more exposure latitude than Velvia. For example, the D700 has 9 stops of dynamic range (as reported by Thom Hogan). But let's go with 8 to be conservative. Velvia has 5 stops of exposure latitude. So if you shot a D700 and Velvia and expose for the highlights, the D700 will have an extra 3 stops on the shadow end. Even lower end DSLRs have 7 stops of exposure latitude. If you really wanted to protect the highlights, you could lower the D700 exposure by a full stop and still have 2 more stops to pick up shadow detail compared to Velvia. So the idea that Velvia holds more highlight detail doesn't really hold up in the real world. I have never had a situation with any of my DSLRs where I regretted not having Velvia because of loss of highlight detail.

[roteague]

But most decent digital cameras have much more exposure latitude than Velvia.

You missed the whole point. I wasn't speaking about latitude at all. I was addressing one point: there is more detail in the highlights with Velvia than digital.

[Greg Miller]

You missed the whole point. I wasn't speaking about latitude at all. I was addressing one point: there is more detail in the highlights with Velvia than digital.

And you missed my point. Because of the additional exposure latitude, you have the flexibility to expose you highlights where you want them. They don;t have to be pushed to the edge like with Velvia. I shot Velvia for many years. I did not sacrifie highlight detail with digital.

[Drew Bedo]

Did I miss something?

Why not just use a meter?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Did I miss something?

Why not just use a meter?

Looks like you missed the point.
A good number of people new to LF have DSLR's and don't have meters.

[domaz]

And you missed my point. Because of the additional exposure latitude, you have the flexibility to expose you highlights where you want them. They don;t have to be pushed to the edge like with Velvia. I shot Velvia for many years. I did not sacrifie highlight detail with digital.

I think the main problem with the Digital and highlights is it's tendency to clip them to pure white. Film rarely if ever does this so even when you blow the highlights they don't go paper white.

[Greg Miller]

I think the main problem with the Digital and highlights is it's tendency to clip them to pure white. Film rarely if ever does this so even when you blow the highlights they don't go paper white.

My point, again, is that with the extra dynamic range of digital, you are much less likely to be pushing the highlights to the edge like you would with Velvia. You don't have to work in the shoulder of the response curve because there is so much more room to work with below the top end.

You can't just look at one attribute in isolation - you have to look at the system, as a whole. In theory you could say a Honda Accord handles much better at absolute top speed than a Maserati. But you can back off the Maserati by 20 miles per hour and the Maserati will handle better at 160 MPH than the Accord at 110 MPH.

[jonathan_lipkin]

Very good point. Value on digital is determined by a hexadexinal value of 0-255. Anything below zero will be clipped to black and above 255 will clip to white.

Dunno if this has been addressed (I've only read through to page five), but most DSLRs will capture in raw format which is a 16 bit capture. This gives the ability to write from 0-65536. However, most only capture 12 bits of information. The raw format is not gamma-corrected. The discussions on this are a bit above my pay grade, but from what I gather you can manipulate the gamma (or tonal response curve) in camera raw or lightroom before you bring it into PS. That having been said, many people believe that film still has better gradation in the highlights.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Dunno if this has been addressed (I've only read through to page five), but most DSLRs will capture in raw format which is a 16 bit capture. This gives the ability to write from 0-65536. However, most only capture 12 bits of information. The raw format is not gamma-corrected. The discussions on this are a bit above my pay grade, but from what I gather you can manipulate the gamma (or tonal response curve) in camera raw or lightroom before you bring it into PS. That having been said, many people believe that film still has better gradation in the highlights.

For black and white film, silver atoms are either present or not. Thus it is a binary medium at heart.

From what I gather, you can manipulate the tonal response curve by altering chemistry, development time, agitation or temperature.

That having been said, many people believe that digital has more headroom for gradation in the highlights, and many people do not. Many people just don't care.

[NicolasArg]

I love using my dslr as a meter for film just because:
1). I shoot landscapes and like to have a digital "backup" of each good capture/light I happen to encounter.
2). I heavily use the LCD for previsualization purposes. IMO, holding a small final shot in your hands beats using a cardboard frame. It speeds A LOT the whole process, as usually I arrive to a location, scout it, look for comps with my DSLR and then setup the 4x5 in a breeze.
3). I'm a heavy filter user and with a digicam the metering and the composition is really really fast.
4). My DSLR uses great and compact telephoto lenses way out of the reach of my 4x5, so I carry it anyway.
It's pretty amusing that people still think that a fully digital, battery dependent lightmeter is more secure in the field than a weather sealed digicam.

[gnuyork]

My subject was the sky with nice orange ball of a sun and the cloud patterns over the inlet to the ocean with a dock and some boats. There was not much in the foreground of importance to the image from what I recall. On the horizon was a bridge, and if it's silhouetted I don't think I would care, it's insignificant, but nice it's there to not be just another sunset shot.

I tried two different focal lengths - 90 and 210.

We'll see how it comes out. I'll post it here if it did not come out embarrassingly.

Not so bad for not knowing where to point my meter...

Just got them back today - these are quick and dirty straight scans from the v750 with USM applied in PS and that's it.

http://www.dragma.com/gnuyork/photo/45/Jekyll_Aug4.jpg

http://www.dragma.com/gnuyork/photo/45/Jekyll_Aug1.jpg

http://www.dragma.com/gnuyork/photo/45/Jekyll_Aug5.jpg

[dervalrobert]

Coul't tink of using a Digital camera as a "Polaroid" like in the old days? And should there be the ASA be the same as on film? Robert Derval:)

[theBDT]

For black and white film, silver atoms are either present or not. Thus it is a binary medium at heart.

Film/silver works with light at the molecular level, not the atomic level. Silver filaments (the molecule clumps which make up individual film grains) are decidedly NOT binary: they are variably transmissive throughout, and even the densest filaments still transmit light.

There is an excellent discussion about the true nature of film at the molecular level, here: http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/10/chumps-and-clumps.html

Furthermore, even if for the sake of argument we agree that grain is effectively "super" binary, that is, it is values of "mostly transmit" or "mostly block" split up billions of times per square centimeter, light would still not necessarily pass through it in a binary fashion. Remember, light is neither binary nor analogue: it is quantum.

[Scott Davis]

Coul't tink of using a Digital camera as a "Polaroid" like in the old days? And should there be the ASA be the same as on film? Robert Derval:)

Should, yes. In fact? no. I've seen this first hand when shooting digital in the studio. I have a calibrated light meter that I use for studio shooting with film. It gives me very accurate exposures. Using the same meter, I take a reading, set the ISO on the digital camera to the ISO on the meter, set my camera exposure settings in manual mode to what the meter tells me, shoot the scene, and get underexposed shots, depending on the camera, anywhere from a half stop to two stops under what the meter tells me. If I switch the digital camera to some kind of auto metering mode and shoot ambient light, I get good exposures on the digital camera. So you can use it as a polaroid in the vague sense of a preview, but the composition will inherently be different because the digital camera's aspect ratio is different from your view camera, and you can't use it for an exposure test because the camera will not yield the same exposure as your film, assuming settings are equal.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Problem with using a digital camera as a quickie proofing device for LF use is that you still need to factor in bellows extension, and compensate for reciprocity failure. Digital sensors don't exhibit reciprocity failure--but long shutter speeds in LF with film commonly run into the realm of where it is very much an issue. You may also need calibrate the DSLR to a specific film type/batch. But all of these things would be no different using a handheld meter instead of a DSLR.

Terrific thing about using a DSLR is that in rapidly-changing or scuttling storm-cloud light, you also probably nailed the shot-- whereas you might have still been setting up the camera in that fleeting moment, shooting only LF.

[Greg Miller]

Should, yes. In fact? no. I've seen this first hand when shooting digital in the studio. I have a calibrated light meter that I use for studio shooting with film. It gives me very accurate exposures. Using the same meter, I take a reading, set the ISO on the digital camera to the ISO on the meter, set my camera exposure settings in manual mode to what the meter tells me, shoot the scene, and get underexposed shots, depending on the camera, anywhere from a half stop to two stops under what the meter tells me. If I switch the digital camera to some kind of auto metering mode and shoot ambient light, I get good exposures on the digital camera. So you can use it as a polaroid in the vague sense of a preview, but the composition will inherently be different because the digital camera's aspect ratio is different from your view camera, and you can't use it for an exposure test because the camera will not yield the same exposure as your film, assuming settings are equal.

This is no different than when using a traditional meter. You just figure out how the dSLR behaves relative to your film and account for that when shooting. If the dSLR meters 1/2 stop over the film, then you meter with the dSLR and and open up 1/2 stop when exposing the film, just like if you tested a traditional meter.

[Matus Kalisky]

One indeed needs to be careful with the different dynamic range of digital camera and different films. Still - one may use the spot metering of the camera to estimate the contrast range of the scene and then decide on the exposure.

Of course as mentioned by Greg - you need to check how does ISO 100 of your DSLR compares to ISO 100 of your film (or light meter you are used to - if you want to compare those).

I have and older DSLR which less dynamic range than the modern ones so I am closer to slide film response :)

[pdmoylan]

In the not too distant past I found my Nikon SLR's, when properly calibrated, served very well as backup to my Pentax Spotmeter. An N90s had to repaired as it was slightly less than .5 stops underexposed, while my 8008s was spot on. In a pinch, when the Pentax was not at hand, or I was taking both 35mm and 4x5 exposures of the same scene, I used the exposure readings from 35mm with consistently satisfactory results. However, after careful testing, I find that my DSLR exposure readings are so dramatically different from my SLR at the same ISO, I cannot employ it as a substitute for the Pentax. Of course, one could calculate this differential and factor it in with bellows extension, filter and reciprocity failure calculations, to obtain correct exposure. For me, however, less complication is a hallmark of my advancing years.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Film/silver works with light at the molecular level, not the atomic level. Silver filaments (the molecule clumps which make up individual film grains) are decidedly NOT binary: they are variably transmissive throughout, and even the densest filaments still transmit light.

There is an excellent discussion about the true nature of film at the molecular level, here: http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/10/chumps-and-clumps.html

Furthermore, even if for the sake of argument we agree that grain is effectively "super" binary, that is, it is values of "mostly transmit" or "mostly block" split up billions of times per square centimeter, light would still not necessarily pass through it in a binary fashion. Remember, light is neither binary nor analogue: it is quantum.

That same article says:

"During development these structures are converted into metallic silver which is black, the bromide atoms are absorbed into the developer, fixing removes the silver atoms that weren't struck by any photons, leaving that part of the grain clear."

Sounds pretty black and white to me. The author was making the point that there is a filament-like molecular structure so film "grain" is not binary.

But my intention was to point out that arguing about this stuff is nearly pointless. So I'm going to quit before I use the word quantum.

[Greg Miller]

In the not too distant past I found my Nikon SLR's, when properly calibrated, served very well as backup to my Pentax Spotmeter. An N90s had to repaired as it was slightly less than .5 stops underexposed, while my 8008s was spot on. In a pinch, when the Pentax was not at hand, or I was taking both 35mm and 4x5 exposures of the same scene, I used the exposure readings from 35mm with consistently satisfactory results. However, after careful testing, I find that my DSLR exposure readings are so dramatically different from my SLR at the same ISO, I cannot employ it as a substitute for the Pentax. Of course, one could calculate this differential and factor it in with bellows extension, filter and reciprocity failure calculations, to obtain correct exposure. For me, however, less complication is a hallmark of my advancing years.

The metering in recent Nikon dSLRs tends to yield a bright image. They are using an "expose to the right" philosophy where you expose to the right side of the histogram (but not to the point of clipping). The brighest stop is capable of holding the most tonal gradations (the darkest stop the least amount) while at the same time avoiding noise.

Once you understand how much the Nikon dSLR will try to overexpose (i.e. 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop,...), you can adjust for that for each film exposure (just like you would when using a traditional meter).

[john wood]

The metering in recent Nikon dSLRs tends to yield a bright image. They are using an "expose to the right" philosophy where you expose to the right side of the histogram (but not to the point of clipping). The brighest stop is capable of holding the most tonal gradations (the darkest stop the least amount) while at the same time avoiding noise.

Once you understand how much the Nikon dSLR will try to overexpose (i.e. 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop,...), you can adjust for that for each film exposure (just like you would when using a traditional meter).

Greg - thanks for this; my meter was forgotten on a bench a few weeks ago, so I've since tried a Nikon dslr with quite poor results. Tried again with my F100, and the results were great...but no ability to check the image. I thought it might just be some of the dslr limitations mentioned above...but your note gives me optimism to try again, with adjustments.

[Brian Ellis]

I've never used a DSLR as a substitute for a light meter. But I recently sold a Pentax digital spot meter for a friend to someone on this forum and he asked me to test it so I took four readings of different colored subjects with it and with my Canon 5D Mark II camera using its spot setting. Two of the readings were identical, the other two were a tiny bit off, less than a third of a stop IIRC.

[Bob Kerner]

Greg - thanks for this; my meter was forgotten on a bench a few weeks ago, so I've since tried a Nikon dslr with quite poor results.

Which DSLR, may I ask? I use a D200 and I have a Canon 7D that I primarily use for video and the two give Very different histograms and exposures. The Nikon is almost always a stop or so under compared with the Canon. It may be because it's an older DSLR.

I've switched to the Canon for LF evaluative and spot metering, and a small Sekonic for incident metering.

[john wood]

Which DSLR, may I ask? I use a D200 and I have a Canon 7D that I primarily use for video and the two give Very different histograms and exposures. The Nikon is almost always a stop or so under compared with the Canon. It may be because it's an older DSLR.

I've switched to the Canon for LF evaluative and spot metering, and a small Sekonic for incident metering.

Bob - the older (in digi years) D80...it's known to have faulty matrix metering, but I was using center-weighted and spot.