Metering with my Digital

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Another recent thread mentioned one of the professional hand-held light meters having a wildly non-linear response to color temperatures when reading at other than at the calibration temperature, or scenes dominated by one color.

Using a Nikon DSLR would be preferable insofar as the 1003 pixel RGB metering array is arguably the most accurate metering regime ever produced. Spot metering is also RGB and it's extremely precise on all my Nikons; I have constant-aperture lenses and routinely calculate exposures for 4x5 color transparency films with them. The D200 is what I tend to use most as it has a lower base ISO and since most of the films I use are either ISO 100 or 160. The histogram gives me a sense of whether the dynamic range of the scene fits a particular emulsion at a glance.

For color neg film, such metering precision is vastly overkill. My battery-free 1948 General Electric DKW58 selenium meter is easily good enough until 15 minutes past sunset. Guessing Sunny-16 off the box-top is usually close enough from sun-up to sun-down.

[Dave Jeffery]

"The amount of money and time you "waste" calibrating for the "myriad" of film types that you may use would be the same for any spot meter, regardless of the brand."

That's true! I stand corrected.


"I happen to have both a recent Seconic and a Canon G10. The G10 comes with a spot measuring mode and is precise enough to match the Seconic to within 1/3 of a stop."

I don't like the idea of carrying the extra weight of a full size DSLR around as the OP mentioned as I do very long hikes and weight is a big issue for me but the G10 would be good.

My Panasonic isn't as good at metering as the G10 so I still thought that the Pentax meter would be better, but based on what you say about accuracy of the spot measuring mode on the G10 I now agree with you that a G10 is probably a better way to go than a spotmeter, or a simple small digital camera like I have.


You are right Marko. I now agree with you that a G10 is an all around a better choice and I'll be buying one soon as a result.


Thanks!

[dave_whatever]

As someone who has recently used both compact digitals and a DSLR as a meter for large and medium format landscapes over a period of months I can say that using one of these camera as a meter certainly does work and is a perfectly valid option - it got me a lot of good results. However for me as soon as I got a genuine stand-alone spotmeter things got a whole load better - its just quicker, lighter, less fiddly all round, and less potential for mistakes.

One of the main technical problems is that most digitals don't cover the range of film speeds and apertures you may want to use. This means you have a few mental conversions to make, which means yet another opportunity to mess up (in adddition to forgetting to cock the shutter, not stopping the lens down, not pulling the darkside, double exposing the same sheet etc etc). For example, neither my D70 or my digital compact will work at ISO50 for velvia, so thats one thing to consider, add a stop or two of exposure to the reading. Then consider than if you're shooting with a DSLR that often the lens only stops down as far as f/22, so if you're shooting at f/32 then thats another stop of correction to add. If you've got a digital compact, your lens might not stop down further than f/8! Now clearly adding on these corrections (in addition to your reciprocity corrections) is hardly quantum physics but in the heat of battle in fading light it really is easy to trip yourself up.

Another issue is size - any DSLR setup is huge in comparison to a modern lightmeter, and heavy. Compacts are much smaller, but then you've got to deal with the delay when you turn it on, wait for the lens to extend etc etc, fiddly non-dedicated buttons, hard to use wearing gloves etc. Not to mention you've then also got to make sure you've got spare batteries and that everything is charged up. In contrast a hand-held meter may last several years running off a single AA cell.

Another consideration is the size of the spot meter on the digital. I know most people like to match their digital lens to an approximate of their 4x5 shooting lens. So say you're using a wide 90mm on your 4x5, you bring a wide zoom on your digital and set it to 26mm. But then of course your spot meter in the viewfinder covers quite a large area, so you either have to zoom in or use a long lens but lose the possibilty to check composition, or just put up with it. Again, you can workaround it OK, but for me all these minor irritants add up.

The final issue for me is the fact that you're likely to be using the digital for other shooting in the day. Unless the original poster has a spare D700 knocking around the house (don't we all) then he'll be using the D700 at other times, which brings up a couple of issues. Firstly when he steps out with the 4x5 kit he's got to remember to put that D700 in the bag, and secondly he's got to remember to cancel any exposure compensation he had set earlier, stick the spot metering on, change the aperture and shutter speeds back to f/22 and 1 sec, swap the lens from the 200m f/2 tele he was shooting wildlife with earlier in the day. Of course this is having already made sure the battery is charged or that he's got a spare in his 4x5 bag and not left in his family/travel/snapshooting bag. You see where I'm going with this....

Of course you do lose the ability to use the digital to check composition and colour temperature etc. Personally I can forego the composition thing as instead of a pokey 3" lcd screen on the digital I've got a 4x5" screen to check composition with. Its a shame that today's digital cameras can't be set to display the image upside down and reversed on the rear LCD - If anyone from Nikon or Canon are reading this I recon it'd be a real step forwards.

[Marko]

My Panasonic isn't as good at metering as the G10 so I still thought that the Pentax meter would be better, but based on what you say about accuracy of the spot measuring mode on the G10 I now agree with you that a G10 is probably a better way to go than a spotmeter, or a simple small digital camera like I have.


You are right Marko. I now agree with you that a G10 is an all around a better choice and I'll be buying one soon as a result.

Dave,

I'd like to make something very clear here: I am NOT saying that a digital camera is better than a spotmeter, all I AM saying is that an advanced digital camera CAN successfully be used for metering light, especially if you already have one.

If you are debating which way to go, DO NOT do it based on advice you get from the Internet, no matter who says it or how good it sounds - people are quick to spend other people's money and even quicker to advise others based on their own needs.

If you already have a digital camera, try it first. If you are not happy with the results you get, I think you should try out the available alternatives (i.e. find someone who has one or the other and try them out) before you spend more money on another camera. Since you already own a camera and don't like the results, you might well be better served with a light meter. You can't know it until you try it. The purpose of these discussions is to give you ideas to try, not to tell you what to do.

Marko

[Brian Ellis]

The original poster mentioned using a D700, that's what I based my comment on.

And I still think using a high quality light meter suits the purpose better than a digital camera. And good light meters can be purchased used for much less than a G10 or DSLR.

I have a G10 and several other DSLRs and I assure you that they will never be used as light meters for Large Format photography. I think it is a mistake for beginning LF photographer to work like this for a number of reasons. Using a light meter allows the act of metering to be transparent and quick which is not what you are going to get trying to get digi camera readings converted lens - shutter settings.

You guys think I'm attacking digital photography, I'm not. I just think using DSLRs or P&S for metering is a screwed up way to work and one shouldn't encourage a budding LF'er to do so even if that is all they have to use at the moment. I would encourage them to purchase a light meter. After all G10s D700s aren't cheap. If they can afford those they can afford a meter. Just part of the cost of entry.

It's time for this discussion to move along because we aren't going to agree.


Don "who doesn't hate digital but tires of these snarky debates" Bryant

Don - I didn't think you were attacking digital photography, sorry if I gave that impression. And I didn't think that this discussion was "snarky," I thought there was a lot of good information given.

You're correct that the OP talked about a specific camera but the discussion hasn't been limited to that camera.

I recognize that since digital camera lenses don't stop down below f22 and we often use smaller apertures with LF cameras a conversion sometimes has to be made. But to me it's no harder to do that than to take a spot meter reading and convert it to a desired darker or brighter exposure. As for "transparency," I don't know what could be more transparent than a histogram if you want to visualize light values.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to use a digital camera instead of a light meter. As I said before, I use a light meter myself because that's what I'm used to and I see no need to change. But I do often carry a small digital camera with me for other reasons. If I didn't already have a light meter and years of experience using it I'd certainly consider just using the digital camera. And if someone like the OP asked me whether there was anything wrong with doing that I'd tell them there isn't, in fact there are good reasons (that I and others gave in earlier posts) for doing that.

[adonis_abril]

Wow, this thread has been active for a while Horses for Courses, I say. For some using compact DSLRs work well and for others spot-meters. I'm one to admit that modern Matrix meters and histograms do a much better job at metering subjects than I do with a hand held meter. Films I've lost due to under/over-exposure have drastically been reduced once I used my Canon 5D (also great for back-up and catching fast moving subject/light). There may be some issue with the histogram not having the same response to film, but in the field I've had consistent results using the "L" setting on the 5D to match Velvia 50, and ISO 100 with Velvia 100, YMMV. In fact, I've not under/over exposed a film in my recent trip - this may take away bracketing and such.

...Now if only they could make a manual camera that can do ISO 50 and display historgram on a Droid phone that would solve the weight issue...

[VictoriaPerelet]

Spot meter is a lame excuse and sorry approximation for a true tool of LF metering - film plane probe (aka Sinar). That tool takes care of bellow extensions, physical glass transmittance, filter factors and even angle of polarizer.

I used Sinar probe for many years. And now days in studio I use digital back that goes in to film plane to do metering and replace it by film holder when I'm happy. You know digital backs - small CCD boxes that used to cost same price as brand new luxury car?

Either DSLR or P&S are very valuable tools (especially if you use flash + your brain) that leave silly spot meter way back in 50's where it belongs. Digital camera sensors are calibrated for ISO&exposure standards at factory and stay there. Yes there's reciprocity effect that affects digital, that nobody brought here - it's similar for light meters also ...


There are couple of villages in our area where people do not use electricity, microwaves, computers, cars etc. They have their ways of living. Trying to convince them is probably not going to do any good, they are not trying to fight and convince rest of civilization also. They do not use Internet and do not post there also

[Chris Strobel]

Either DSLR or P&S are very valuable tools (especially if you use flash + your brain) that leave silly spot meter way back in 50's where it belongs

Lol!Yeah right

[Dave Jeffery]

Marko worte
"If you already have a digital camera, try it first. If you are not happy with the results you get, I think you should try out the available alternatives (i.e. find someone who has one or the other and try them out) before you spend more money on another camera."

How do you expect the economy to recover if we stop pissing money down the toilet on things we don't need??? You call yourself a photographer? :^)

I'm going to call mine the G10 spot.

[Marko]

How do you expect the economy to recover if we stop pissing money down the toilet on things we don't need??? You call yourself a photographer? :^)

I'm going to call mine the G10 spot.

I have to say that I find that logic a little bit... spotty, shall we say?. ;^)