meter of choice?

[Leigh]

You're welcome.

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

OK so the metering backs and probes idea is more a novelty than a useful tool. I get it.

But it must be profoundly satisfying to be able to claim you have flare 100% under control and nobody could say you were wrong.

[Cor]

Steering back to the use of a spot meter, here is my single euro cent:

I use a Minolta M spotmeter (I believe it is equal to the F without the flash).

I usually only measure the part of the scene were I want good detailed shadows, and call it Zone III. Take the reading, open up 2 stops from there and expose.

Process for a standard time (almost never deviate for N+1 or N-1 since I do not usually measure luminance ranges anyway).

Conservative guess: 90-95 % of my negatives print technically wise fine.

A ps,

When I am out shooting with my LF friends, my measurements deviate considerably (1/2-1 1/2) stop from theisr, nevertheless as a whole we all produce printable negatives..but perhaps that is a different story.

I guess my point is that you can make it as complicated as you like (and I do enjoy reading about it!) but it does not have to be..

Best,

Cor

[Brian Ellis]

It is a good thing, Brian. It is only bad if it takes too long an done misses the shot. Or if one is either anal or insecure and feels the need to measure 25 dark areas and average the results. Or if one makes a mistake and measures the wrong dark area.

Basically you're saying they're "bad" if the person doesn't know how to use them. Which is true but something that could be said about any photography equipment. And I'd suggest that anyone so ignorant about the correct way to use a spot meter that they measure 25 different dark areas and average the results has no chance of making a decent photograph, with or without a spot meter or any other meter.

[rdenney]

The original intent Sinar had was to make it easier for studio photographers to control their lighting ratios and range. If you are photographing found light (nature) instead of creating your own set-ups in a studio, the metering back may be more of an encumbrance than a benefit.

Yes. We should remember that many of the Sinar features were intended to achieve two goals: 1.) absolute repeatability for studio setups that might have to be re-erected and still achieve identical results to previous setups, and 2.) complete functioning of the camera from behind the camera.

The first was required for commercial work in the studio, particularly for product photography. Photographers were usually required to produce chromes with accurate color, and by accurate I mean the manufacturer paid some advertising firm to find just the right color for its psychological effect and then licensed that exact color from Pantone or whomever so that they could produce that color exactly the same way every time. Product photographs with colors slightly off were just not acceptable, especially if the product was photographed in two sessions where the setup might be taken down in the interim. And transparency film is picky in this regard, especially given there is no post-processing to correct any color casts. Many of Sinar's features were designed for studio product photographers to handle such requirements efficiently.

The second was sort of a dream, near as I can tell, of Herr Koch. Most of us can live without it in practice, though I do know some folks (and some on this forum) who value it highly.

The Sinar system is cool, but some of its features have never tempted me. I like the shutter because it allows me to use unshuttered lenses, not because it (when coupled with DB-mounted lenses) gives me control over aperture and shutter speed from behind the camera. The metering back is interesting in theory, but do we really want that meter clamped to the side of the rear standard when we are unpacking, setting up, making 1 (one) photo, tearing down, repacking, rolling to the next stop, unpacking, setting up, making another photo, and on and on?

Rick "who, like Leigh, considered this for a while and then rejected the notion as impractical for field work" Denney

[rdenney]

OK so the metering backs and probes idea is more a novelty than a useful tool. I get it.

But it must be profoundly satisfying to be able to claim you have flare 100% under control and nobody could say you were wrong.

A previous point Mike made is actually quite relevant here: Everything in the chain of operation is subject to various inaccuracies. It seems to me that flare is just one more thing. I guess I sort-of built it into my zone scale. But it is also my experience that lenses sufficiently flarey to cause a noticable change in shadow luminance might obscure the detail in those shadows with flare artifacts.

Rick "whose accidental overexposures usually turn out better" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Basically you're saying they're "bad" if the person doesn't know how to use them. Which is true but something that could be said about any photography equipment. And I'd suggest that anyone so ignorant about the correct way to use a spot meter that they measure 25 different dark areas and average the results has no chance of making a decent photograph, with or without a spot meter or any other meter.

I'm not saying anyone or any metering technique is "bad". I'm saying that there are different ways to meter, and of the different ways some are more effective than others. I should have used the word "ineffective" instead of "bad".

[cowanw]

Nobody has mentioned a Gossen Starlite. Which would do everything you want>

"I think I would like to get a separate meter though.
I see many prefer the Pentax Spot.
However, I was thinking maybe one of the Sekonics, one that also does flash metering?"

[urs0polar]

Yes. We should remember that many of the Sinar features were intended to achieve two goals: 1.) absolute repeatability for studio setups that might have to be re-erected and still achieve identical results to previous setups, and 2.) complete functioning of the camera from behind the camera.

That's cool; I didn't know the thing about the pantones, but it makes sense. The probe isn't a color meter though (is it?) -- but obviously it would help with getting the exact exposure again.

Rick "who, like Leigh, considered this for a while and then rejected the notion as impractical for field work" Denney

Dang, I can feel the resale value of my probe dropping like a rock

Rick "whose accidental overexposures usually turn out better" Denney

So, the one time I used this probe setup outside (on my roof), I was up there with JohnNYC from this forum and his 8lb 8x10 (My P2 8x10 setup weighs about 22 lbs without lens), undergoing some evening/sunset photography what-have-you. He took about 15 shots after spot metering like twice throughout. I was still connecting the probe, building the P2 from its requisite pieces out of my pelican case (15 lbs by itself, and the wheels don't help with stairs), and the light had fallen quite a bit. Given that the light was fast disappearing, I did what a lot of people probably do in that situation ... I metered (with the probe, naturally) what looked like zone 5-ish on the side of a building (I couldn't see my old favorite, the sidewalk, from that angle, and my arm isn't long enough to get in front of the bellows and lens for a palm-reading) and went for it. I later developed the shot in the bathroom, and I think I took too long filling the jobo (that fall off the uniroller didn't help either) because the sky is a little uneven.

Urs0 "But I felt like a badass all the same" Polar

[rdenney]

If you carried all that stuff up onto your roof, you are a badass!

Rick "who feels badass enough with a 4x5 F2, let alone an 8x10 P" Denney