Searching for a spot meter, on a budget.

[allie]

I'm looking to buy a spot meter--up until now I've either used my dSLR combined with an incident meter, or if I was lucky, borrowed one from a friend.

I'm on a pretty limited budget (I'm a student, and have just bought my first LF camera of my own), so the Pentax Digital Spotmeter is out of the running, sadly.

Right now, all my large format work is done at night, with color slide film--my exposures are usually between 15 seconds and several minutes. I understand the zone system, but don't really do zone placement with this kind of work.

I'm hoping not to spend more than $125 on this, and get something that takes modern batteries so I don't have to deal with any battery issues. Is there anything out there that will work with my budget?

[photog_ed]

I would shop for a Minolta Spotmeter M or F. The later ones take one AA cell.

[Argentum]

+1 for the Minolta with the caveat that it only meters down to EV1 so if you want something that meters in very dim light then its probably not what you want.

[Drew Wiley]

Just depends on your luck. I needed another backup Pentax Digital Spotmeter, while they can still be found. One turned up nearly unused for $200, and it read
perfectly compared to my other ones. My very first one is still accurate, but is literally taped together after forty years of hard use, and now consigned to my
Nikon snapshooting kit.

[Bill_1856]

Spotmeters ain't all they're cracked up to be.

[Drew Bedo]

You will get many recommendations here. Th talent pool is deep and the knowledgr base is wide.

Every decision involves weighing various trad-offs. When making your choice consider that you are looking for a precision instrument that you will use every time you set up your gear. I encourage you to get the best one you can buy. Save longer or forgo another piece of gear to do this.

[allie]

Spotmeters ain't all they're cracked up to be.

I understand, and I've made do without one for a very long time--I'm new to LF, but not to photography. My reasoning for wanting a spot meter now is that the subjects I am shooting are often at a decent distance away from me, and under completely different light (think buildings lit up at night, streetlamps, etc.) Sometimes I can run back and forth with my incident meter, but not always.

[seezee]

Allie, what is your target price for the meter? If you can spend $150+, look for a used Pentax Digital either here on the classifieds, over at APUG, or on the big auction site. Don't pay extra (http://www.butzi.net/articles/zone%20VI%20worth%20it.htm) for a Zone VI-modified version (http://www.butzi.net/articles/zone%20VI%20reprise.htm), but do print and add a Zone VI sticker to it.

If $150 is too high, get the Minolta, or look for the analog version of the Pentax.

[Rael]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?131475-FS-Pentax-Spotmeter-V-in-good-working-condition

[alexmuir]

I use a Capital digital spot meter, which I think is the same as the Soligor model. It uses a 9V alkaline cell which is very common. It reads a 1 degree spot via a 100mm lens, and has an adjustable eyepiece. It's not very fancy, but it's cheap and has been reliable for the 18 years I've had it. I've added a basic lens shade to reduce flare. You could probably find one for $50. It's the model SP II.
Alex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allie]

I was looking at the analog Pentax spotmeter, but was thinking it would be too difficult to read at night. Do you have any experience using one?

[Michael W]

I had a Soligor analogue spot meter and the needle was hard to see at night. I dropped it and it broke so I bought a digital Soligor where the readout is easy to see at night. Overall I've been pleased with the Soligors.

[Kevin Harding]

I was looking at the analog Pentax spotmeter, but was thinking it would be too difficult to read at night. Do you have any experience using one?

As the person offering that particular meter up for sale - it depends, but at night it can be challenging. I have used it at night but there are two challenges: It doesn't go below 1EV, so unless you're sort of metering for the highlights, it doesn't work super well. The illumination lamp doesn't work on it, so the scale doesn't light up, which arguably might make the scale easier to see.

But I have used it at night. This isn't intended as a bump of the other thread, so I apologize if it's perceived as such.

[Bill Burk]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?131475-FS-Pentax-Spotmeter-V-in-good-working-condition

I also recommend this. Pentax analog spotmeters have a needle that locks confidently on readings in a single range sweep from 1 to 19 EV.

The low-light feature is clever because it actually lets you read around 1-7 EV at night, but won't be something critical to miss. Actually it might be working. I thought mine wasn't until tonight I checked it. It is a very dim sliver of light. If your eyes are not night-attuned you might not even see it.

I spent a week "forced" to use one because I smashed the glass on my Weston Master II (since replaced the glass)... I didn't want to use the SEI I brought on the trip... and I was surprised at what a pleasure it is to use this meter.

[Leszek Vogt]

I have nothing against analog Pentax....and if it works well, then it works....but the repair place in LA stopped servicing those, since there are no parts available for those. Just a hint.

Les

[Ted R]

re Pentax Spotmeter V I just had mine calibrated by the repair place in LA, it didn't need any parts. They come up on ebay all the time within the budget of the OP, very fine meters with sensitivity down to 1EV with illumination for reading the low scale numbers.

[Drew Wiley]

The Minoltas are superb, and are calibrated exactly the same as Pentax. They just aren't quite a fast and intuitive to use as the ring on the Pentax, esp for ZS work, but do it with comparison buttons. Don't know how well they hold up to wear and tear, since I kept mine in the studio. The Soligor clone to the Pentax apparently doesn't have multicoating, so would be more susceptible to flare. I even use a shade on my meters.

[alexmuir]

The Minoltas are superb, and are calibrated exactly the same as Pentax. They just aren't quite a fast and intuitive to use as the ring on the Pentax, esp for ZS work, but do it with comparison buttons. Don't know how well they hold up to wear and tear, since I kept mine in the studio. The Soligor clone to the Pentax apparently doesn't have multicoating, so would be more susceptible to flare. I even use a shade on my meters.

The version I have has coated optics, and has a filter thread of 43mm, so a shade can be easily attached.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Willie]

Just checked on eBay and Soligor spot meters are going for $30 - 50.
They work well.

[Corran]

KEH often has Soligor or Minolta spot meters for cheap. Pentax analog meters are great but the digital meter is quite a bit better to me just due to the size and bright LED numbers. If you are patient you can find deals on them - I found two for around $100 just cruising eBay.

There's also the option of a Sekonic with "add-on" spot thingy, which for me was not something I wanted to deal with but would give you multiple metering options for various situations. I think Minolta had a similar thing for some of their meters.

[maxotics]

Another idea is to use a cheap, used, old, banged up DSLR with crappy long lens and practice interpreting histograms in night shooting. I would think you'd learn a lot more aobut the light using an approximately 300mm square sensor versus 10mm in a meter. It wouldn't be glamorous, but I bet it would end up much more accurate and useful than a spot-meter. If you can set up a target, then I bet throught an interpretation of noise for the camera you're using you would far surpase the accuracy of the meter. Another benefit it you would get reference images which would help you fine tune your exposures over time.

Another variation is to get one of those phone snap-on camera from Sony, etc., QX10? (they seem very cheap used now), and do that with them. You get zoom and large sensor.

[Tim Meisburger]

Just checked on eBay and Soligor spot meters are going for $30 - 50.
They work well.

I would buy them all day for $30 to $50. I didn't see any for that, except one that was broken. I have a pentax and a minolta, and had a soligor at one time, and think all three do the job. I think soligors go for $100 or so, but they are not less capable than other meter, and considerably smaller than an analog Pentax.

[Michael Graves]

I'm going to add my vote to the Soligor series. As one other member mentioned, the analog variety is very sensitive to dropping. The needle is held in place by little more than a bent pin and gravity. Get the digital. With care, it will last you for years. I still have mine and I bought it nearly 20 years ago.

[bigdog]

PM sent.

[Drew Wiley]

TTL metering not only interpolates information, but is dependent on what inside there is actually doing the reading. Of course you could get used to the metering
personality of a particular DLSR/lens combination, just like you can with TTL on an ordinary film camera, but its a bulky convoluted way of getting from point A to B. Anyone who thinks this kind of technology constitutes an advance in film metering probably doesn't understand the versatility of a real light meter. Extremely
long exposures at night require testing with specific film, regardless. I use the same spotmeter for every camera, every type of film, every situation. It doesn't
need any accessory programs. If you like that kind of e-gadgetry, fine; but it probably has more liabilities than advantages. Same reason I always found automated
exposure on film cameras to be counterproductive. You still need to think.

[tgtaylor]

I've been out with the big Pentax 67II and my new Sekonic L-758DR. I metered the scene with the in-camera metering system and then take several spot reading with the Sekonic. The average (midpoint) reading of the Sekonic agreed perfectly with the Pentax and this was also my experience with the Pentax Digital Spot Meter. My P67II will be 16 years old this August and what a marvelous camera it is!

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Sadly, my own P67 meter is still only in synch around the midtones. I don't know if anyone can recalibrate these or not, but it really doesn't matter because I never
rely on it. In fact, I prefer the slightly lighter non-metered prism. One just get used to a certain metering style, I suppose. I never goofed even a Kodachrome
exposure with an externally-coupled averaging CDS meter on my early 35mm Pentax. But spot meters are far more versatile.

[maxotics]

TTL metering not only interpolates information, but is dependent on what inside there is actually doing the reading. Of course you could get used to the metering
personality of a particular DLSR/lens combination, just like you can with TTL on an ordinary film camera, but its a bulky convoluted way of getting from point A to B. Anyone who thinks this kind of technology constitutes an advance in film metering probably doesn't understand the versatility of a real light meter. Extremely
long exposures at night require testing with specific film, regardless. I use the same spotmeter for every camera, every type of film, every situation. It doesn't
need any accessory programs. If you like that kind of e-gadgetry, fine; but it probably has more liabilities than advantages. Same reason I always found automated
exposure on film cameras to be counterproductive. You still need to think.

Just to be clear what I'm suggesting. I wouldn't use the TTL metering of a DSLR either. I'm talking about using the sensor as a meter surface. You zoom into what you want to photograph then take a photo at auto ISO. From testing you've already done, you know the EV from the ISO used. You also look at the image and come up with some visual scale of noise to EV. You're really doing the same thing that a light meter does, only you're using the visual output to come up with a reading. If one spent the time on it, would give more nuanced and accurate guidance than a light meter (which always outputs only one averaged value of something). The problem is it would be a bit bulky. It would also not be a "romantic" use of photographic equipment. However, per the OP, it could satisfy a nice budget!

[Drew Wiley]

Modern version of a Polaroid test shot.

[maxotics]

Modern version of a Polaroid test shot.

Not sure if you're being funny or poo-pooing the concept. A light meter and camera use the same materials and circuitry. The only difference is that a light meter takes a reading and provides a numerical value for the amount of light that fills up the photo-site wells. A camera created a matrix of silicon and provides a digital value for each well as a matrix (image). Each is designed to efficiently meet the needs of the user. A light meter is portable and makes it easier to take incident readings, etc., which are difficult for a camera. As you and others have posted, it can become a stable source of data between camera. To say a light meter is superior in accuracy to a digital camera, used in a creative way, is, I feel, quite debatable.

Using a digital camera as a light meter, as I suggested, is technically no different than a light meter. So it's not a Polaroid test shot because the shot, like a "reading" from a light meter, is used to determine correct exposure. It is NOT used for the image. Instead of the light meter making calculations from the images, one is using the visible noise level and ISO evaluation of the camera to come at the SAME conclusion a light meter would reach. Again, whether you point a LIGHT METER or a DIGITAL CAMERA at light, they both sense it using the same material and use the similar ADCs to make sense of it.

If one doesn't want to study digital processing, and how sensors work, then, clearly, the low-budget digital camera method of exposure is not a good idea. But to just assume light meters are better because they're labeled "light meter" is unfounded. If there are technical reasons, I'd love to hear them!

[LabRat]

I do like using a light meter dial scale as a calculator when adding up filter/bellows/reciprocity factors, instead of counting the factors on my fingers... ;-)

Steve K

[The Joker]

+1 for the minolta spot.
Whilst it only meters down to EV1 I think you'll find that most if not all reflected light meters only go that low. And besides, if you have done your ZS calibration properly you can meter any zone and expose for that in the knowledge that the other zones will fall where they should.
I find that for night time and/or low light photography its better to meter and expose for a highlight anyway. If you meter for a shadow which is very dark and correct it for reciprocity you will usually blow the highlights which are not into reciprocity. You get a much more natural look if you meter for the highlights at night time and/or low light situations. Our eyes play tricks on us and don't respond in the same way as a light meter does. The mid tone to highlights are far more important than deep shadows at night time IMO. It's night time after all and you should expect the shadows to go to very dark or black.

A digital camera can meter deep shadows by setting the ISO to a high value but you can do that with a spot meter too. The question is whether there is actually enough light for the meter to respond properly and usually there is plenty of light in the mid tone to highlights such that the reading is well above EV1.

[Drew Wiley]

Maxotics - a basic spotmeter pretty much does the same thing no matter what. It has a sensor in one particular spot and just one lens system directing the light
consistently there, along with a standardized angle of view. Incident of combination meters obviously get a little more complicated in their selection of metering choices; but in spot mode act analogously. TTL meters do not. In one way or another they have to somehow deflect the light out of the path to secondary places other than the primary film or capture plane. They might differ one from another in actual spectral sensitivity, and try to extrapolate this in some complex manner which we have to mentally unravel and reassemble. This by nature introduces additional variables, not to mention that each different lens changes both the angle of view and the angle of light incidence. Even changing a focus screen can sometimes screw up the metering. I'm not suggesting that one cannot become accustomed to what is going on; but it is in fact different and relatively convoluted. I have made numerous comparisons in the field of both methods, and have found intelligent spotmetering, using my own brain instead of some alleged shortcut engineered inside the camera, to be the most consistent and reliable. I realize that a certain number of people are going to tote along some kind of metered digital camera or smartphone anyway, so might want to have these tools do double duty rather than carry an extra meter. That's fine, but not necessarily equal, or equally dependable. And then when it comes to Zone System mentality, which certainly seems still popular on forums like this one, a spotmeter can be an especially elegant simple tool. I personally don't even use
on-board metering with my Nikons, though I do practice comparison readings this way, just in case my primary meter ever fails (since the Nikon kit gets my
oldest most beat-up meter, not a newer one - losing an 8x10 shot is a lot more expensive and disappointing than losing just another 35mm frame!) So yes indeed, there are very real technical differences between how a basic meter per se operates and the plethora of ways electronic cameras attempt to accomplish this, which nowadays don't have the characteristics of film in mind anyway.

[maxotics]

This by nature introduces additional variables, not to mention that each different lens changes both the angle of view and the angle of light incidence. ...So yes indeed, there are very real technical differences between how a basic meter per se operates and the plethora of ways electronic cameras attempt to accomplish this, which nowadays don't have the characteristics of film in mind anyway.

Hi Drew. I think we're talking past each other. I am not disputing the value of a spot-meter. From from it! You keep thinking that I'm suggesting using a DSLR, AS IS, with a long lens as a poor-man's spot-meter. What I am saying is that if you scientifically calibrate a DSLR with the same lens you can ascertain the same values you'd get from a spot meter (and maybe other info too). Or put another way, I'm saying that pretend you have no idea what a DSLR is. All you know is that it is a sensor that is sensitive to light. Pretend that the images mean nothing (as images). You can use the information from the DSLR to read light values. I'm having enough trouble building a digital stitching back for a Graflex! But you're close to driving me to demonstrate this. :) If anyone has any interest I'll put the batteries in my spot meters and work something up ;)

[The Joker]

A quick look at digital nikon specs and and an 810 only goes down to EV2 in spot mode so a loss of 1 stop over a minolta or other spot meter and you need a long lens which means a lot of extra weight. A D5 only goes down to goes down EV2 in spot mode so again a loss of 1 stop over a minolta spot meter and thats even more weight. Does a D700 qualify as banged up? That only goes down to EV2 in spot mode and EV0 in matrix or center weighted.
I don't think an "old, banged up DSLR with crappy long lens" is going to give you any advantage in low light spot metering capability. Only if you use it in matrix or center weighted metering will you gain a stop with an 810 or 4 stops with a D5 but they don't exactly fall into the cheap category by any stretch of the imagination.
Not saying they can't be used but they don't give any advantage for spot metering as far as I can tell. ZS requires spot metering unless as you suggest you use a very long lens or walk right upto the subject to take your readings. Personally I wouldn't want to be carting that amount of kit and weight around with me as a 4x5 setup with all the usual gubbins is more than enough weight for me without adding to it unecessarily. A 1 deg spot is small and light.

[maxotics]

A quick look at digital nikon specs and and an 810 only goes down to EV2 in spot mode so a loss of 1 stop over a minolta or other spot meter and you need a long lens which means a lot of extra weight. A D5 only goes down to goes down EV2 in spot mode so again a loss of 1 stop over a minolta spot meter and thats even more weight. Does a D700 qualify as banged up? That only goes down to EV2 in spot mode and EV0 in matrix or center weighted.

You're talking about TTL metering, which I agreed up above has no advantage--probably a disadvantage.

[The Joker]

You're talking about TTL metering, which I agreed up above has no advantage--probably a disadvantage.

But the point I'm making is that unless the dslr is quite recent and therefore quite a lot of money, you won't get the matrix metering to work at lower light levels than a spot meter would. Therefore there would be no gain in using a DSLR to solve the low light level problem in which case why bother with it. Far simpler to just get a spot meter with its far simpler ease of use. Also if you have understood the ZS you will have learnt to visualise what the result should look like without resoting to to chimping histograms in the dark which still require you to visualise what you will get in the print unless you are doing everything by numbers which isn't really what the ZS is about. ;)

[maxotics]

But the point I'm making is that unless the dslr is quite recent and therefore quite a lot of money, you won't get the matrix metering to work at lower light levels than a spot meter would.

When most DSLRs measure light they do so through dedicated sensors above the pentaprism. You can look at this diagram of a DSLR (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D30/D30A3.HTM) For reasons discussed above, they have limited value for spot-metering because even in spot metering mode their angle of view is probably larger than most spot meters. And if not that, they may not be as sensitive as a dedicated spot meter. Again, this is mostly a philosophical question about alternatives to expensive spot meters, pros and cons.

Okay, what I keep talking about USING THE CAMERA'S IMAGING sensor as a spot meter. I don't know how effective this can be. Theoretically, I would think they can be very effective because instead of a few millimeters of light sensitive silicon (The latest Nikon D5 has 180,000 pixels), you have around 368 square millimeters in APS-C. Generally 24,000,000 pixels.

Physically, there is probably little difference between the TTL sensor and the camera sensor. Both are silicon treated in such a way as to be sensitive to light. Both generate small voltages which are converted to digital data. That digital data can be assigned a value of strength, let's say in EVs. Or it can be assigned a gray scale value, which in conjunction with which pixels it came from (R,G or B) can become a pixel in a RAW image.

When you look at an image, each pixel is a visual representation of the strength of light at that place. So if I zoom into an image with the same 1-degree of angle as a spot meter, I would see exactly what a spot meter's electronics see. If I took 10 images of a black/white/gray card at the camera's maximum ISO (which is just an AMPLIFICATION of the the original sensor readings) I should be able to figure out EVs for night-time scenes, (which the OP wanted). My guess (I don't know for sure) is you could probably read deeper into EVs with that method, then a spot meter, where at some point the signal to noise is too faint to make a reliable reading.

If I set the camera to base ISO, say 100, then in many imaging programs I could analyze the RAW, original light readings, and again, probably come up with some very accurate and deep information about the reflected light of the scene. Why, because I'm dealing with 14-bits of data at each pixel--16,383 gradations of light strength. Spot meters give you what, say 20 times 1/3rds, or 60 distinct values? (again, not saying you need more in practice).

And again, I'm not saying one would use the DSLR in this way right out of the box. The photographer would have to do many experiments to calibrate the images produced with known EVs so they can quickly judge, at the scene, the proper exposure.

[The Joker]

Yes you only need to look at the camera metering spec which gives the EV range it is capable of. But as I already pointed out, it is only the very highend cameras that can meter several(4) stops lower than a spot meter. Older dslrs can't do it or at least only 1 stop lower and even those aren't cheap. Infact many times the price of a good used spot meter. Look at the price of a used d700 compared to minolta spot meter and you'll see what I mean.
Good theory but the flaw is that a banged up old dslr can do it when in fact it can't. And yes a d5 would do it but at a massive price and what you have overlooked is that a dslr such as a D5 is far more sensitive than film and to get those shadows of such low light level as a dslr could on film, you would be a very long way into reciprocity which means extending exposure considerably. And that has the effect of completely blowing the highlights (which usually aren't in reciprocity) so massively increasing contrast through overexpsoure of the mid to highlight regions. So you then need to use extreme compensating developer which is very tricky to get right. The result is usually an unatural looking night time shot. Again as I already suggested, it's night so let the shadows go so that it actually looks like night time.
Yes some people like to make their night time shots look like day time but I don't think most people do. So interesting idea but personally I don't think very practical except as a head banging exercise which is so nice when you stop.

[Drew Wiley]

I own an expensive easel densitometer (projected light) that accurately reads way way down there, basically color-neutral. It has to be precisely positioned on the
center axis of the light (otherwise, they told me it would have cost three times even more, due to all the complication of cosine integration, but hypothetically
doable). Then I have a basic trig calculator program that turns these log density reading into actual exposure time. So yeah, you could invent something that combined all these things in a portable package and that would utterly skunk any currently used manner of low light metering. But you'd have to have built-in ND
filters to allow it to work in ordinary bright light, the selling price would be obscene, and the market tiny. But even so, it wouldn't solve much. Every different type of film has to be tested anyway for not only recip issues, but the manner in which different filters affect sensitivity to different degrees over the duration of that curve. It is all so damn complicated in net effect if you're trying to quantify it in advance. Before I even knew how to use a light meter I knew how to bracket a series of night exposures with my favorite film in order to accurately predict the next session. Let's see ... a roll of Kodachrome with processing was
about five bucks back then; that ultimate hypothetical meter I just described would probably cost five thousand dollars at least.

[Bill Burk]

Throw in a white card and presto... you get about 2 more EV of range added to your existing meter.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just stick with your dslr's metre, calibrated to your system. I knew a guy who did this and got excellent results. When you can afford it, spring for a dedicated spot metre.

[maxotics]

I can't force anyone here to learn what I know about digital photography ;) Again, any camera that produces RAW files, no matter how old, can give you 16,383 gradations of light reading/measurement at each pixel location. I am only saying that, per the OP, any DSLR, with a long lens (btw Drew, the aperture works as an ND filter) , can probably be calibrated to out-measure any spot meter. Would it be bulky, complicated, sure. Would it take into account film reciprocity, no? But what does any of that have to do with the core question? The OP has limited money. He wants to take night shots. My simple point is that a spot-meter is NOT BETTER at taking light readings, it is only smaller and simpler. If he needs that, he should buy one. If he's just concerned about the accuracy of his DSLR's TTL metering, than there are ways, I've suggested, where he can use the camera's sensor to "read" the light.

The question of whether all of the other issues are more important to tackle, like film sensitivity, camera's true shutter speed, etc., is not the question I'm answering. But I agree with others, in the big picture, who say they are more important than metering.

[The Joker]

Nobody is disputing that some(not all) digital chips have greater sensitivity than a reflected light meter. The issues I have is whether the camera you use actually has that extra sensitivity, whether it's cost effective and most importantly whether you actually need a meter which can take readings in such low light that its below the sensitivity of film. This final one is after all the crux of it. If the light level is way below what film is capable of reegistering then what is the point. Everyone knows that some digital cameras perform better in low light than film, so it follows that if you want to do ultra low light photography then a digital camera is most likely a better to solution to the problem. But if you want to use film then you have to accept its limits and work within them.
And finally I would stress again that most night/low light scenes have part of the subject which is into reciprocity and part which is not as far as film sensitivity goes. That requires making big decisions about which part of the subject you meter and by and large I prefer to meter for the parts of the subject which are not into reciprocity.

Here is an image for illustration purposes. Large parts of this image metered way into reciprocity with my minolta spot F, especally the trees and sky to the left. But I atually metered and exposed for a highlight on the spire in the background. I used my normal development for a CI of around .5. I expected a lot of the buildings behind and the trees not to register on the film but as you can see on the second image, which has had the levels tweaked for illustration purposes, there is huge detail in areas that were almost black to my eye. So even without any exposure adjustments or dev adjustments for reciprocity, its quite possible to get perfectly good images using a spot meter and film captures more of those black areas than you can see with your eye. So I question the need for highly sensitive metering if you have your brain in gear when taking an exposure reading. But again, if you need ultra low light metering sensitivity then I agree some digital cameras can do it but are not usually required. Also it should be understood that film is going to give a far less linear curve when part of image is into reciprocity and part is not whereas a digital sensor will give a far more linear curve for the same scene. They produce different results.
151851 151852

[Drew Wiley]

Night photography is its own game; and frankly, I've never used any kind of meter for that kind of thing, nor for long exposures in caves or tunnels. Those are
cases where testing, experience, and perhaps a tip sheet from prior experimenters is a better tool. An awful lot has to do with the aesthetic choices too, since extremes in lighting might be part of the scene, and you have to decide what to keep and what to blow out, unless you want to do an extreme compensating thing. I've got a whole series of "near death experience" prints where an enveloping glow of light floods into the entrance of some tunnel,cave, or window. I deliberately blew the detail out of the highlights, but did split tone character into it instead. A fun game indeed; but in my own case, I violate all kinds of rules I apply to ordinary daylight shooting.

[The Joker]

well yes, experience is a huge factor in getting what you can out of any scene. I suppose the main point I'm trying to make is that people seem to create problems where none exist in the misguided belief that they need super duper highly sensitive tools when they don't. Film photography is about light and if none exists then you can't make an image. If you want to make images when there is no or very very low light then you need specialist recording materials or digital sensors these days which have the sensitivity to capture the wavelengths that do exist. I'm thinking night vision cameras here but film in a 4x5 camera has limits as to what it can do and as long as you understand the limits then images are there to be captured with the usual tools. i.e. standard incident or spot meters.

And note that an incident meter can meter to a lower level of light than a spot meter, perhaps down to -2.0EV so if its feasable you can walk over to the subject and meter with an incident meter and get a very low light reading, lower than most digital sensors can. Obviously not practical to do that in the example I showed above so a spot meter shows its strengths in that particular case but would I ever need to take a reading in -2.0EV? Unlikely but even if I did, could the film dev and print be able to produce a decent print from it without doing somersaults. Sometimes it's just better to assess the possibilities and walk away unless you are into jumping technical hurdles just for the sake of it.

[Drew Wiley]

Metering technology has come a long long ways. I inherited an early Weston incident meter. It still works perfectly, whatever that means. A nice conversation piece. Otherwise, guess-exposures or the Sunny 16 rule seem more predictable than trying to make sense of that thing!