Light meter suggestions?

[MILC Toast]

I have received advice from "you don't need a light meter" to "use a smart phone light meter app".

I'm kind of resistant to both.

Is there anything easy to use, durable and cheap that works as well or better than a cell phone app?

I think I would like to keep my budget around the $50 level but I want a forever tool, not disposable. Used is ok.

I'm not sure if that is wishful thinking. I just don't know what is out there.

I think I'm going to start mainly with landscape/architectural photography but might eventually do indoor stuff with artificial lighting.

[Bernice Loui]

There is no such thing as a "forever tool". IMO, those light meter apps are... light meter apps that can never have the capability of a serious light meter.

~Case of stating this sheet film view camera journey not knowing what kind of road is ahead... Add to this, the challenges of learning how to view camera..

First question would be what kind of lighting needs to be metered? Ambient, strobe/flash, incident or spot ?
At best any light meter "app" would be an incident-ambient meter with ?? accuracy, sensitivity and capability. Keep in mind these "fones" are at best do most-master of none. Keep in mind, no "one" was or is specifically designed to be a film photography light meter.. it can only simulate at best.

If only ambient-incident light needs to be metered, majority of moderate cost light meters will do. This easily fits into the $50 budget.
Adding on to ambient light only would be flash/strobe metering capability. This will increase the cost of the meter, easily near the $50 budget limit.
~Minolta flash meter IV (owned/use one for decades to this day), Sekonic and others..

If ambient light optical spot metering is needed, the meter just got more costly due to complexity and more, this again will easily near or exceed the $50 budget.
~Pentax spot, Minolta spot meter M, Sekonic and others..

If ambient and strobe/flash spot light metering is needed, the $50 budget will absolutely be busted.. as these meter are complex and not simple if they are any good.
~Example would be Minolta Spot meter F (owned/used for about three decades now).

There are also combo spot/ambient meters the measures ambient and strobe like the orginal Minolta flash meter VI which is now the Kenko KFM-2200. Have one, it's good for what it does.

In all cases, many of these light meters are no longer produced or supported by their manufactures. Good ones like Minolta have proven durable/reliable/accurate/repeatable over the decades.

Keep in mind a GOOD light meter is essential for proper film photography, it is the device that facilitates proper film exposure, proper film images to be made and the key to greatly limiting the waste of film in too many ways. Which is why a GOOD light meter is worth far more than $50... or one box of 5x4 film today.. simply add up the cost per sheet and your time which is not replaceable to discover why spending more than $50 for a good light meter is very wise investment..


Bernice



I have received advice from "you don't need a light meter" to "use a smart phone light meter app".

I'm kind of resistant to both.

Is there anything easy to use, durable and cheap that works as well or better than a cell phone app?

I think I would like to keep my budget around the $50 level but I want a forever tool, not disposable. Used is ok.

I'm not sure if that is wishful thinking. I just don't know what is out there.

I think I'm going to start mainly with landscape/architectural photography but might eventually do indoor stuff with artificial lighting.

[BrianShaw]

$50 is a fairly thin budget. But you can get an older meter that will meet your basic needs and last you a very long time. Look at eBay for Gossen Luna Pro SBC. This is a large meter but is easy to use. Unlike the older Luna pros, which are great meters (one of my “forever” meters) this version uses a common 9V battery. General coverage reflected and incident. A “system” meter that can be expanded for flash and spot metering. Those accessories will break your budget but good options for the future perhaps. Super sensitive too. Only negative that you need to really think about is the size. It’s big.

I’m sure that there are other options that might meet your requirements; I’m sure others will chime in with suggestions.

[MILC Toast]

It looks like my luck is holding up. A friend of mine who has gone digital might loan to me a Pentax Spot Meter. That should help me figure out exactly what I need before I buy.

[SergeyT]

Compare that to a "phone app" that feature a spot meter ;)

[MILC Toast]

That's a good idea comparing a dedicated meter to an app.

I kind of think an app has a chance of working because many phones and specifically the phones I am interested in have well respected camera performance. They meter light well enough to set exposure for a tiny sensor digital camera and get it right. If a light meter app can take advantage of that performance, it should be good. It might be hard to calibrate exactly but a common phone like iPhone, Pixel or a Samsung flagship should be easy enough for the app publisher to create calibration settings for those phones.

[otto.f]

It looks like my luck is holding up. A friend of mine who has gone digital might loan to me a Pentax Spot Meter. That should help me figure out exactly what I need before I buy.

If you just start, which I don’t know, there is nothing wrong with a spotmeter but it is quite a bulk, in size and in figuring and thinking out what your exposure will be in the end. In my experience I only need it in landscape when I want to emphasize parts of the images where I cannot walk to.
A fine handy meter is the Gossen Digisix2, which I use for incident metering, which is good in 90% of the light situations. A small minus is that you really need to calibrate it with a grey card. For more insight in the brightness range of a subject/situation I mostly use Gossen Sixtomat F2 which is very reliable and always gives exactly the same value with incident metering and reflective metering from a grey card.

[esearing]

If you want a forever tool then save up for it. Use whatever in the mean time (including a digital camera). You can likely find used sekonic meters in the 500 or 700 series that do it all for under $300. Same goes for Tripods, Lenses, and even backpacks, save for what you want and be happy that your closet is not filled with cheap stuff that you can never sell.

In my experience your phone will die, fall in the river, or get lost - then you have no meter or app.

[Alan Klein]

If you just start, which I don’t know, there is nothing wrong with a spotmeter but it is quite a bulk, in size and in figuring and thinking out what your exposure will be in the end. In my experience I only need it in landscape when I want to emphasize parts of the images where I cannot walk to.
A fine handy meter is the Gossen Digisix2, which I use for incident metering, which is good in 90% of the light situations. A small minus is that you really need to calibrate it with a grey card. For more insight in the brightness range of a subject/situation I mostly use Gossen Sixtomat F2 which is very reliable and always gives exactly the same value with incident metering and reflective metering from a grey card.

What do you do with the other 10%?

[Alan Klein]

You could use your digital camera as a light meter. That's free.

[Bernard_L]

Here : Sekonic 208B. Bought used for 100€.

My 2 ¢: Don't fall into the spotmeter rabbit hole. Remember that until mid-20th century, light meters were mostly used by movie operators, because they had to ensure the reel-to-reel consistency, and because each hour of shooting involved a large number of (expensive) people. Photographers took perfectly decent (even good or excellent) pictures without a meter, based on experience.

Even if you have super-duper-meter, you still need to decide where to point it and what to make of the reading(s). That is the hard part.

[otto.f]

What do you do with the other 10%?

Spotmetering or Gossen sixtomat f2, as I already explained

[otto.f]

You could use your digital camera as a light meter. That's free.
Which is reflective metering and only in ~60% foolproof, especially with wide-angles you’ll have hard time trusting your AUTO everything procedure

[PRJ]

Spot metering for a beginner is a bit of a can of worms. I'd suggest with your budget to get a Luna Pro SBC, which has already been mentioned. It is very difficult to go wrong with an incident meter. Spot metering needs translation and for that you need experience. The other benefit of the Luna Pro SBC- it is pretty much the king for low light photography. If you ever want to do night photography or interiors then you'll end up with one anyway.

[SergeyT]

Which is reflective metering and only in ~60% foolproof, especially with wide-angles you’ll have hard time trusting your AUTO everything procedure
This does not sound like a relevant counterargument to the original suggestion.
Maybe you could explain your thoughts regarding why a digital camera won't be a viable tool for metering light a little better?

[paulbarden]

I have a Sekonic L-308S
I also have myLightMeter for iPhone

I have compared the two and both give identical readings (in reflective mode), and the iPhone meter allows me to use it as a spot meter. In the past 2 years, I have used my iPhone light meter far more often than the Sekonic when out in the field, and have never found it to be lacking in any way.

Given my experience with these two meters (I also have the Reveni Labs accessory meter, but that's a different story) I have a hard time understanding how some people come to the conclusion that iPhone app style meters are somehow deficient or unreliable.

[Bernice Loui]

Applying the fone light meter app to this set up, need f64.4 at the subject and lighting ratios using a total of about 4,000 watt/second of strobe.
234082

From previous post... how could the fone app be used to determine exposure at f16_?_
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?161306-What-focal-length-taking-aperture-used

How would this scene be metered using a fone app_?_ related "gear" 5x7 Sinar P2 with front of the lens "add-ons", Sinar DBM mount 180mm Symmar S @f22.
234083


~One size does not fit all,
Bernice




I have a Sekonic L-308S
I also have myLightMeter for iPhone

I have compared the two and both give identical readings (in reflective mode), and the iPhone meter allows me to use it as a spot meter. In the past 2 years, I have used my iPhone light meter far more often than the Sekonic when out in the field, and have never found it to be lacking in any way.

Given my experience with these two meters (I also have the Reveni Labs accessory meter, but that's a different story) I have a hard time understanding how some people come to the conclusion that iPhone app style meters are somehow deficient or unreliable.

[Doremus Scudder]

Normally, I'd advise someone in your position to first read up on the types and techniques of metering (spot metering and placing shadows, averaging reflected metering, incident metering) in order to decide which best fits with your photographic goals.

However, since you have a Pentax digital spot meter at hand to learn with (at no cost), learn with that. If you're shooting black-and-white film, then definitely read up on Zone System metering technique, which consists of placing an important shadow value. This is one of the things the Pentax digital does best. (Disclaimer: I own and use three Pentax digital spot meters and I'm a Zone System practitioner).

You can also use the spot meter to meter a "middle value" in the scene and simply use the reading given by the dial, but the real advantage of a spot meter with black-and-white film is that you can meter the low values, base your exposures on those and avoid underexposure more easily than by metering middle or high values. The rule of thumb for beginners is: Meter the darkest value you still want texture in and then close down two stops from the meter reading.

If you're using color negative film, the same basic technique applies, but color transparency films, being reversal films, are also "backwards" when it comes to spot metering. Normally, you would base your exposure on a highlight value. My rule of thumb was always: meter the highest value you want texture in and then open up two stops from the meter reading.

BTW, I don't find spot metering to be difficult in any way, nor is the Pentax digital meter large and bulky. I carry mine in a vest pocket in the field and hardly know it's there.

One tip; make a lanyard for your meter, if it doesn't have one already, that goes around your neck or attaches to a garment (mine attaches to a ring on my vest) that is just long enough to get the meter to your eye, but not long enough to let the meter hit the ground if you drop it.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Note of caution with the spot meter.. Unless it has been modified in some way, the meter reading equals 18% gray rendered on film. This means metering a white color object will render/record as 18% gray on film.... not "white" on film. Keep this in mind while using the spot meter.

Bernice


It looks like my luck is holding up. A friend of mine who has gone digital might loan to me a Pentax Spot Meter. That should help me figure out exactly what I need before I buy.

[otto.f]

This does not sound like a relevant counterargument to the original suggestion.
Maybe you could explain your thoughts regarding why a digital camera won't be a viable tool for metering light a little better?

Indeed if that digital camera has multi zone metering, reflective metering is ok. But because I know Alan Klein from the Leica Forum I unconsciously presumed that he works with centre-weighed metering and my remark is biased by that

[Alan Klein]

Which is reflective metering and only in ~60% foolproof, especially with wide-angles you’ll have hard time trusting your AUTO everything procedure

Your "only 60% foolproof" sounds like a guess. Most digital photographers don't have a 40% failure rate. If they did, they should take up drawing. You have the added advantage of a histogram and blinkies to show when you're clipping shadows and highlights.

Regarding using these cameras (micro 4/3) as a light meter, I use a 24-70mm effective zoom lens to zoom in to the area I want to read the exposure. I don't use a wide-angle lens. I can switch metering from 2-3 degree spot to center average to matrix. If I switched to a lens with a max of 150mm, I could get the spot down to around 1%. I can set the camera to aperture or shutter priority or manual. So there's a lot of flexibility built into the digital camera, more than a dedicated exposure meter. Of course, you may not want that much flexibility and want to use something more simple. That's OK too.

[Doremus Scudder]

Note of caution with the spot meter.. Unless it has been modified in some way, the meter reading equals 18% gray rendered on film. This means metering a white color object will render/record as 18% gray on film.... not "white" on film. Keep this in mind while using the spot meter.

Bernice

The same applies to any reflected meter. Usually, a meter with a wide angle of view will be metering both dark and light areas and the average will work out to middle gray. This is not always the case. The classic "polar bear in the snow" shot will also fool the meter into underexposing and the "black cat in the coal bin" will fool the meter into overexposing (less serious, though).

But Bernice is right, when using a spot meter you have to be intelligent about which value you're metering and basing your exposure on.

It boils down to the user being smarter than the meter.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Being skilled, astute and smart using a light meter is the key to Greatly reducing scrap film, Great frustration with difficult film images and more..

How to meter is often an under appreciated yet mandatory making film images requirement.

Bernice

[LabRat]

With a spotmeter for B/W, your "safety" zone (for normal development) to include in the range of film is read the brightest area you want to hold detail in, one stop below that should be middle gray, two stops below middle grey should hold shadow detail, and there is an additional stop below that that will hold some forms, but little detail...

For color chromes, one stop below highlight detail is middle grey, and one stop below is about the shadow detail you will get on film...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

Besides the reliability of the meter itself, the next most important thing is to become so familiar with your own meter that working with it is almost intuitive. I started out with a relatively primitive coupled external Cds averaging meter on an early Honeywell Pentax, and almost never goofed even a Kodachrome shot. Later, graduating into 4X5 color chrome photography, I adopted the Pentax digital spotmeter and never looked back. Yes, that had its brief learning curve; but that was decades ago. I use these for every film format, every kind of photo subject, indoors or outside.

The whole problem I have with people relying on the statistical odds of an internal camera program telling them the correct exposure, or them having only that option, is that they often crash land into reality pretty hard once they try to actually print those exposures in the darkroom. Scanning and evaluating neg quality on a screen isn't the same thing. They should stick to a pure digital workflow if that's the case. But they may have gotten into film in the first place because they wanted its own classic look, but don't really understand how the learning curve of film exposure and development needs to go hand in hand with the learning curve of actual darkroom printing. I have friends who fell into that trap.

Black and white films also differ from one another with respect to contrast gradient and potential luminance range of competent capture, so no digital histogram can take all those kinds of variables into account within its own relatively limited range; but I suppose it's better than nothing. Just don't stumble into the Zone System Inquisition when doing so.

[Bill Poole]

Depending on the situation and what I have with me, I will use an older Sekonic meter in incident mode, a Reveni Labs spot meter, or the My Lightmeter Pro ap on my phone, which is always with me and so get quite a bit of use. I find the phone ap to work well in averaging the luminance of a scene. I will also "walk into" a scene and get very close to a shadow area, which I will then meter directly with the phone from a foot or so away--the shaded trunk of a tree, for example. This method gives very useful information, allowing me to expose for detail in those areas. If I had to reduce to only one meter, it would be my phone.

[MILC Toast]

Thanks for all the advice. I think I might buy one of the Luna meters and get an app. That would give me a 3-way cross check.

A little back story, my eyes are painfully sensitive to sunlight. I'm not sure if it's the actual brightness or maybe just one wavelength but I squint a lot or wear sunglasses.

I don't think I'm the best judge of light and brightness but I've never tested that against an instrument.

I intend to learn a lot about film speed, aperture and shutter speed as well as how to use the information a light meter provides.

I'll also experiment with using a digital camera to use its metering abilities.

More and more info will let me see what is consistent, what is questionable so I can learn how to take measurements that I can successfully translate to exposure.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52594201742_1f46c5a597_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2o8z2PL)Minolta Meters (https://flic.kr/p/2o8z2PL) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I have all of these meters in my studio. Amazingly Minolta Meters have always worked without problems for me. The Autometer II is not at all expensive, and it's my standard go-to outdoor incident meter. The Flash Meter is deadly accurate and compare exactly to my Broncolor Flash Meters. An olde design but works without fail always

[SergeyT]

I'll also experiment with using a digital camera to use its metering abilities.
The main advantage of a digital camera is that is provides a histogram along with highlight clipping indication.
Other benefits
- it allows to assess color temperature of a scene. Not precisely but at least reliably indicates if a warming\cooling filter should be used and approximately how strong it should be.
- it allows to keep reference images of the photographed scene. Could help with color correction of final images on film.
and the list goes on.
I never used a dedicated light meter, never felt like my photography would benefit from using one . Instead I have a feeling that it may only complicate things for me.

[Alan Klein]

The main advantage of a digital camera is that is provides a histogram along with highlight clipping indication.
Other benefits
- it allows to assess color temperature of a scene. Not precisely but at least reliably indicates if a warming\cooling filter should be used and approximately how strong it should be.
- it allows to keep reference images of the photographed scene. Could help with color correction of final images on film.
and the list goes on.
I never used a dedicated light meter, never felt like my photography would benefit from using one . Instead I have a feeling that it may only complicate things for me.

As I mentioned, I'm using a digital camera as well. While the histogram helps me, there are a couple of issues I'm still investigating.

First, histograms and clipping blinkies are based on the jpeg, not the raw image. So the camera is already affecting the range you see. Second, is that the digital camera has more stops before clipping than film does, especially positive slide film. So what may not be shown as clipped in the digital camera's histogram or blinkies, might get clipped on the film. So I've been giving a 1/2 stop less light for slide film rather than shooting at the exposure shown on the digital camera. If shooting negative film, I'd add 1/2 a stop.

The 0 and 255 points can be changed in my camera so that the clipping area is less (for example I can set the range of 5 to 250). The problem is I don't really know where the right point is to match the film's range in DR. Maybe other here have an idea of how to calculate that?

[esearing]

Note of caution with the spot meter.. Unless it has been modified in some way, the meter reading equals 18% gray rendered on film. This means metering a white color object will render/record as 18% gray on film.... not "white" on film. Keep this in mind while using the spot meter.

Bernice

which is why you meter several spots and think through the zone system where the color/tone will fall. Example gray post in snow is going to read atleast 3 stops different than the snow. Then you have to use your brain to set the gray post or the white snow onto the zone you want. Use EV mode for easiest mental conversion. White snow meters ev12 - A thinking man knows he has to open up 3 stops to get it white in the print. Gray post = EV9 , you could consider it ZoneV and let the snow fall on zone 8. Then everything else you do comes into play EI, development process, and print grade contrast.

[jnantz]

Thanks for all the advice. I think I might buy one of the Luna meters and get an app. That would give me a 3-way cross check.

A little back story, my eyes are painfully sensitive to sunlight. I'm not sure if it's the actual brightness or maybe just one wavelength but I squint a lot or wear sunglasses.

I don't think I'm the best judge of light and brightness but I've never tested that against an instrument.

I intend to learn a lot about film speed, aperture and shutter speed as well as how to use the information a light meter provides.

I'll also experiment with using a digital camera to use its metering abilities.

More and more info will let me see what is consistent, what is questionable so I can learn how to take measurements that I can successfully translate to exposure.

good luck figuring it all out !
I have a luna pro sbc but never use it, it is one of the ones that takes a normal 9v battery I think there are 2, you might consider the 9V version those batteries cost very little and are plentiful. I also have a sekonic . 398 I think (no batteries at all). these things are just toys to help you get an idea what the light might be like. the best thing one can do is keep notes, either on paper, in a phone, in one's head &c, and eventually not use a meter and just use your experience.

don't forget to have fun!
have a nice new year
John

[Paul Ron]

luna pro sbc! its very sensitive silicon blue cell is sensitive to -6 ev.... probably one of the most sensitive out there. they sell fairly cheap too. excellent meter!

oh you can get a spot attachment for it as well.

[Willie]

Might look at Quantum Calcu-Light X or XP. They are older, solid state, small and lightweight. Accessories available to do spot metering, direct readings off the ground glass and a host of other applications. Incident or reflective.
The XP is sensitive enough to give meter readings by the light of a quarter moon.
Mainly used, but they last a long time. Mine was used by a friend and bought decades ago. Easily fits in a shirt pocket.

[JMO]

I started with a Sekonic L758DR, but early on in my LF journey I noticed a friend using a Gossen Ultra Spot 2 (GUS2) and he recommended it highly. So I got a nice used one since they were/are no longer available new. It has a 1 degree spot instead of a larger 2 degree spot like the Sekonic or Pentax, and the GUS2 is very sensitive and accurate. The only compromise with the GUS2 is it's a bit bulky compared to something like my Pentax digital spot meter which is an excellent performer that I carry with my MF kit because it's more compact. The Sekonic allows both spot and incident metering, and for another incident light measurement (opinion) with my MF cameras I carry a Gossen Digisix. 99% of my LF images are taken with use of the Gossen US2, and a year or so ago I scored (never used, in original box) the earlier Gossen Ultra Spot (not the "2" version) which is the same design as the 2 but has a less sophisticated internal computer for averaging the readings and helping you to come up with the correct exposure (which feature on the GUS2 I never use anyway). So I feel that tip I received 10 or so years ago to try the Gossen Ultra Spot meters (1 or 2 version) was a good one.

[Alan Klein]

Isn't using more than one-meter manufacturer confusing? Don't you get different readings depending on their use?

[BrianShaw]

Isn't using more than one-meter manufacturer confusing? Don't you get different readings depending on their use?

Not really. Some meters are easier to use/read than others but that's about the extent of potential problems.

[BrianShaw]

I started with a Sekonic L758DR, but early on in my LF journey I noticed a friend using a Gossen Ultra Spot 2 (GUS2) and he recommended it highly. So I got a nice used one since they were/are no longer available new. It has a 1 degree spot instead of a larger 2 degree spot like the Sekonic or Pentax, and the GUS2 is very sensitive and accurate. The only compromise with the GUS2 is it's a bit bulky compared to something like my Pentax digital spot meter which is an excellent performer that I carry with my MF kit because it's more compact. The Sekonic allows both spot and incident metering, and for another incident light measurement (opinion) with my MF cameras I carry a Gossen Digisix. 99% of my LF images are taken with use of the Gossen US2, and a year or so ago I scored (never used, in original box) the earlier Gossen Ultra Spot (not the "2" version) which is the same design as the 2 but has a less sophisticated internal computer for averaging the readings and helping you to come up with the correct exposure (which feature on the GUS2 I never use anyway). So I feel that tip I received 10 or so years ago to try the Gossen Ultra Spot meters (1 or 2 version) was a good one.

Hmmmm... are you sure about this?

[Merg Ross]

good luck figuring it all out !
..... the best thing one can do is keep notes, either on paper, in a phone, in one's head &c, and eventually not use a meter and just use your experience.

don't forget to have fun!
have a nice new year
John

Best to you John for the new year.

Merg

[Drew Wiley]

I once had a Minolta Spotmeter F. Those were calibrated identical to the Pentax Digital Spotmeters - absolutely identical readings across the full scale. It's slightly smaller than the Pentax; but I found the manual dial ring method of the Pentax faster and more intuitive than the pushbutton & LED readout method of the Minolta. The Pentax is allegedly more durable too, which is not surprising given its much simpler mode of operation. Both are 1 degree readout.

[Doremus Scudder]

With a spotmeter for B/W, your "safety" zone (for normal development) to include in the range of film is read the brightest area you want to hold detail in, one stop below that should be middle gray, two stops below middle grey should hold shadow detail, and there is an additional stop below that that will hold some forms, but little detail...

For color chromes, one stop below highlight detail is middle grey, and one stop below is about the shadow detail you will get on film...

Steve K

Steve,

I'm a bit confused by your post...

The classic Zone System placement for a detailed shadow in black-and-white photography is Zone III, i.e., two stops less exposure than the spot meter reading of the shadow area. That leaves Zone VI a tonality somewhere between the textured shadow and the middle 18% gray value of Zone V. Zone II has "substance," but not much in the way of texture, Zone I is black.

Similarly, there are Zone VI and Zone VII, each a stop apart, before the textured highlight of Zone VIII. That is, three stops between middle gray and a textured highlight, not one, as I understand your post to mean. Zone IX is pure paper white and reserved for specular highlights, etc.

So, a five-stop spread between Zone III, the textured shadow and Zone VIII, the textured highlight (or six stops, depending on how you count :) ). This all, of course, for "normal" SLR and development.

Note also that the Zone System and most other exposure methods for black-and-white negative materials espouse "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights." It seems like you are advocating basing your exposure on a highlight, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. Now Fred Picker, in his day, had a down-and-dirty method of simply exposing for a Zone VIII highlight and going from there, which works in many situations, but not all, and is really a bit slapdash IM-HO.

As for color chromes, I've always based my exposure on a highlight value, but have found that the textured white is two stops away from middle gray, so I meter the highlight and open two stops, not one. It's been a while since I shot chromes, so maybe the dynamic range has changed?

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Staying with one specific brand-type of light meter goes a long ways to limiting changes in ergonomics, reading the meter, deciding how to interpret meter readings to come up with the proper film exposure factors.

For those working with only available/ambient light choice of light meter is easier. If the requirement for combined high power strobe with ambient light then add low level ambient or strobe light puts much greater demands on the light meter. Other added demands would be spot meter combined ambient and strobe and low level light.

Then comes accuracy-precision-reliability-durability and most of all GOOD user ergonomics. No wonder why a good light meter is not an "economy" item.

Perception of any given light meter preference also comes from user needs, demands, expectations, budget and all that..

Fact remains, there is no substitute for being highly skilled, experienced and capable of using and getting the very most out of any given light meter.. ala, owning the very best light meter made or available is not gonna help if the owner-user does not fully and completely understand and properly skilled at getting the absolute max out of that light meter..

One other factor today or light meter considerations, demands placed on the post process film. If the image maker is held to very fixed print making demands, like only one grade of fiber based B&W paper for print making, one fixed film to be used and knowing precisely what the print goals are, these factors alone will enforce very specific demands on how that film to be printed will be made if the print goals are to be achieved. Yea, sure, one can always salvage a crappy film to get a print.. question is, will that print be any ~good~ ?

Similar and more applies to color transparency film. To achieve a good color transparency demands careful control of exposure, lighting and all related factors in the production of a color transparency..

In these days of film scanned to digits, then bent as needed via software, seems less care and attention needed is put on the film image production as the belief the digitized image can be "fixed up" via software as needed.. yes or no_?_



Bernice







Isn't using more than one-meter manufacturer confusing? Don't you get different readings depending on their use?

[BrianShaw]

… or in other words, photography is just too difficult for “normal people” despite all of the tools available. Sad message.

[jnantz]

Best to you John for the new year.

Merg

Thanks Merg! Hope you have a great year too!
John


… or in other words, photography is just too difficult for “normal people” despite all of the tools available. Sad message.

Brian I think this is an accurate message that photographers tell other people but the reality of it is (as you know) photography ( with film and paper ) can be as simple or as difficult as someone wants to make It, like cooking an egg.

Im more interested in the fun not interested in quicksand.

[SergeyT]

... histograms and clipping blinkies are based on the jpeg, not the raw image.
It doesn't really matter how the histogram is formed. Both RAW and JPEG are data storage formats.
I only ever used Canon cameras (2) and all of them from 20 years ago till now provide me with a histogram that can reliably be used to determine the exposure for reversal films. The last Canon (M3) I got dirt cheap specifically to use as a small and "light" light-meter and can't be happier with it.
Back in the days I have read on some forums that Nikon and Canon calibrate their light meters differently. Can't speak to that.

... the digital camera has more stops before clipping than film does, especially positive slide film
Color reversal film has a very narrow usable dynamic range , so in many conditions a compromise on chosen exposure should be made. It means either underexposing the dark tones or overexposing the highlights. For outdoor photography under natural direct sunlight I never bother to photograph on color reversal if my metered settings at ISO 100 call for a shutter speed faster than 1/80 at F8 (or translated to other F-Stops as needed). If the photographed scene has some whites with no important details in them (example clouds, splashies from waves) I would often let the right part of the histogram clip slightly if the light is strong enough (1/80-1/60 at F8). The softer the light the more I would let the histogram shift to the left from the clipping point.
The histogram is just another tool\data set to aid in determining the desired exposure for the film. Keeping the digital images helps to analyze the relationship between the way camera meters, builds the histograms and how the film responds to the light\exposure. Helps to learn, improve and avoid mistakes in the future.

There are certain rules to consider :
- Green grass or other vegetation - mid(18%) Grey . So if they lit by the same light I would metter off of that
- Sand +2/3 of a stop from mid Grey
- Yellow leaves +2/3 of a stop from mid Grey
etc

And another rule is : if not certain - bracket your exposures. Nothing wrong with bracketing. Ansel Adams was doing it even with B/W film.
If you think that sheet film is too expensive for bracketing - use smaller formats film ;).

Additionally, Histogram and "blinkers" show exactly where the highlights in the scene are. If so very important then nothing prevents the photographer from switching the camera into spot-metering mode and get spot-readings from the highlights.

[Drew Wiley]

The Zone System is an elastic yard stick, which you contract or stretch to fit your own needs. There is no single one version of it. The advice which Barnbaum and certain others gave, to place shadow readings on Zone 3, might be relevant for a film like Pan F with its unusually short straight line midsection, but makes little sense for other panchromatic films with a much longer potential contrast range, and is in fact, counterproductive, and apt to cause your highlights to shoulder off prematurely. It seems to be an insurance policy for those who either don't know how to meter shadows correctly, or have a funky meter to begin with. That's why practitioners of that Z3 mentality have to so often resort to sledge-hammer compensation development strategies, which risk flattening all the sparkle and microtonality life out of the image - a rather harsh side-effect of that particular medicine.

Histograms are obviously matched to the limited sensor range of a particular digi camera itself, which is apt to be very different from the ranges of actual black and white films, and their exposure and development elasticity in that respect. But color chrome films also have a limited range, so it might be analogous in that case. Still, I'd far rather use a real meter when working with color film.

Metering greens? All depends. Midtone greens like a lawn do seem analogous to 18% gray with a SPD (silicone diode) meter. But bright translucent "spring greens", which are often a bit yellowish, meter around a stop higher, while "forest greens" like conifer foliage, measures around a stop lower. In open sun, if my Pentax meter reads midtone green as EV 13, for example, then it will read lighter "spring greens" around EV 14, and deeper forest greens around EV 12. All this is contingent on overall lighting conditions, of course.

The whole point with color film is that you're trying to get certain key hues to color-saturate at their proper place on the film dye curve relative to its engineered MIDPOINT. You're not dealing with an abstract gray scale like in black and white photography, where it's more important to establish your shadow versus highlight endpoints.

[Havoc]

In these days of film scanned to digits, then bent as needed via software, seems less care and attention needed is put on the film image production as the belief the digitized image can be "fixed up" via software as needed.. yes or no_?_

Could be. On the other hand, who can justify keeping a completely calibrated chain of film-exposure-development-print running in enough volume to be affordable? Even as a hobby it would be a mammoth task. Face it, we are fringe users.

[Drew Wiley]

What Bernice noted is undoubtedly the case with many today, at least among those who don't have sufficient film per se experience prior to the consumer digital era. "I can fix anything in Photoshop afterwards", which is an urban myth, or false prophecy, whatever. But since that has become the "new norm" of thinking, so has a distinctly lowered expectation of what photographic visual quality really consists of. "If it's good enough for the web, it's good enough for me". But with respect to me personally, I'd flip that attitude on its head, and state that if it's just good enough for the web, what it really deserves is the wastebasket.

There's nothing difficult about keeping film processing lines consistent. All kinds of labs around here have sufficient business volume and properly calibrated lines to do that day in, day out. It's just a little more difficult locating a C41 or E6 service for 8X10 or 5X7 film, rather than for 4x5 and smaller. They also have machines dedicated to standardized black and white roll film processing, which is quite in demand these days by younger people, especially the techie crowd, who like shooting film, but don't have their own darkrooms. Those same places offer them either digital prints, or scans for sake of their own digital printing at home. I don't see that trend tapering off at all. Most of these people just want their own shots on the wall; they're not gourmet chefs or connoisseurs of fine art in that respect. They just want a decent result from their own film attempts.

When someone of that crowd stumbles onto someone like me on the trail, with serious film equipment, they tend to hold us in awe. This whole area has a kind of collective memory of the classic West Coast school of photography, with its past great names. That's the case even with young people. You get a lot of respect. They'd like to emulate that, but can't. Part of the problem is that, even with a double six-figure income, a young couple can hardly afford to buy and furnish a house around here, let alone install a darkroom. I couldn't afford to buy even my own house at today's prices - probably couldn't even afford the real estate taxes! (which are based on purchase price).

[SergeyT]

Should we stay on the topic ?

We are getting close to turning this into another yet 28-pages long thread "if it ain't film it's cr*p" :)

[BrianShaw]

Should we stay on the topic ?

We are getting close to turning this into another yet 28-pages long thread "if it ain't film it's cr*p" :)

… and, perhaps, we should stay responsive to the real question and circumstances that was asked. :)

[MILC Toast]

I absolutely see film as a fring use these days.

My goal isn't to create a calibrated work flow, I just want to have enough info and experience to use whatever is at hand when I don't have every option available to me.

[LabRat]

Steve,

I'm a bit confused by your post...

The classic Zone System placement for a detailed shadow in black-and-white photography is Zone III, i.e., two stops less exposure than the spot meter reading of the shadow area. That leaves Zone VI a tonality somewhere between the textured shadow and the middle 18% gray value of Zone V. Zone II has "substance," but not much in the way of texture, Zone I is black.

Similarly, there are Zone VI and Zone VII, each a stop apart, before the textured highlight of Zone VIII. That is, three stops between middle gray and a textured highlight, not one, as I understand your post to mean. Zone IX is pure paper white and reserved for specular highlights, etc.

So, a five-stop spread between Zone III, the textured shadow and Zone VIII, the textured highlight (or six stops, depending on how you count :) ). This all, of course, for "normal" SLR and development.

Note also that the Zone System and most other exposure methods for black-and-white negative materials espouse "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights." It seems like you are advocating basing your exposure on a highlight, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. Now Fred Picker, in his day, had a down-and-dirty method of simply exposing for a Zone VIII highlight and going from there, which works in many situations, but not all, and is really a bit slapdash IM-HO.

As for color chromes, I've always based my exposure on a highlight value, but have found that the textured white is two stops away from middle gray, so I meter the highlight and open two stops, not one. It's been a while since I shot chromes, so maybe the dynamic range has changed?

Best,

Doremus

You have more range (depending on film/development), but this is a "safety" range to meter... Yes, a strong lit highlight is more light (sun on water etc) which can often still fit on the film (before development reaches Dmax) and can still be printed into... One stop above middle grey is something maybe white textured (maybe not lit hot) that prints without blocking up, so a "safe" value to meter/match that we still want whitish (with texture)... And what shadow levels are "safely" in the film's range to record below middle grey...

Yes, from experience I tend to read brighter values first (these tend to "saturate" leaving not enough transparency to print through with too much development), and after 1000's of readings, have found middle grey hangs about 1 stop under this, and 2 stops under this is a "safe" shadow area (but the film can go lower sometimes)... And often difficult to decide what exactly is reflecting as middle grey in the scene... So, it makes sense to read the "safe" ends of a scene first...

One difficult to meter shoot was in a forest burn area where the late afternoon sun was hard reflecting off the sparkling burnt tree trunks, but burnt areas in the shadows were dark black, so started reading the highlight, then dragging spotmeter into the shadows to see if these would fit into the extended "range"... It (barely) just fit with highlight transparency to normal print into (without much burning), and shadows just had enough bare detail to print (not getting lost in pure black)... This took some skill, and experience to get the meter to confirm the printable range on a normal contrast FB paper...

For color chromes (shot tons of 4X5 pro), range is limited, but 1 stop above middle grey holds nice highlight detail (without getting washed out), but one stop below is about what you will get in the shadows (I now call chrome films "skinny top/big bottom")...

The point is if you can meter into this narrower range, this will place exposures well within the "sweet spots" of the film & paper ranges with ease and you can find you can "place" exposure into interesting ranges for expressive effects... And produce more consistent results too!!!

Happy holidays, folks!!!

Steve K

[Bernard_L]

Steve,
The classic Zone System placement for a detailed shadow in black-and-white photography is Zone III, i.e., two stops less exposure than the spot meter reading of the shadow area.
<CLIP>
Best,
Doremus

With all due respect to Doremus --often providing good advice-- this might be misleading. The shadow area (my emphasis) like any area, comprises portions of dark and light colors (reflectivity), spanning a range of several EV. And the pitfall of the spot meter is that one will arbitrarily select one (which??) that will determine the exposure for the whole scene, shadow/sunlit, light/dark colored.
See my post #11 and that of Bernice Loui #19 (slightly different points).

I would rather suggest to take an incident reading in the open shadow (and place it on zone III, or whatever, according to experience and lesons learned from errors); takes care of the lighting ratio; then let the respective values of the objects sitting in that open shade take care of themselves and place themseves accordingly on the logE-D curve.

If I may indulge in an anecdote about the pitfalls of spotmeter and placement... A long time ago I took a photography class; that being in the USA, was of course based on the Zone System. Instructor advises to take a spot reading of the darkest portion of the scene (for zone I or 0 placement? don't remember...) But what if that dark portions is too small and/or you don't have a spot meter, says the instructor? Take out of your bag your own portable zone 0 standard, stored right next to the gray card, maybe a piece of black velvet, and comfortably measure it.
Trouble is, depending on the "black" surface, derived exposure can vary by several EV. A gizmo built like a physicist's "black body", i.e. a box with a small hole, could probably produce Zone minus 5 exposure or less; that last example is extreme, admittedly, just to illustrate the point.
End of story. I was so p****d off that I silently dropped out of the course.

[Alan Klein]

It doesn't really matter how the histogram is formed. Both RAW and JPEG are data storage formats.
I only ever used Canon cameras (2) and all of them from 20 years ago till now provide me with a histogram that can reliably be used to determine the exposure for reversal films. The last Canon (M3) I got dirt cheap specifically to use as a small and "light" light-meter and can't be happier with it.
Back in the days I have read on some forums that Nikon and Canon calibrate their light meters differently. Can't speak to that.

Color reversal film has a very narrow usable dynamic range , so in many conditions a compromise on chosen exposure should be made. It means either underexposing the dark tones or overexposing the highlights. For outdoor photography under natural direct sunlight I never bother to photograph on color reversal if my metered settings at ISO 100 call for a shutter speed faster than 1/80 at F8 (or translated to other F-Stops as needed). If the photographed scene has some whites with no important details in them (example clouds, splashies from waves) I would often let the right part of the histogram clip slightly if the light is strong enough (1/80-1/60 at F8). The softer the light the more I would let the histogram shift to the left from the clipping point.
The histogram is just another tool\data set to aid in determining the desired exposure for the film. Keeping the digital images helps to analyze the relationship between the way camera meters, builds the histograms and how the film responds to the light\exposure. Helps to learn, improve and avoid mistakes in the future.

There are certain rules to consider :
- Green grass or other vegetation - mid(18%) Grey . So if they lit by the same light I would metter off of that
- Sand +2/3 of a stop from mid Grey
- Yellow leaves +2/3 of a stop from mid Grey
etc

And another rule is : if not certain - bracket your exposures. Nothing wrong with bracketing. Ansel Adams was doing it even with B/W film.
If you think that sheet film is too expensive for bracketing - use smaller formats film ;).

Additionally, Histogram and "blinkers" show exactly where the highlights in the scene are. If so very important then nothing prevents the photographer from switching the camera into spot-metering mode and get spot-readings from the highlights.

Thanks for your post. It makes me more confident I'm on the right path using a digital camera as a light meter.

I'm trying to develop a simple approach so I can quickly get readings to transfer to my film camera. So I look at the view on the screen and adjust until its exposure looks right and the histogram is in the center. Basically, setting up to take a digital picture. Then I'll reduce by half a stop for reversal film to prevent clipping rather than increase as you apparently do. Why do you add exposure at that point? Isn't there a better chance of chipping the highlights?

Another question: Isn't the range on a digital camera to clipping points more than film? So the histogram and blinkies won't show potential clipping points for film which is more narrow than digital camera sensors?


What do you bracket when you do + and 1? how many stops?

[jnantz]

I absolutely see film as a fring use these days.

My goal isn't to create a calibrated work flow, I just want to have enough info and experience to use whatever is at hand when I don't have every option available to me.

hi MILC Toast
im not sure if you have seen this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J4nOvH-wJQzPxx_pEtY8vy3e9CNnZGmR/view
it might be helpful ...

I'd just get whatever you find, even if it is a phone-thing, see how they work, practice reading light on your own and use them as a "back up" to see how close you were
and keep practicing, eventually you will just set you readings 2nd nature without needing the devices. you're better off without that stuff anyways, and just learning how to read the light...
btw. (old) light meters might work but sometimes they need to be calibrated/serviced, eat batteries for lunch $c. and that might cost 3x as much as you paid for the meter. experience tops a device any day of the week ..

[Drew Wiley]

Light meters ARE a film question. But crap is always a possibility if one doesn't know how to use them.

The parameters of a histogram represent a single shoe size correctly matched to the specific limits of that one digital capture device itself. But a light meter is something which allows you to measure any foot in advance, regardless of its length, and by that means, choose a correct shoe size among many possible options.

[BrianShaw]

But a light meter is something which allows you to measure any foot in advance, regardless of its length, and by that means, choose a correct shoe size among many possible options.

You are a superhero... being able to use one of these to determine photographic exposure!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brannock_Device

Or do you use a RITZ stick?

[Drew Wiley]

My own feet are so messed up that only an orthopedic mould works decently. In other words, no "shoe size" at all, but something itself custom contorted to fit. Even the L and R pair of my relatively conventional Redwing day wear boots need to be width mismatched. I don't know what kind of light meter might correspond to that, maybe something with a differential calculus rather than linear program in it.

[xkaes]

Thanks for your post. It makes me more confident I'm on the right path using a digital camera as a light meter.

I'm trying to develop a simple approach so I can quickly get readings to transfer to my film camera. So I look at the view on the screen and adjust until its exposure looks right and the histogram is in the center. Basically, setting up to take a digital picture. Then I'll reduce by half a stop for reversal film to prevent clipping rather than increase as you apparently do. Why do you add exposure at that point? Isn't there a better chance of chipping the highlights?

We all have to choose how we meter, but carrying a digital camera (or a phone for that matter) doesn't save much over bringing a meter. OK, it's nice if you want to take snap-shots (or phone calls) too, and the histograms can be used as a tool, but the meter is still a reflectance meter and is going to give you a mid-tone result. Plus, you need to be metering exactly what the LF camera is seeing. You can "play-around" with the histogram, which probably will help, but it seems like a lot of time-wasting trial & error when compared to an incident meter (used correctly). It's ski season here, and any reflectance meter is pretty much a waste of time -- and a histogram will just waste more time.

[Bernice Loui]

Point of using a Good light meter, film choice, film "speed" testing, developer choice and mix, print production methods are much if not all about calibration and standardization of work flow.. This approach would be much if not all about setting up a stable and predictable image process/production system allowing the focus to shift to creative image making and creative image goals..

If that is not the goal or intent and just taking in the "film" experience is the goal/intent.. "just do it".. as a light meter and/or related is going to be of macro significance or consequence..


Of the opinion that film based images are and will always be apart from digital based images due to the very nature of how their image recording works..
with neither being worst or better than the other.. simply different tools & means to an end..

Bernice



I absolutely see film as a fring use these days.

My goal isn't to create a calibrated work flow, I just want to have enough info and experience to use whatever is at hand when I don't have every option available to me.

[BrianShaw]

One of the cell phone apps that I use, ZoneView, makes scene analysis really easy.

https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/zoneview/id1555845301

I don't use it for exposure determination but more for "exersizing my eye and mind" to visualize the Subject Luminance/Brightness Range of what I see and might, some day, consider photographing. It can display in units of EV or Zones, shows the brightness/luminance range, and is inexpensive (about 7 bucks) and has taught me a lot that makes meter selection and interpretation easier and quicker.

I have no affiliation with the app, app creator, etc.

[Drew Wiley]

Does it come with its own cantankerous arguing Zone System gurus, all wearing Wannabee AA cowboy hats, for sake of authenticity?

[Kiwi7475]

One of the cell phone apps that I use, ZoneView, makes scene analysis really easy.

https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/zoneview/id1555845301

I don't use it for exposure determination but more for "exersizing my eye and mind" to visualize the Subject Luminance/Brightness Range of what I see and might, some day, consider photographing. It can display in units of EV or Zones, shows the brightness/luminance range, and is inexpensive (about 7 bucks) and has taught me a lot that makes meter selection and interpretation easier and quicker.

I have no affiliation with the app, app creator, etc.

I can say this app is really good to determine dynamic range (eg for slides to determine quickly the strength of a ND filter to dim the sky) and also to visualize what in the scene constitute a mid gray point —- which as you say trains your eye for the future. Highly recommended.

[BrianShaw]

Does it come with its own cantankerous arguing Zone System gurus, all wearing Wannabee AA cowboy hats, for sake of authenticity?

Not sure. I keep mine set to display in EV.

[Drew Wiley]

According to some schools of thought, God created the universe with exactly 8 zones of light, some think 10 instead. But if you've got any more EV's than that, you're a heretic.

[David Lindquist]

OMNIA LVMEN DECEM PARTES DIVISA EST

From Ted Orland's poster "Photographic Truths", the original version.

David

[jnantz]

it is not mandatory that someone uses a light meter or has to know histograms or fix in photoshop .. plenty of people have done without for almost 200 years. The idea that if someone has to know light in foot candles or the log/curve of film, or specific techniques to expose is kind of funny. There isn't a prescribed way, under/over/perfectly (perfect doesn't exist) exposed doesn't have to be"fixed" in photoshop, and if the film is scanned by another camera and fiddled with who cares. The person who is exposing whatever it is they are exposing is happy scanning and using the original film/paper/whatever as a foundation for the next step, or they just make a print in the darkroom with the negative they exposed. Negatives are not be some sort of museum piece if they aren't "perfectly made 50 zones of grey" they can make someone a better printer, scanner, editor &c when it comes time to print them, and it might just be the way the person likes to expose and print their film, not everyone does everything by the book. personally I'd rather contact print bulletproof (can't see through them) on RC paper 15seconds with a 300watt bulb, it's a great way to make prints, probably not for everyone. There are no rules with photography, the point these days is to enjoy oneself, besides every picture is already taken, we're just the guy 0n the Bullwinkle/Fractured Fairy Tales sweeping up after the party, it doesn't really matter what most people do unless it does and they are some sort of "influencer" in book, internet or spoken word form, then they can't do it differently or the algorithm / chatter at dinner parties, gallerists museums will stop chattering ..

[Drew Wiley]

"All light divides into ten parts". I think Moses came up with that first, but don't recall him ever doing photo workshops.

[Alan Klein]

"All light divides into ten parts". I think Moses came up with that first, but don't recall him ever doing photo workshops.

If Adams and Archer had 11 fingers, there would be eleven zones not ten.

[Alan Klein]

Light meters ARE a film question. But crap is always a possibility if one doesn't know how to use them.

The parameters of a histogram represent a single shoe size correctly matched to the specific limits of that one digital capture device itself. But a light meter is something which allows you to measure any foot in advance, regardless of its length, and by that means, choose the correct shoe size among many possible options.
I believe you are correct. This is why I want to change the histogram parameters in the camera to match the range of chrome film. So let;'s say the camera has a DR of 7 stops. Chromes are what? 4-5 stops. So I have to set the histogram lower to start clipping sooner.

Any ideas on how to do that or at least figure out the range in my particular digital camera?

[Drew Wiley]

That makes sense; but I don't know how to do it, Alan. Different camera models generally have different software and control options. You might check your Owner's Manual to see if it's possible. And remember that Velvia has slightly tighter contrast boundaries than Provia or Ektachrome.

[Alan Klein]

That makes sense; but I don't know how to do it, Alan. Different camera models generally have different software and control options. You might check your Owner's Manual to see if it's possible. And remember that Velvia has slightly tighter contrast boundaries than Provia or Ektachrome.

My digital camera (Olympus E-PL1 micro 4/3) allows you to change the histogram settings to a max of 10 units at each end. So rather than the normal range 0-255, you can set it from 10-245, (0 through 10 to 245 through 255), a much narrower range that starts clipping sooner at both ends. The question is not how to change the setting but what the setting should be?

My plan is to check a normal lighting situation with a regular meter. Let's say the sky is 5 stops brighter than metering a dark area on the ground. Then set the range so the clipping points would show sooner at let's say 4 stops to match chrome film. (Does chrome clip four stops or something else?) The question is what range of the histogram is 4 stops? Any ideas along this method?

[Alan Klein]

My digital camera (Olympus E-PL1 micro 4/3) allows you to change the histogram settings to a max of 10 units at each end. So rather than the normal range 0-255, you can set it from 10-245, (0 through 10 to 245 through 255), a much narrower range that starts clipping sooner at both ends. The question is not how to change the setting but what the setting should be?

My plan is to check a normal lighting situation with a regular meter. Let's say the sky is 5 stops brighter than metering a dark area on the ground. Then set the range so the clipping points would show sooner at let's say 4 stops to match chrome film. (Does chrome clip four stops or something else?) The question is what range of the histogram is 4 stops? Any ideas along this method?

OK> I checked the DXO site and it lists my Olympus E-PL1 as having 10.1 stops for landscape. (jpeg vs raw?) So now my question is how to change the 0-255 so it clips similarly to chrome film?
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/PEN-EPL1

I haven't tried it, but here's a way of checking any camera's Dynamic Range. Shoot a gray card for the average so the histogram is in the middle. Then change the exposure plus and minus by a stop until the histogram clips at each end. Count up the stops. I suppose you could try this with film as well also using a gray card.
Video explaining how to determine Dynamic Range of digital sensor. I think it should work with film as well.
https://youtu.be/n8ggmnLxlbk

[jnantz]

Hi Alan, is this an exercise so you can use your camera as a light meter and get a more representative reading when you shoot chromes, will you have to save this setting and rework it so your "clippings" are like c41 or b/w film or do you have another reason for wanting to do this ?

[Bernice Loui]

Trying to fit a size 10 foot into a size 5 shoe ? Ala, the size 10 foot would be the outdoor landscape scene with 10 f-stops of dynamic range and the size 5 shoe being the digital camera or color transparency film... Not gonna work.

Modern digital camera image sensors do not see the way film sees color images. This is a fundamental difference.

Single solid state color image sensors have a Bayer filter in it's stack of other filters that are in front of the raw image sensor. Once the image Bayer_ized color image data is recovered from the sensor, that data is run into a demosaic algorithm to recover the color image then processed further into what is seen as a color image on screen. There are many ways to do the demosaic algorithm which influences all image factors from color rendition to density and LOTs more..
Previously discussed, post# 49 and on:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now/page5

Color film works in layers and nothing like the Bayer filtered solid state imager. Each color layer has it's own independent color sensitivity_density curve. They line up at small area of the curve film exposure curve. Outside of the specific film area curve, stuff like color crossover and more happens. This is one of the reasons why the idea of "I'll fix up the color film scan into digital in software" does not work so good, yet folks accept this due the lack of understanding of how color films work, what absolute references for colors are and how humanoid vision adapts to color and light color temperature variations..
Previously discussed on LFF:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?157789-Color-Crossover

Back to the idea of using a digital camera as the exposure meter.. Sure, this can be done IF the image processing software has been specifically created with a specific color film as a design goal.. and the software MUST take into account all aspects of how that specific color film behaves.. This will NOT be a small or simple task once all the factors and more has been accounted for.. All that and there remains the problem if trying to get that size 10 shoe into a size 5 shoe...
Whole lotta effort and resources for what?

~The idea some modern digital widget is the techno solution to a fundamental reality of the materials involved...

Then we come to the color display ala video monitor limitations and color print limitations.. or trying to fit a size 10 foot into a size 3 shoe of the color display method or device...

Or, why back in the color transparency film centric days virtually all excellent color transparencies were exposed-made using highly controlled lighting (high quality studio strobe systems) as controlling lighting ratios/contrast ratios were mandatory for proper color rendition and density on film.. Yes sure, there were countless Trillions of outdoor color transparency film images made, the good ones were made with modest contrast ratios ala bright sunny day, no shade or overcast days acting like a far oversized soft box or shifty color at sunrise or sunset rapidly changing color temperature light.. for that eye catching color effect.


Bernice









OK> I checked the DXO site and it lists my Olympus E-PL1 as having 10.1 stops for landscape. (jpeg vs raw?) So now my question is how to change the 0-255 so it clips similarly to chrome film?
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/PEN-EPL1

I haven't tried it, but here's a way of checking any camera's Dynamic Range. Shoot a gray card for the average so the histogram is in the middle. Then change the exposure plus and minus by a stop until the histogram clips at each end. Count up the stops. I suppose you could try this with film as well also using a gray card.
Video explaining how to determine Dynamic Range of digital sensor. I think it should work with film as well.
https://youtu.be/n8ggmnLxlbk

[Alan Klein]

Hi Alan, is this an exercise so you can use your camera as a light meter and get a more representative reading when you shoot chromes, will you have to save this setting and rework it so your "clippings" are like c41 or b/w film or do you have another reason for wanting to do this ?

Just using the digital camera's metering to figure out the best exposure settings for both chromes and negative film.

[Alan Klein]

Trying to fit a size 10 foot into a size 5 shoe ? Ala, the size 10 foot would be the outdoor landscape scene with 10 f-stops of dynamic range and the size 5 shoe being the digital camera or color transparency film... Not gonna work.

Modern digital camera image sensors do not see the way film sees color images. This is a fundamental difference.

Single solid state color image sensors have a Bayer filter in it's stack of other filters that are in front of the raw image sensor. Once the image Bayer_ized color image data is recovered from the sensor, that data is run into a demosaic algorithm to recover the color image then processed further into what is seen as a color image on screen. There are many ways to do the demosaic algorithm which influences all image factors from color rendition to density and LOTs more..
Previously discussed, post# 49 and on:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now/page5

Color film works in layers and nothing like the Bayer filtered solid state imager. Each color layer has it's own independent color sensitivity_density curve. They line up at small area of the curve film exposure curve. Outside of the specific film area curve, stuff like color crossover and more happens. This is one of the reasons why the idea of "I'll fix up the color film scan into digital in software" does not work so good, yet folks accept this due the lack of understanding of how color films work, what absolute references for colors are and how humanoid vision adapts to color and light color temperature variations..
Previously discussed on LFF:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?157789-Color-Crossover

Back to the idea of using a digital camera as the exposure meter.. Sure, this can be done IF the image processing software has been specifically created with a specific color film as a design goal.. and the software MUST take into account all aspects of how that specific color film behaves.. This will NOT be a small or simple task once all the factors and more has been accounted for.. All that and there remains the problem if trying to get that size 10 shoe into a size 5 shoe...
Whole lotta effort and resources for what?

~The idea some modern digital widget is the techno solution to a fundamental reality of the materials involved...

Then we come to the color display ala video monitor limitations and color print limitations.. or trying to fit a size 10 foot into a size 3 shoe of the color display method or device...

Or, why back in the color transparency film centric days virtually all excellent color transparencies were exposed-made using highly controlled lighting (high quality studio strobe systems) as controlling lighting ratios/contrast ratios were mandatory for proper color rendition and density on film.. Yes sure, there were countless Trillions of outdoor color transparency film images made, the good ones were made with modest contrast ratios ala bright sunny day, no shade or overcast days acting like a far oversized soft box or shifty color at sunrise or sunset rapidly changing color temperature light.. for that eye catching color effect.


Bernice

I understand your point. That's why I'm experimenting.

So far, the digital camera's meter will respond similarly to my dedicated Minolta Autometer IIIf. If I set the camera to center metering and use my 10 degree spot on the Minolta meter, I get the same readings looking at the same subject area. They're basically swappable. The Minolta camera also has spot metering to around 3 degrees with my 14-42mm zoom lens which seems to provide accurate readings as well. I could get the spot down to 1 degree with a longer tele lens as I'd be looking at a smaller area due to its magnification. So far so good.

So now what I'm experimenting with is the histogram and blinkies in the camera. I checked the histogram against a gray card. It doesn't seem the histogram and blinkies have a 10.1 dynamic range. That range appears it's for the RAW sensor but not the jpeg interpretation of the histogram and blinkies from what I just tested. (Hisptgrams work with jpegs never with raw) I found I have 2 1/2 stops to the right side and over three stops to the left side of the histogram. I can't tell how much over 3 stops because that's the limit of the meter in the camera to report. So it looks like I have 2 1/2 stops until I clip and get blinkies on the bright side which seems pretty good for chromes. There's not much I can do about the shadow side - I'm concerned mainly about clipping highlights with chromes.

I'm playing with the shadow side when using BW negative film adding a 1/2 stop after looking at the average setting. I could use its spot for the spot metering zone system. But I don't use the zone system. Others could though.

[LabRat]

The most important thing is to make it an easy step to get readings out of the way... You have an entire camera rig to carry, set-up, get comfortable in the environment, and turn on your vision... One should be paying attention first to the scene, and any other steps should be fairly automatic without too much thought...

Suggested is to keep it simple with the meter, where (by experience) one should have an idea about what the exposure would be, and the meter confirms it... The meter should be simple enough to get a reading quickly without confusion that distracts from the everything else...

I prefer spotmetering after making my (educated) guess, only to find if there are any "surprises" in brightness in a scene (maybe a hot highlight, or inky shadow in the scene), but usually my "guess" is about exact, so confirms my eye and the meter are in sync...

I use the Pentax digital & the Minolta spotmeter F, but also prefer the simplicity of the Pentax due to the dial being a simple calculator, Minolta more complex, and often counting stops on my fingers instead of trusting the barred f-stops on the outside readout when measuring ranges...

I have incident meters usually for studio set-ups, but was out one night doing night urban landscapes, reached in my bag for the meter, but it was the incident, and quickly realized it was gonna be useless for what I was shooting, so back to brain meter... :(

A fone or camera meter would be a good backup, but when shooting LF film, I luv living in the moment without all that button pushing one has to poke a digi device with (menus etc), so not appealing to me (while I'm having a moment with light & form)... I often forget to back-up my LF shot with fone or digi shot once I get lost in that moment!!! So my digi as a meter is low on my list of joy (and would make my head explode)... ;)

Happy New Year!!!

Steve K

[Kevin Crisp]

There is nearly no limit to how technically complicated any aspect of this hobby can become. Getting back to the original question, a used Gossen Luna Pro SBC is a great option except for its size. For a little more, you can get a Luna Pro Digital. Much small and lighter, a little more complicated to use. Both are excellent for reflected or incident readings. Learn to use either and you'll be fine.

Back when I started out with my first decent camera (me age 16, camera a Spotmatic; I won't dwell on the previous Exa Jr.) I shot chromes all the time. I metered by pushing the meter button up and putting the needle in the middle. They came out really well.

[Alan Klein]

There is nearly no limit to have technically complicated any aspect of this hobby can become. Getting back to the original question, a used Gossen Luna Pro SBC is a great option except for its size. For a little more, you can get a Luna Pro Digital. Much small and lighter, a little more complicated to use. Both are excellent for reflected or incident readings. Learn to use either and you'll be fine.

Back when I started out with my first decent camera (me age 16, camera a Spotmatic; I won't dwell on the previous Exa Jr.) I shot chromes all the time. I metered by pushing the meter button up and putting the needle in the middle. They came out really well.


The most important thing is to make it an easy step to get readings out of the way... You have an entire camera rig to carry, set-up, get comfortable in the environment, and turn on your vision... One should be paying attention first to the scene, and any other steps should be fairly automatic without too much thought...

Suggested is to keep it simple with the meter, where (by experience) one should have an idea about what the exposure would be, and the meter confirms it... The meter should be simple enough to get a reading quickly without confusion that distracts from the everything else...

I prefer spotmetering after making my (educated) guess, only to find if there are any "surprises" in brightness in a scene (maybe a hot highlight, or inky shadow in the scene), but usually my "guess" is about exact, so confirms my eye and the meter are in sync...

I use the Pentax digital & the Minolta spotmeter F, but also prefer the simplicity of the Pentax due to the dial being a simple calculator, Minolta more complex, and often counting stops on my fingers instead of trusting the barred f-stops on the outside readout when measuring ranges...

I have incident meters usually for studio set-ups, but was out one night doing night urban landscapes, reached in my bag for the meter, but it was the incident, and quickly realized it was gonna be useless for what I was shooting, so back to brain meter... :(

A fone or camera meter would be a good backup, but when shooting LF film, I luv living in the moment without all that button pushing one has to poke a digi device with (menus etc), so not appealing to me (while I'm having a moment with light & form)... I often forget to back-up my LF shot with fone or digi shot once I get lost in that moment!!! So my digi as a meter is low on my list of joy (and would make my head explode)... ;)

Happy New Year!!!

Steve K
You're both right of course about making it too complicated. But I became somewhat of a masochist when I switched to large format during covid. I've never fiddled so much with a camera.

Before large format, I used my Minolta meter center metering and shot away with my Mamiya RB67 6x7 medium format, even regularly bracketing because it was pretty cheap insurance. Of course, in difficult light during magic hour, I missed many, hence the bracketing. I don;t bracket ion LF 4x5. I could use the digital camera the same way by just lining it up as if I;m shooting digitally and then just transferring the settings to the film camera. Shooting the shot digitally captures all the settings for review later against the developed film.

[BrianShaw]

Have you actually tried your digital camera as a meter yet? There has been much discussion, often kinda going circular, and it seems that, perhaps, slowing down to reflect and/or try out the theory might be in order. For the most part it seems you know exactly what you are doing and are doing it right. Magic hour, especially on transparency film, is always going to be a challenge and that just might be the only/best situation to seriously consider bracketing.

Did you get the books yet and thumbed through them? I really think they are going to be more helpful than all of this internet chatter. But we all learn differently so perhaps I'm wriong in your case. :)

[Tin Can]

The 4X5 portrait of father, recently posted as my first ever LF

was metered by D70 25 years ago

[xkaes]

You're both right of course about making it too complicated. But I became somewhat of a masochist when I switched to large format during covid. I've never fiddled so much with a camera.

LF is difficult enough without making it self-abusive. I too spent years lugging around a meterless RB67 and a Minolta meter, but (as Brian suggests above) I read several books on proper use of incident & reflectance metering up front -- and ran some simple film tests, a la Richard Henry's "Controls in B&W Photography". I only rarely bracketed, as a result. Didn't need to.

I'd recommend you save any masochistic tendencies for the darkroom -- where it's actually useful.

[jnantz]

You're both right of course about making it too complicated. But I became somewhat of a masochist when I switched to large format during covid. I've never fiddled so much with a camera.

Before large format, I used my Minolta meter center metering and shot away with my Mamiya RB67 6x7 medium format, even regularly bracketing because it was pretty cheap insurance. Of course, in difficult light during magic hour, I missed many, hence the bracketing. I don;t bracket ion LF 4x5. I could use the digital camera the same way by just lining it up as if I;m shooting digitally and then just transferring the settings to the film camera. Shooting the shot digitally captures all the settings for review later against the developed film.

how does your camera compare to sunny11? you might not need to fiddle.

good luck with your experimenting !

John

[Havoc]

When getting back to medium format film after a time with digital (and Kodachrome in a Praktica MTL3 before that) I got a Sekonic L758D and "perfect exposure" by Freeman (I think). Never regretted it. Most of it I use the incident metering. Spot when I'm not in the same light, when I want to see the range of light or with stained glass. I don't use flash or so, so for me that is fine.

Yes, you can make everything complicated. But should you?

[Paul Ron]

no matter what meter you use, if you have no idea how to properly use it, your pictures will still be crap.

the meter doesnt make better photos nor will the most expensive camera on the market. it all boils down to experiance n lots of experimentation.

[Alan Klein]

Have you actually tried your digital camera as a meter yet? There has been much discussion, often kinda going circular, and it seems that, perhaps, slowing down to reflect and/or try out the theory might be in order. For the most part it seems you know exactly what you are doing and are doing it right. Magic hour, especially on transparency film, is always going to be a challenge and that just might be the only/best situation to seriously consider bracketing.

Did you get the books yet and thumbed through them? I really think they are going to be more helpful than all of this internet chatter. But we all learn differently so perhaps I'm wriong in your case. :)

Yes. A lot with my 4x5. But mainly as a center metering meter. It's exposure readings match my Minolta Autometer IIIf with 10-degree spot. I can use them interchangeably.

I also look at the screen for the proper brightness of the screen along with the histogram and blinkies to see if any clipping. But I haven't proven to my confidence that the histogram and blinkies reflect chrome film. Hence my discussion. I also discovered a couple of days ago that I can change the histogram and blinkies from the normal 0-255 down to a point 10-245 which should give me some flexibility to match film if its DR is less than the camera's histogram, especially on the highlights for chromes. I'm not as concerned with BW film because I shoot for the average exposure and let everything fall where they do.

So that's where I am currently.

[Alan Klein]

LF is difficult enough without making it self-abusive. I too spent years lugging around a meterless RB67 and a Minolta meter, but (as Brian suggests above) I read several books on proper use of incident & reflectance metering up front -- and ran some simple film tests, a la Richard Henry's "Controls in B&W Photography". I only rarely bracketed, as a result. Didn't need to.

I'd recommend you save any masochistic tendencies for the darkroom -- where it's actually useful.

Fortunately, I don't have a darkroom. I'm not that masochistic. ;)

[Alan Klein]

When getting back to medium format film after a time with digital (and Kodachrome in a Praktica MTL3 before that) I got a Sekonic L758D and "perfect exposure" by Freeman (I think). Never regretted it. Most of it I use the incident metering. Spot when I'm not in the same light, when I want to see the range of light or with stained glass. I don't use flash or so, so for me that is fine.

Yes, you can make everything complicated. But should you?

I only want to know if I;m clipping. Digital camera shooters have blinkies and histograms to help them with this issue. Is it complicated for them? After all, you spot different areas when you want to see what's doing in those areas. That's what blinkies and histograms do for the digital shooter. Would it be convenient to have something that shows you exactly which areas are too black or too white? Frankly I'm surprised the meter manufacturers haven't included this in their meters. Of course, they'd have to call them cameras then.

[LabRat]

I only want to know if I;m clipping. Digital camera shooters have blinkies and histograms to help them with this issue. Is it complicated for them? After all, you spot different areas when you want to see what's doing in those areas. That's what blinkies and histograms do for the digital shooter. Would it be convenient to have something that shows you exactly which areas are too black or too white? Frankly I'm surprised the meter manufacturers haven't included this in their meters. Of course, they'd have to call them cameras then.

Well sorta, the Minolta Spotmeter F has a memory function that you measure the brightest & darkest areas and averages where to place the exposure on a arbitrary scale...

A little like my method, but I count the stops with my brain and fingers... ;)

Steve K

[Alan Klein]

Well sorta, the Minolta Spotmeter F has a memory function that you measure the brightest & darkest areas and averages where to place the exposure on a arbitrary scale...

A little like my method, but I count the stops with my brain and fingers... ;)

Steve K

But an average could miss a single white cloud that clips. Blinkies would catch that cloud.

[SergeyT]

...mainly as a center metering meter. It's exposure readings match my Minolta Autometer IIIf with 10-degree spot. I can use them interchangeably.

I also look at the screen for the proper brightness of the screen along with the histogram and blinkies to see if any clipping. But I haven't proven to my confidence that the histogram and blinkies reflect chrome film. Hence my discussion...

When I use my digital camera as a light meter for exposing film :
* It is always on ISO 100
* Is always at F8
* It is always in M
* I adjust the shutter speed in 1/3rd of a stop steps until the histogram in live-view (or sometimes the light meter indicator) looks right.
Then I take a sample digital picture and re-assess the histogram. If and as needed further adjust the shutter speed. Take another sample and once it looks good - transfer the settings onto LF camera shutter and expose film.

I never pay attention to the picture brightness on the camera's LCD screen. It is pointless.
I almost never pay attention to what the meter indicator shows (see exceptions for certain subjects from my previous post)
I almost always rely on what the histogram shows and nothing else.
This approach works for me with any film cameras that I have tried from 135 to 4x5.
It also works equally well with any subjects from snow on a bright sunny day to direct into the sun at sunset\sunrise. In these extreme use cases both the histogram will clip and highlights on film will be overexposed and sometimes badly, but that is expected for as long as the image otherwise looks properly exposed. Also color reversal film is not the most universal medium. I use negative film if the scene DR calls for it.
Due to linear response of camera sensor this method allows to separately evaluate DR of scenes of any latitude. Set the shutter speed to have an unclipped histogram in brightest areas, take a sample picture. Now point your lens onto the dark area of the scene, adjust the shutter speed based on histogram shape, take another sample picture. Compare the shutter speed between the two - here is your DR in F-stops.
Speaking of bracketing, I never intentionally done that with LF. Sometimes it happens unintentionally when the light changes between exposures (twilight and such). I do it sometimes (very rarely) with MF film and that usually either + or - 1/2 of a stop from what I think the right exposure is.

[LabRat]

But an average could miss a single white cloud that clips. Blinkies would catch that cloud.

It's a spotmeter, you would read that first... Then apply range readings...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

Sergey, your statement "as long as the image OTHERWISE looks properly" OK is the caveat. Many times I've had to lug an 80 or 90 lb pack for days on end in the mountain, with a very limited number of film holders available (half of them b&w, and the other half chrome film), and the I'm gonna gamble that some of the scene will come out generally OK, but the brilliant sparkle which makes the ice look alive, for example, will be overexposed? No, I want the whole luminance range eloquent, or why waste a sheet of film? That's what spot meters allow you to do, measure the end points precisely.

[SergeyT]

The histogram shows if with a given shutter speed+aperture combination any of highlights will be overexposed or not; and if Yes - by how much. It is the photographer's decision how to deal with that. Not the tool or methodology to blame for mistakes or incorrect decisions.

[Havoc]

I only want to know if I;m clipping. Digital camera shooters have blinkies and histograms to help them with this issue. Is it complicated for them? After all, you spot different areas when you want to see what's doing in those areas. That's what blinkies and histograms do for the digital shooter. Would it be convenient to have something that shows you exactly which areas are too black or too white? Frankly I'm surprised the meter manufacturers haven't included this in their meters. Of course, they'd have to call them cameras then.

Problem is that the dynamic range and linearity of digital and film is very different. So how usefull is that info? And then you haven't even developed your shot let alone scanned or printed it.

Very likely something like such a meter could be developed but it would need a setting for each type of film and development chain. Might be done for something very standardised like Kodachrome (don't we wish?) where you have a single film and developer.

[Alan Klein]

When I use my digital camera as a light meter for exposing film :
* It is always on ISO 100
* Is always at F8
* It is always in M
* I adjust the shutter speed in 1/3rd of a stop steps until the histogram in live-view (or sometimes the light meter indicator) looks right.
Then I take a sample digital picture and re-assess the histogram. If and as needed further adjust the shutter speed. Take another sample and once it looks good - transfer the settings onto LF camera shutter and expose film.

I never pay attention to the picture brightness on the camera's LCD screen. It is pointless.
I almost never pay attention to what the meter indicator shows (see exceptions for certain subjects from my previous post)
I almost always rely on what the histogram shows and nothing else.
This approach works for me with any film cameras that I have tried from 135 to 4x5.
It also works equally well with any subjects from snow on a bright sunny day to direct into the sun at sunset\sunrise. In these extreme use cases both the histogram will clip and highlights on film will be overexposed and sometimes badly, but that is expected for as long as the image otherwise looks properly exposed. Also color reversal film is not the most universal medium. I use negative film if the scene DR calls for it.
Due to linear response of camera sensor this method allows to separately evaluate DR of scenes of any latitude. Set the shutter speed to have an unclipped histogram in brightest areas, take a sample picture. Now point your lens onto the dark area of the scene, adjust the shutter speed based on histogram shape, take another sample picture. Compare the shutter speed between the two - here is your DR in F-stops.
Speaking of bracketing, I never intentionally done that with LF. Sometimes it happens unintentionally when the light changes between exposures (twilight and such). I do it sometimes (very rarely) with MF film and that usually either + or - 1/2 of a stop from what I think the right exposure is.

Thanks for explaining your method. Since you never look at the scene in the LED only look at the histogram, what do you do in snow where the histogram isn't clipping but the snow will be overexposed? The screen will show you that because it will be gray. How do you know when the histogram is in the right position?

[Alan Klein]

It's a spotmeter, you would read that first... Then apply range readings...

Steve K

How do you do that? What standard do you use to know you're going to clip the clouds using chrome film? Do you change the standard depending on the type of chrome film?

[Alan Klein]

Sergey, your statement "as long as the image OTHERWISE looks properly" OK is the caveat. Many times I've had to lug an 80 or 90 lb pack for days on end in the mountain, with a very limited number of film holders available (half of them b&w, and the other half chrome film), and the I'm gonna gamble that some of the scene will come out generally OK, but the brilliant sparkle which makes the ice look alive, for example, will be overexposed? No, I want the whole luminance range eloquent, or why waste a sheet of film? That's what spot meters allow you to do, measure the end points precisely.

Drew I'll ask the same question I asked Labrat. How do you do that? What standard do you use to know you're going to clip the highlight using chrome film? Do you change the standard depending on the type of chrome film?

[Alan Klein]

The histogram shows if with a given shutter speed+aperture combination any of highlights will be overexposed or not; and if Yes - by how much. It is the photographer's decision how to deal with that. Not the tool or methodology to blame for mistakes or incorrect decisions.

You're assuming the histogram and blinkies match the range of chrome film. How do you know that? That's what I've been experimenting with and trying to determine.

I assume the digital camera mfr. adjusts their histogram to match their camera's sensor DR. These are different depending on the camera selected as a meter. The effective meter reading may be the same as a stand-alone meter. But the ranging of the histogram and blinkies will match the camera's sensor. Of course, histograms don't look at the raw data which is much greater than jpeg data which is 8 bits (that's where the 255 comes in. That's 2 to the 8th power in binary- 11111111. So while the RAW could have a DR of 10 or more, the jpeg is ranged less in stops. That's good because it will better match most chromes range. But how close?

[Alan Klein]

By the way, my understanding of the 255 is the histogram is that it represents 256 shades of gray from pure black - 0 to pure white - 255, similar to the Zone system which is divided into eleven zones of gray. 0-10.

So the question at hand is will the film clip at 255 or at some point lower than that? If it clips lower, than the histogram and blinkies won't alert you to the clipping situation except in a rough way. I can change the range to 0-10 to 245-255. Could this be the adjustment needed to match the digital camera histogram and blinkies to the chrome film's parameters? It so far seems the only way to determine is to shoot off a roll of 35mm chrome film at different settings to see what shows. Then adjust the settings in the histogram as well to see the difference.

[jnantz]

no matter what meter you use, if you have no idea how to properly use it, your pictures will still be crap.

the meter doesnt make better photos nor will the most expensive camera on the market. it all boils down to experiance n lots of experimentation.

well said!

[Bernice Loui]

This has gone back to the belief of the most current-modern technology can solve the basic problem and requirement that demands a fixed-given understanding of chemistry based photographic materials..

As with any item of tech, using the tech properly and FULLY understanding how it works relative to the problem it is intended to address is required. Or, any techno-widget will never be a "do-it-all-for-you" solution.. Acceptance of this reality and fact goes a very long ways to properly addressing the problem and need.. in ways no techno widget can achieve on it's own.


Technology is not always the proper solution to any given need-problem,
Bernice

[xkaes]

You mean we don't need auto-focusing, auto-exposing large format cameras after all?

[Bernice Loui]

Already plenty-O-cameras that do this..
Question is, when will these techno-wizz-Wow cameras produce emotionally expressive images all on their own_?_

No humanoid involvement required,
Bernice



You mean we don't need auto-focusing, auto-exposure large format cameras after all?

[jnantz]

Already plenty-O-cameras that do this..
Question is, when will these techno-wizz-Wow cameras produce emotionally expressive images all on their own_?_

No humanoid involvement required,
Bernice

people have been relying on meters since extinction meters were introduced .. not many people who shoot "LF" do without a meter ...
pretty much the same thing.. as "techno wizz wow". people use meters to read the light instead of reading the light

[Alan Klein]

This has gone back to the belief of the most current-modern technology can solve the basic problem and requirement that demands a fixed-given understanding of chemistry based photographic materials..

As with any item of tech, using the tech properly and FULLY understanding how it works relative to the problem it is intended to address is required. Or, any techno-widget will never be a "do-it-all-for-you" solution.. Acceptance of this reality and fact goes a very long ways to properly addressing the problem and need.. in ways no techno widget can achieve on it's own.


Technology is not always the proper solution to any given need-problem,
Bernice

How do you meter when shooting chromes?

[mpaniagua18]

I believe that tech like autofocus/autoexposure are helpful in the way they give you more time to focus on the framing and composing.

You could do framing and composing without the tech and get good images (probably a bit under/over exposed).

If you rely only on the tech and dont create a good composing, you will get focused, correctly exposed images that most likely would be crappy.


Technology is there to be used, not for technology to use you (or your photos). And yeah, autofocus/autoexposing LF cameras would be great :)

[Bernice Loui]

Been decades since any "chrome" ala color transparency film has been used_exposed. This is due to the question of why and how would a color transparency result in a color print.. when the once excellent fully photo-chemical print process and materials are long gone?

Need for color transparency film is driven by need, this included lighting ratios combined with contrast ratios (f-stop range). Again, given the way color images has changed much today.. IMO, color transparency film images are a why.

Getting back to metering for exposure of chromes ala color transparencies, know the majority of color transparency images made decades ago was done using studio strobe/flash. This allows precise control of lighting. Exposure metering is done by high quality flash meter.
234211

234213

Yes, its B&W, discipline of proper exposure remains and completely applies in the same way as for color transparencies ala chromes.
234212

Or Broncolor flash meter with Sinar behind the GG probe.
234214

Outdoor images made with color transparency film has two basic requirements, contrast ratios cannot be excessive (overcast highly diffused light or bright sun, no shade). Spot meter (Minolta spot F) is used to determine dark-bright areas relative to 18% gray calibration of the spot meter. Key here is contrast ratio. If the contrast ratio is excessive, color negative film will do far better than color transparency film due to it's ability to accept a larger contrast ratio.

As for how much f-stop ala contrast ratio is possible for color transparency film.. about 4 f-stop bottom to top, actual usable about 2 f-stops with about 1/3 f-stop tolerance.. if the goal is to retain the color balance designed into the color transparency film... As noted in this Sinar info.. Zilch has changed from decades ago.
234215

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01388/01388.pdf

Fujifilm Provia 100 datasheet, note characteristic curve# 18 on this data sheet.
https://asset.fujifilm.com/master/emea/files/2020-10/2c27854d5609945fbe7e48afc61f815d/films_provia-100f_datasheet_01.pdf

Respect and observe the technical info in these manufacture publications. Understand then well and proper, then they can be applied as needed, as designed or in controlled creative ways (know the rules before busting them).
None of this is overly difficult or complex, it is much about understanding and respecting the baked in/designed in limits of color transparency film and how best to apply then in real world image making.

Oh, don't get overly "sucked in" to the eye appeal of transmitted color color transparency film offers.. Getting sucked in is easy, not getting stuck is more difficult.


Stopped doing any rising-setting sun landscapes many decades ago.. not my "thing"... Same with color transparency film landscapes.

These days, it is digital for color, B&W on film as it simply produces a IMO, better result than digital in too many ways. Plus the ability of a view camera to fully apply camera movements as needed and choices of lenses not available on modern digital gives reasons to continue making B&W images in film.


Bernice






How do you meter when shooting chromes?

[jnantz]

How do you meter when shooting chromes?

last chromes I shot were all velvia in a graflex slr all sunny 11, before that fujichrome in a Leica same thing ..
it's not really hard, more people should pay attention to the light and not rely on mechanism that might get them too involved
with making endless readings and miss whatever it was they were photographing to begin with. and when it was strobe work
all done with a lumedyne 244 asymmetrical as well as single light light all done by experience ... no mistakes were made, they were
hand processed in ansco130 and enlarged to 11x14, both cases the hardest part was loading the film and remembering where the notch was ..
.. it's funny how complicated people make a relatively simple process ...

[Tin Can]

year 1967, 1967 VW, Pentax H1 No meter

Older brother would not step into the light

Slide film, aways

I have 100's

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51515470534_84fbd41e07_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/U2s83Lv150)Tom Red VW 1967 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/U2s83Lv150) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Havoc]

Been decades since any "chrome" ala color transparency film has been used_exposed. This is due to the question of why and how would a color transparency result in a color print.. when the once excellent fully photo-chemical print process and materials are long gone?

Why would you print slides when you can project them? Not everyone has as ultimate goal a print.

[xkaes]

Older brother would not step into the light

Is that because he knew you were behind the camera?

[Drew Wiley]

The only thing worse than watching Aunt Maude's 3-hour Kodachrome slide show of her vacation to Peoria was when she later opted for a an equally long video presentation instead. But with the right slides, a slide show can be fantastic. I kept my projector. But the sad thing is, nobody seems to offer mounted slides along with processing anymore; ya gotta mount em yourself.

Printing is a whole different ballgame; and ya gotta be a lot more careful with exposure than for backlit projection. It separates the men from the boys,
and from Aunt Maude too.

Methinks Randy is up to another one of his cynical tricks, unless he actually threw magenta paint all over the place just before the shot.

[Tin Can]

No tricks old buddy

I clearly remember shooting brother and the washed, waxed shiny new Bug

Handheld ambient light 50mm H1 definetly not metered

Scan was done years ago on early NIKON scanner

Don't pick on me Drew, I seldom lie


The only thing worse than watching Aunt Maude's 3-hour Kodachrome slide show of her vacation to Peoria was when she later opted for a an equally long video presentation instead. But with the right slides, a slide show can be fantastic. I kept my projector. But the sad thing is, nobody seems to offer mounted slides along with processing anymore; ya gotta mount em yourself.

Printing is a whole different ballgame; and ya gotta be a lot more careful with exposure than for backlit projection. It separates the men from the boys,
and from Aunt Maude too.

Methinks Randy is up to another one of his cynical tricks, unless he actually threw magenta paint all over the place just before the shot.

[jnantz]

year 1967, 1967 VW, Pentax H1 No meter

Older brother would not step into the light

Slide film, aways

I have 100's

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51515470534_84fbd41e07_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/U2s83Lv150)Tom Red VW 1967 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/U2s83Lv150) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

Nice, thanks for posting this! It's obvious that no meter is needed, people are just to used to relying on
a meter instead of just doing it. It's too bad there is such a resistance campaign levied against people
using no meter to read the light. Was that a de-luxe? (pre-curser to Super Beatle, no McPherson Struts, but has a back window defroster ).

[Tin Can]

No

But I did learn to drive stick in it

I somehow knew how to drive auto with no instruction

I was NOT allowed to drive or touch ANYTHING motorized until HS drivers ED

I drove the car 300 ft and the instructor said get in back, these 3 other students NEED to learn!

My first car was a 1962 Bug convertible that ran on 3 cylinders, common failure

Then I bought a new Blue 1970 Bug cash from PT jobs

Drove it 100K in 2 years and smashed into a 1963 Catalina sitting in rush hour traffic at night

Good thing I had no passenger...

The nurse in the Catalina said she never felt me hit her and her car was undamaged, she took off


Nice! Was that a de-luxe? (Back window defroster ).

[esearing]

Learned to drive a stick as I drove my brand new 1986 Peugot 505 off the lot and had a one hour commute each way to work in Atlanta traffic. My first camera that I remember having a meter was the Minolta SRT 201 with a match needle and circle. Shot many slides with that and most are near correctly exposed.

[jnantz]

No

But I did learn to drive stick in it

I somehow knew how to drive auto with no instruction

I was NOT allowed to drive or touch ANYTHING motorized until HS drivers ED

I drove the car 300 ft and the instructor said get in back, these 3 other students NEED to learn!

My first car was a 1962 Bug convertible that ran on 3 cylinders, common failure

Then I bought a new Blue 1970 Bug cash from PT jobs

Drove it 100K in 2 years and smashed into a 1963 Catalina sitting in rush hour traffic at night

Good thing I had no passenger...

The nurse in the Catalina said she never felt me hit her and her car was undamaged, she took off

me too (learned stick on a bug, ours was a 73 flat ) eventually we repaired it, taking everything apart,
having the heads fixed (bent rod burnt out valve seats ) after we were done was running 1200 on all 4, ran like a champ .. it had
a great hole in the floor we fixed, when it was still a holy-roller we'd treat the person riding shotgun by rolling over a puddle and
old faithful would do it's thing. eventually it croaked soon after a livery driver Tboned it, and then on a small highway
had flames ... the tires exploded, the windows shattered and wrecker had to scrape it off the road.
at least craftsman replaced all the sockets that were in the car and fused in a mass from the heat
they really do have. a lifetime warrantee ...

good thing the spare tire was in the trunk it probably saved your life!


Adventure is worthwhile in itself. ... Never interrupt someone doing what you said couldn't be done. -- Amelia Earhart
.

YES!

[Paul Ron]

year 1967, 1967 VW, Pentax H1 No meter

Older brother would not step into the light

Slide film, aways

I have 100's

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51515470534_84fbd41e07_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/U2s83Lv150)Tom Red VW 1967 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/U2s83Lv150) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

that car new sold for $2500.

on hot summer days you had to push start it.

[jnantz]

that car new sold for $2500.

on hot summer days you had to push start it.

that's why you parked on a HILL!
would have been nice with semaphores and safari windows..

[BrianShaw]

I sincerely hope that MILC Toast figured out how he wants to measure light and expose film! I lost track of his quest many, many posts ago.

My family only drove American cars due to past experiences. Across the street was an Italian guy who drove a bug. He never got stuck in snow. Also across the street was a percussionist who drove a Mercedes. Nice car but we didn't associate with that family. Ironically, in his last years on Earth my Dad, a former USN SeaBee, made friends with the guy across the street, a former U-boat commander. It was a distant friendship but based on mutual respect nonetheless.

I always wanted to depict my brothers like that. Righteous retribution that would have been. LOL

Can't help but wonder what that image would look like had it been exposed/metered differently.

[Tin Can]

Last car I ever push started

I left the lights on for a 9 hour shift in summer

Pushed it myself and caught second gear at a walk of 10 ft, bingo!

1994 Honda Civic VX bought new

Drove it 100K and sold for 1/2 of purchase

It never got less that 40 mpg even towing a trailer with 1200 lbs or my West Wight Potter 15 (https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/west-wight-potter-15)

I made real $$$ on the yacht!


that car new sold for $2500.

on hot summer days you had to push start it.

[esearing]

With new cars I wonder if you could use the auto headlight sensor to guess how light or dark it is. There has to be an EV value where they kick on at twilight/dusk.

My dad's 1960 Karmann Ghia coupe new was <$2500 - my baby seat was the rear window or my mothers lap.
Next car I remember was a 1967 Mustang , also less than $2500. I learned to drive it at 15 years old in 1978. It didn't last much longer than that.

[Tin Can]

What is the history of light meters, guides?

How did the early masters do it

I don't think wet plate use meters

I have an old cardboard named 'light meter'

no sensor, basically Sunny 16 on a wheel of fortune

[BrianShaw]

We’ve come a long way, baby. There are many ways. It really doesn’t hurt to be a part of the modern era, especially when it’s purposeful and useful.

[Ben Calwell]

As probably the least technically minded and testing-averse member of this forum, I just want to say that my beloved Pentax Spotmeter V, that I purchased new in 1983, is still serving me well, even when the needle jumps around like a spooked cricket.

[Tin Can]

I have 2 Sekonic meters, one is dead simple

the other can be very complicated, but is easy to use, if you don't follow their calibration insanity

Both require batteries hate batteries

I have been metering long time

I love how my flash meter exactly agrees with my 4 studio strobes as I change light

and I do use DIGI to get close to MY perfection

Gotta start burning up my flash bulbs

[jnantz]

What is the history of light meters, guides?

How did the early masters do it

I don't think wet plate use meters

I have an old cardboard named 'light meter'

no sensor, basically Sunny 16 on a wheel of fortune

the early masters knew their materials back and forth and could run circles around people today ...
hobby people that started when dry plates started and roll film started began doing tourist photography
shooing exotic people and places and some folks subscribed to photographic annuals that had articles ads &c published and tables for time of year and place for exposure guides
there were things that looked like slide rules / "exposure calculators" where you plugged in your region, plate speed, type of scene weather/sun &c and it gave you an exposure
later on there were Actinometer and Extinction meters ..the extinction meters were close to a modern light meter.

here's a link to a photo magazine in the late 1800s and it has fun stuff in it including a list of reasons why the semi centennial stand we all love so much
is the greatest thing since sliced bread "camera stand of the future!" ... invented by a photographer ( E.C. Fischer in Vermont ) sold to photographers ( through E.C. Codman &co in Boston )
$25 shipped! light meter not included
http://tinyurl.com/cokdhop

[rfesk]

that's why you parked on a HILL!
would have been nice with semaphores and safari windows..

My new 1966 Karmann Ghia's starter quit. While the dealer and VW argued who would fix it, my wife and I drove it 500 miles each way from Birmingham, Alabama to South Carolina and back over the Christmas holidays.

Park on a hill or be ready to push it to start. Those were the days - and we were young.

As to meters, I am impressed with my Gossen Digital Pro.

[Paul Ron]

the early masters knew their materials back and forth and could run circles around people today ...
hobby people that started when dry plates started and roll film started began doing tourist photography
shooing exotic people and places and some folks subscribed to photographic annuals that had articles ads &c published and tables for time of year and place for exposure guides
there were things that looked like slide rules / "exposure calculators" where you plugged in your region, plate speed, type of scene weather/sun &c and it gave you an exposure
later on there were Actinometer and Extinction meters ..the extinction meters were close to a modern light meter.

here's a link to a photo magazine in the late 1800s and it has fun stuff in it including a list of reasons why the semi centennial stand we all love so much
is the greatest thing since sliced bread "camera stand of the future!" ... invented by a photographer ( E.C. Fischer in Vermont ) sold to photographers ( through E.C. Codman &co in Boston )
$25 shipped! light meter not included
http://tinyurl.com/cokdhop

thanks. very impressive book.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52547478213_7245aea885_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2o4ryxF)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2o4ryxF) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Peco Junior with sawed-Off Medium Sized Rail, 240 chrome barrel Schneider Tele-Arton, Sony NexC3 Digital Back. Lens Board is the 3D printed one from Italy; quality pretty good for the low price, well worth having. Camera focused at about forty feet with this lens; the sawed-off medium Rail is good with the 240mm focal length

HANDHELD Baby View Camera Photography. Lots and lots of fun to use; I am trying things with this that are completely new to me. Great for determining compositions/instant feedback. Then I switch to 6x9 film. It does read out exposure TTL, but I still use my meters!!

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52481889775_7ae9bff165_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nXDpox)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2nXDpox) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Results. Egad it's FUN to use; this is olde chrome barrel Sinar Norma 150mm f5.6 Symmar in barrel

[Tin Can]

Copy for our eternity

"https://archive.org/details/moviemak...?q=electrophot
A radically new type of exposure meter makes its appearance this month, operating on the light sensitive cell principle. The idea has been advanced theoretically many tiems and cine workers have been promised that this principle would some time be brought to their aid in solving the vexing problem of exposure but the firm of J. Thos. Rhamstine, 501 East Woodbridge Street, Detroit, Michigan, is to be the first to make this principle available to the amateur. The Rhamstein Electrophot is entirely automatic in its operation and requires no visual judgement whatever on the part of the user. It comprises a round, metal container about three inches in diameter and two inches in width, with a button at one end and a tube at the other which contains the light sensitive cell. The tube is normally closed by a cap but, when the cap is removed, the light sensitive tube pointed toward th object reflecting the the light and the contact button pressed, a pointer on a dial set in the face of the instrument immediately indicates the stop number to be used. Its scale reads directly from ƒ/1 to ƒ/32 and the needle readeing is "dead beat" i.e., does not vibrate after reaching the indicated stop. Energy for actuating th epointer is derived from two small dry cells of the "fountain pen" type which are easily replaced by removing three screws at the back of the meter. Since the energy consumption is extremely small, the life of these cells is said to be longer than six months, even in constant use. The meter reading may be adjusted through a reasonably wide range by turning a small post through an opening in the back. Succinct directions for its use and a condensed filter compensation chart are printed on the reverse side of the meter. A handy carrying case with strap of black leather is included with the meter. It is stated that the Rhamstine Electrophot will be made available during the month of October, as soon as final manufacturing arrangements are made.
1931"

[Tin Can]

I ruined my 1970 new bug starter, it failed in one year

Took it to dealer who replaced it and commented he never saw such a failure

I didn't tell him I was testing floatation in big puddles

The ads then showed floating bugs

LOL



My new 1966 Karmann Ghia's starter quit. While the dealer and VW argued who would fix it, my wife and I drove it 500 miles each way from Birmingham, Alabama to South Carolina and back over the Christmas holidays.

Park on a hill or be ready to push it to start. Those were the days - and we were young.

As to meters, I am impressed with my Gossen Digital Pro.

[Mark Sampson]

If you go back before the introduction of photo-electric light meters, say 1930, people worked differently. Photographers developed an "internal meter" based on experience. Plus film was slower and exposures longer... exact timing was not so critical. Then too, people developed by inspection, another experience-based practice. Add in the printing-out (self-masking) papers common then, in silver and other materials, and there was a whole bunch of self-correcting factors involved. Edward Weston's methods have been well described and are a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
The increase in film speed and color sensitivity, and the rise of "time-and-temperature" development methods, along with smaller roll-film cameras, required more precision in exposure and development; the introduction of light meters helped this "scientific method" along. Eventually this led to Ansel Adams and Fred Archer's "Zone System" and today's countless variations on that theme- all of which require an accurate light meter.