why not meter with a DSLR?

[Frank_E]

ok another metering question from me

since I don't have a working spot meter (I do have a regular Digisix meter)
and am debating whether I should buy a spotmeter or get my broken one repaired (as indicated in my other posting)
I am wondering whether Ken Rockwell's approach would work for me.

this is what he wrote on his site:

"As of October 2004 I no longer use my Pentax Spotmeter. Instead I look at the LCD screen of my Nikon D70 and copy that exposure for use with my film camera, presuming the LCD image looks as I want it. This is better than any meter; it shows me the effects of lighting and color temperatures and simulates my chromes on a light table."

I have a 4x5 field camera (Nagaoka) and my interest is landscapes and other exterior scenic shots.

any opinions on this?

[Ron Marshall]

It's obviously comes down to what metering method is suitable to you.

I use a spotmeter and the zone system, quick, simple, very consistent.

I could make almost any meter or technique work for me; but I want simple and consistent.

The only way to find out is to get out there and shoot: develop the negs; if you get what you want, consistently, then it is a suitable method for you. If not, move on to something else.

[Bruce Watson]

any opinions on this?

You asked.

1) Weight. Just about any light meter you can come up with will be a fraction of the weight of a DSLR. If you're going to carry it all on your back a ways, this isn't a trivial consideration.

2) Control. With a spot meter you can control what the meter is actually reading. Mostly. With a DSLR you are at the mercy of the manufacturers firmware. And if you want to meter just the shadow under the rock on the other side of the stream, better have that long lens for the DSLR with you. And that leads back to #1.

Those are two of my opinions. But there's no reason for you to share them. IOW, do what you want. As they say: "There are many paths to the waterfall." Pick your path and have fun on the way.

[Drew Wiley]

Why not? Guess if you've got one with you anyway and are used to the way its reads,
it would be fine. But why a DLSR and not just any old internally-metered 35mm? With
any of these you've got extraneous things going on. I find it so much more predictable
to use a spotmeter, which is consistent with every application and every camera. And
a lot less to go wrong, both mechanically and electrically. And for the extra weight,
I'd much rather have another lens along for the 8X10 rather than a superfluous gadget.

[Daniel_Buck]

2) Control. With a spot meter you can control what the meter is actually reading. Mostly. With a DSLR you are at the mercy of the manufacturers firmware. And if you want to meter just the shadow under the rock on the other side of the stream, better have that long lens for the DSLR with you.

my DSLR has a spot meter, as well as several other metering types. Control is all there :) That said, I like just using my pentax spot meter, even when I do bring my digital along when shooting with the LF cameras.

[BrianShaw]

Why not?

Yes, why not? It will likely get you a better result than guessing your exposure.

[r.e.]

Real men use a Pentax Spotmeter and the Zone System.

On the other hand...

You could use your digital camera to test exposure and, if you want, to test your composition. For the latter, put a lens on your DSLR that approximates the lens on your 4x5 and bring along a netbook or notebook computer so that you can see the image at a decent size.

Since you're new, you may not know that large format photographers used to use Polaroid sheet film to test exposure and composition. Polaroid is gone (although apparently Fuji is making some 4x5 instant film available in North America), but there's no reason why you can't use your digital camera to do the same thing, and I can assure you that you won't be the only one doing it. Just might save you a lot of time and money, especially at the beginning. I don't care what anybody says, looking at an image upside down and reversed takes some getting used to.

Myself, I use a fancy Sekonic meter, but I also use a Nikon D70s (probably obsolete by now) to try out various compositions, etc., both in advance of a shoot and during a shoot. It's a useful tool, even if real men follow Ansel's commandments :)

[Mark Stahlke]

I gave up using a DSLR as a meter because my little brain couldn't handle all the arithmetic. My DSLR's ISO setting went down to 200, the lens stopped down to f/22 and there I am shooting ISO 50 film at f/45. I screwed up too many exposures by adding when I should have subtracted. Or maybe I was subtracting when I should have added. I still haven't figured it out. Today I just use a simple spot meter and life is good.

Cheers,
Mark

[Frank Petronio]

Of course you can use your dlsr. Or heck, I bought a $50 Nikon N80 35mm film camera that has a more sophisticated spot/general/matrix meter than any handheld meter. And I'll say that a Nikon matrix meter-based exposure will be better than most anal-retentive spot meter wielding fauxtographers could manage ;-)

The key is being consistent and objectively evaluating your results... Film and digital are going to record a scene differently, placing tones in different places. But not that much, just like different brands and types of film will do the same.

[r.e.]

Mark, when people used Polaroid to test exposure and composition, they had to do the arithmetic too.

For me, it is obvious to test exposure and composition before you commit to film if you have the resources and time to do it. There's no reason why a DSLR can't be used for this purpose. Yes, you don't have a sheet of instant film in the exact film plane, but you can approximate.

I also agree with Frank that a camera meter is just fine, although not pleased to hear that my N80 is now worth the grand sum of $50 :) I got my fancy Sekonic mainly because I use incident metering a lot, which the cameras don't offer. Now if people want to talk about what's easy, let's have a chat about incident vs. reflective :)

[Preston]

"I gave up using a DSLR as a meter because my little brain couldn't handle all the arithmetic. "

Mental gynastics at sunrise, after only one cup of coffee, when the light is changing rapidly, would not be my idea of fun. Heck, at my age, any mental gymnastics is, well, you know... :-)

A camera meter will be just fine if weight is not critical and you've run some tests to ensure consistency.

I use a Pentax Digital Spot and the Zone System. It is quick and easy for me.

-Preston

[Allen in Montreal]

Frank,

You would need to calibrate your dslr first, who says it is right.
I have 4 Canons, they all vary, my 1d Mark 3.....Canon is full of crap on stated ASA settings.
Do it right, get a hand held meter, you will be way ahead of the game over the long haul imho.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah but everybody knows that Canon's metering is the worst!

I used a Pentax Digital spot meter for 23 years... I think the (non -Canon!) dslr is a more useful tool.

[h2oman]

I used my DSLR for a bunch of color transparencies, and it did just fine. I'd shoot the scene with the DSLR (I had calibrated various focal lengths of the zoom with my 4x5 lenses, so I could frame roughly the same scene) and look at the histogram. If the entire graph was a bit in from each edge I'd get a good exposure with Velvia, for my DSLR.

As far as calculations, my DSLR meter went down to 100, which matched the ISO when I used Velvia 100. For Velvia 50 I just added one stop of exposure (meaning more exposure). I never found the f-stop thing a problem. I'd set the DSLR f-stop at f22, dial up the exposure, then start "trading out" time for aperture as needed.

Now I'm doing primarily B&W and I find a spotmeter much easier for me with that.

[Preston]

"Smart People Live Upwind from Kodak"

...And uphill.

:-)

-P

[r.e.]

You know, it ain't that hard to get a sense of how the meter on one's digital camera is metering. The shots that will tell you this are processed instantaneously and they are free.

Now, the meter on my Mamiya 7II ... figuring out how it works is a bit more complicated :)

Seriously, there are suggestions in this thread that amount to saying that all those photographers who have run Polaroid tests were wasting their time. They weren't, not just for composition, but for exposure. It isn't like a handheld meter is omniscient - even in incident mode, although that comes damn close, and no arithmetic too :)

If one thinks that tests for composition and exposure are worthwhile - in other words, if one believes that there was actually a reason why Polaroid sheet film had a market - digital is the successor. It ought to be embraced, and it's hard to understand why anyone would reject it out of hand.

[Brian Ellis]

Many digital cameras have a spot meter so you can still use the zone system when metering with such a digital camera.

Many digital cameras go down to ISO 100 so even if you're using 50 ISO film, the math isn't too hard - just calculate the exposure and then double it.

If anyone still has a 35mm camera it could be used just as well as a digital camera but some 35mm cameras are bigger and heavier than some digital cameras (my wife's digital camera is smaller and weighs less than my Pentax spot meter). Also, you lose the benefit of the histogram in a digital camera, which can be useful when calculating exposure.

FWIW, if you don't use the zone system or some variation of it that requires a reading of the darkest important shadow and brightest important highlight in the scene and you're using b&w film I don't think you need a meter at all. With a little experience the Sunny 16 rule can be used as the basis for the exposure about as well as an averaging or weighted averaging meter.

[Paul Kierstead]

My sekonic meter has a nice memory and display of all the saved exposure points, with of course an average reading as well, which you can then evaluate (by looking at the little graph) w.r.t to highlights and shadows, in terms of an f-stop. No camera meter touches it. A histogram on a digital camera gets there, although it is unscaled; you don't really know how far the right or left of the meter is from your exposure in terms of stops, so it can be difficult to map that to your film. All that said, I very often bring a LX-3 for exposure and composition help (and some shots here and there too); I find its histogram to be useful and it can even do B&W mode to help guess how the outcome will be. And it fits in a pocket. It does require some practice to know how it maps to your camera/film though (as will a DSLR). To be honest, I shoot a lot of "closer" stuff so often my light meters incident meter nails it perfection time and time again (and I cross check it with the LX3 sometimes). All this goes for flash, studio work as well.

[Frank Petronio]

The B&W preview on a digital is really helpful -- much as Fred Picker's old "Viewing Filter" was for seeing overlapping grey tones.

It would be pretty cool if some nice camera company made a sort of "tricorder" digital camera -- big LCD screen, more sophisticated metering options, tri-color Histogram and calibration options, maybe even an f-stop-based calculator so you could set your ISO and aperture for your film... heck they could throw in all the functions of the old Minolta $1000 Color Meter for free ;-) Really it could all be software-based if someone could hack a P&S digicam.

That could really kill Polaroid once and for all!

[Eric Leppanen]

A conventional spot meter is calibrated to an 18% grey scale target, and if there are no areas in the photograph that are close to 18% grey scale, then a spot meter will yield an erroneous exposure reading unless manually corrected by the photographer. For further elaboration on this, take a look at these posts:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19634&highlight=chromazone
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=12279&highlight=chromazone

DSLR spot meters are color sensitive, and (theoretically) should not be thrown off as much by non-18% tones.

I think when folks ask about using DSLR metering, however, they are asking about using the overall exposure recommendation of the DSLR metering algorithm. In my experience, this works reasonably well with chrome film as long as you check for blown highlights (clipped histogram). DSLR models that offer RGB histograms offer the best control in this respect. If clipping occurs, manually reduce exposure until the clipping is largely eliminated (it is best to avoid blown highlights and let the shadows fall where they may with chrome film and DSLR sensors, as blown highlights are lost forever, while shadow detail can often be retrieved during post-processing). The (relatively limited) dynamic range of chrome film is similar to that of DSLR sensors, so even though there are some differences in color renderings between the sensors and various chrome emulsions, DSLR metering can work pretty darn well.

DSLR metering algorithms are not as good for color neg or B&W film, as these films have much wider exposure latitude and are better metered for the shadows than the highlights. These films have so much latitude that lately I have been "exposing for the shadows, and letting the highlights fall where they may" with great success, especially if you print digitally (you are no longer limited by the limited dynamic range of traditional photographic paper).

Personally, I find the bulk of a DSLR excessive for LF field use, and prefer a combined incident/spot meter.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I think the whole point of a DSLR meter is that it gives you a histogram which gives you not just the middle gray, but tells you where the rest of the exposure values sit (highlights, shadows ...). In short, it is like a graphical zone meter. Using camera settings ("tone compensation" on nikon's for example) you can change the range of the histogram to match your film.

I think carrying two cameras is too much for me, but it would be a good product if some light meter company came out with a scene meter which replicated this functionality. With the cost of digital sensors right now, it should be an affordable item - but there are probably not enough buyers to earn back the development cost.

[eric mac]

Taking Franks' use of the B&W preview a step further, I started using my POS digital to see the effects each filter had on the scene. I figured this out at Red Rock Canyon when using a red filter didn't seem to make much sense.

Eric

[Ari]

One time I had everything calibrated and figured out with my 5d and B&W film; I found that the amount of equipment I brought and information received was far too distracting. I managed to mess up every shot that day because I was overwhelmed by tekmology. Mind you, I shoot portraits, so a landscape might be easier to tackle in this regard.
Next day, I went back to my incident meter and now I'm happy letting the chips fall where they may.

[Richard M. Coda]

Mark, when people used Polaroid to test exposure and composition, they had to do the arithmetic too.

Arithmetic? What's that? ;)

[Ivan J. Eberle]

If you happen to already have a DSLR with an accurate meter you're golden. My Nikon D200 is terrific in this regard, having an RGB meter that isn't thrown off by color temperature as are many handheld meters using CDS or silicon photo cells. I use the spot meter most often. It's become rare that I blow an exposure on transparency film. When I do it's most likely because I've failed to consider the dynamic range of the scene, not having looked at the histogram. Quickloads make switching to neg film easy. But then, using negative film like Fuji Pro 160s, I could easily trust my 1948 GE DW58 meter to get me in the ballpark.

If I had a fancier flash/exposure meter I'd no doubt pack it, but I sure can't see spending big bucks on one using 1970's technology these days, not when you can buy a tour-de-force proofing device for the same kind of money or less.

[paulr]

I think the argument against a dslr is that it's overkill.
The argument for is that you already have it!

It will certainly let you meter accurately; time will tell if you like using it or decide to fix/replace the spot meter.

Let us know how it goes.

[adonis_abril]

I use my 5D MK II to meter for 4x5. Very accurate, just as accurate as my Sekonic meter if not more :D I set the Canon to ISO 50 (L) and it matches Velvia 50 - i also use it for shooting fast changing light that otherwise a slow 4x5 can't capture.

[J Ney]

I previously used my dSLR for metering all the time until I was able to purchase a Pentax spotmeter and now I will not go back for a few reasons (some of them previously mentioned):

1. Weight / Size: If you're shooting landscapes with a LF then space is already at a premium and those dSLRs can take up a fair amount of room / weight.

2. Convenience: When I used my dSLR to meter, it was always a hassle to have to retrieve it from my camera bag, put the lens on, make sure the ISO is set correctly, check the E.I., make sure the metering setting is correct, etc... when you're shooting in rapidly setting/rising light, that time can cause you to lose a shot. For me, I have my spotmeter snapped to my vest so it is always easy to access and much quicker.

3. Prone to operator-error: Theoretically the concept is sound, but it is just one more thing you need to manage. I've lost some negatives because my ISO wasn't set correctly (not to mention few dSLRs can go to an ISO below 100) or my E.I. was off or I wasn't of "spot-meter" mode

4. Not conducive to the Zone System: If you're using the Zone System, then a Pentax spotmeter is just begging to be used. It is much better than calculating development based on a dSLR display.

All this being said, you certainly could use a dSLR... I was able to do it for some time and I did make plenty of successful negatives but - for the reasons above - I eventually made the switch and I just can't go back.

[Wallace_Billingham]

if using a digital cameras histogram remember that for just about every digital camera out there these are based on the JPG rendering of the scene not the raw data from the sensor even if you have your camera set to RAW.

The reason this is important is that if you have the contrast set to high the histogram might show highlight/shadow clipping when it might not actually be there in the real data from the sensor.

To see this for yourself put your DSLR on a tripod and take a shot of a test wedge with the contrast set all the way up. Then take another one with the contrast set all the way down. Then compare the histograms they will be vastly different.

On my Canon 30D I have found that if I bump the contrast down to between half way and all the way down I get the best results when I am using it to meter (which I do a lot). Since I also shoot 99% B&W film I set the camera for B&W mode and place the same color filters in of my DSLR. That way I get the exact metering for the filter I am using and don't have to think about filter factors.

[cyrus]

- Is the exposure curve of a chip the same as with film?
-Reciprocity failure?

[Marko]

- Is the exposure curve of a chip the same as with film?
-Reciprocity failure?

Hey Cyrus, it's been a long time, good to see you back.

Which film exactly? They all differ from each other and the chip is different yet.

In fact, the chip response is completely linear and exhibits no reciprocity failure at all. Just like modern light meters, so it would have to be calibrated to each film you plan to use it with.

[Doug Dolde]

If you're shooting transparency film it is much easier to use a spot meter for the highlights then open up 1.5 stops. Your DSLR might blow the highlights with an average reading.

[amoebahyda]

I am lazy in doing calculation in compensating bellow extension etc after obtain reading from the DSLR. For large format, I use through-the-lens spot and average metering method using Sinar Booster I + Minolta Flashmeter IV and Horseman exposure meter 45 respectively.

Booster I + Minolta Flashmeter IV

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/L1403821.jpg

Horseman exposure meter 45

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/L1403820.jpg