Using Tiny Digital Camera as Light Meter - Question

[andrew vincent]

Apologies if this question has been asked a hundred times and I stupidly cannot find the thread (please direct me) but I have a Linhof master technika and have been using a Canon 350XT for exposure and histogram information and occasionally framing, since it's often more useful than my linhof viewer. It's great, but still big and bulky in the sack with everything else. Reading Ken Rockwell's review of the tiny Casio Z850, with its color histograms, I was thinking how wonderful it would be if I could just get some cheap, TINY pocket camera that I might even mount to the top of the technika for this purpose. Obviously the central and only main question is whether the exposure calculations and histograms would be accurate. Obviously, if I could carry a pentax spot meter as well, I'd do so, but like many, I've found the histograms on a digital readout- as well as immediate preview of multiple exposures- the greatest invention since the light meter itself, so I'm not about to give them up. I'd just like to get the size and weight down as low as humanly possible.

Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share in this regard, or have any suggestions for relatively inexpensive, tiny cameras that might do the trick? I'm not really interested in SLRs, since the XT is already the smallest SLR made, and is a bit too big.

Thanks!

[stompyq]

I use my D70 just like you use your XT. If you are going to use a small point and shoot to check the histogram i would pick one that has a RGB Histogram and go under the dark cloth to check. Just looking at the image would be really misleading b/c of reflections etc.

[roteague]

I can't see what value having a histogram would have on LF photography. The response of a digital camera is nowhere the same as film. You would be better off just using a good spot meter.

[Richard Årlin]

Few digital cameras have an f:stop and typical shutter speeds used for LF... mine, a Ricoh GR has, up to 3 minutes on manual and yes spot metering, (not apertures) but isn't a very complicated way to go... just asking ?

[Alan Davenport]

Thanks, roteague, for saying what I was thinking. Histograms are a unique artifact of digital photography. They have no impact on LF photography, at least not until after the latent image is on the film.

Note to self: Add to my list of mysteries of the universe --How did St. Ansel make a living without histograms...

[C. D. Keth]

Note to self: Add to my list of mysteries of the universe --How did St. Ansel make a living without histograms...

Happily

[andrew vincent]

Thanks, roteague, for saying what I was thinking. Histograms are a unique artifact of digital photography. They have no impact on LF photography, at least not until after the latent image is on the film.

A three color histogram is simply a more accurate reading of the light reflecting off of a given scene, rather than the usual 16% gray reflection. This is all clearly presented on other fora in much greater detail, but I'm not going to bother trying to convince anyone - just wanted to hear from anyone who had any particular stories of something working out.

[Marko]

A three color histogram is simply a more accurate reading of the light reflecting off of a given scene, rather than the usual 16% gray reflection. This is all clearly presented on other fora in much greater detail, but I'm not going to bother trying to convince anyone - just wanted to hear from anyone who had any particular stories of something working out.

Hi Andrew,

Just ignore the usual APUG carry-overs

This topic has been discussed (and argued) many times here. A few quick takes:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ra+light+meter

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ra+light+meter

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ra+light+meter

I hope you'll find your answers there.

[neil poulsen]

With the right f-stop correction, I wonder if it wouldn't be useful for color. It would take some practice.

For example, in shooting transparencies, one might better be able to predict the correct exposure from the histogram by making sure there's no truncation on the right. Some digital systems have about the same latitude as transparancies. Perhaps both sides of the histogram might be useful.

For shooting negatives, one would be better served to make sure that the histogram isn't clipped on the left. In both cases, one's only looking at one side of the histogram. Again, there might be a certain number of stops correction, which could be determined through practice or testing.

It's worth giving it a try. Instead of 4x5, you could use 6x9 film for experimenting to save money.

[roteague]

A three color histogram is simply a more accurate reading of the light reflecting off of a given scene, rather than the usual 16% gray reflection. This is all clearly presented on other fora in much greater detail, but I'm not going to bother trying to convince anyone - just wanted to hear from anyone who had any particular stories of something working out.

The histogram is only indicative of what was captured by the sensor, not what was present in the scene. It would be valuable if sensors had the same response as film, but it doesn't.