Considering Spot Meter

[srtiwari]

Would like to be more accurate with metering while shooting B+W outside. I find the incident light technique inconvenient, depending on the situation, and would like to try a spot meter. Other than buying a used Pentax or Minolta, the only new one reasonably priced, might be the Polaris SPD500.
Has anyone used one of these ? Any other suggestions ?

 

[jmcd]

The price is sure good on the Polaris.

The Pentax is excellent, and handy to operate, and its very narrow 1 degree measuring angle makes it surgical in its measuring ability.

I haven't tried the Polaris. Still, the 5 degree measuring angle of the Polaris sounds pretty darn good.

 

[jmcd]

I'm not quite sure how the Polaris is used, but have a note on the operation of the Pentax. With the Pentax, you look through the viewfinder and align the measuring dot on what you wish to measure. Without removing your eye from the viewfinder, you can glance down and see the LED value of your measurement. Then switch to another target to see the difference in values, all with economical movement.

I think with the Polaris you might have to measure through the viewfinder, then look at the front of the meter to see the value.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anything bigger than 1 degree makes it a bit pointless in many cases, unless you have time (and space) to stroll over to your subject. Even then, contrast loss due to distance makes for changes.

A spot meter is worse than useless unless used intelligently (I'm not saying you won't -- I'm just saying that distressingly many people think you measure a mid-tone).

I've never found it a problem to use a meter with an external scale. In fact, come to think of it, ALL meters effectively have an external analytical scale except possibly the Gossen, and that's harder to use (I own both Pentaxes, a Gossen, and an SEI, and have used Minolta too).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Finder]

I have a Minolta Spot meter. The last model made. It is easy to use and accurate--I only use a spot meter when shooting slide film in tricky situations (usually landscapes). The Minolta will take highlight and shadow readings for slide film. It can let you measure the difference in luminance between points in a scene. It does require a close up lens for close objects at about a meter. Powered by one AA battery and battery life is very good.

I also have a 15/7.5 spot attachment for my Gossen Luna Pro SBC. That works well too. The advantage is I have a incident meter as well.

 

[oftheherd]

Anything bigger than 1 degree makes it a bit pointless in many cases, unless you have time (and space) to stroll over to your subject. Even then, contrast loss due to distance makes for changes.

A spot meter is worse than useless unless used intelligently (I'm not saying you won't -- I'm just saying that distressingly many people think you measure a mid-tone).

I've never found it a problem to use a meter with an external scale. In fact, come to think of it, ALL meters effectively have an external analytical scale except possibly the Gossen, and that's harder to use (I own both Pentaxes, a Gossen, and an SEI, and have used Minolta too).

Cheers,

Which Gossen do you have Mr. Hicks? And maybe I should ask what you mean by analytical. I have the Luna Pro, the Luna Pro SBC, and the Luna Pro F. All have analog, by which I am guessing you mean by analytical scales.
R.

Which Gossen do you have Mr. Hicks? And maybe I should ask what you mean by analytical. I have the Luna Pro, the Luna Pro SBC, and the Luna Pro F. All have analog, by which I am guessing you mean analytical scales.

The spot attachment for the SBC is very accurate and not difficult to use, although some would consider it cumbersome. The attachment is bigger than the meter.

I am curious why the OP considers the use of an incident meter inconvenient? I find it better most of the time for good exposures. I have a Sekonic L28c2 that I love to use with my Super Press 23. Especially in difficult lighting conditions.

Mind you, I understand reading more than one area of what you want to photograph with a reflective meter for zone system or varient readings. I just think overall, an incident meter gives more consistent readings. Adjustments can be made from that when necessary.

And I'm not trying to start a reflective vs incident war. I use both.

 

[srtiwari]

Anything bigger than 1 degree makes it a bit pointless in many cases, unless you have time (and space) to stroll over to your subject. Even then, contrast loss due to distance makes for changes.

A spot meter is worse than useless unless used intelligently (I'm not saying you won't -- I'm just saying that distressingly many people think you measure a mid-tone).

I've never found it a problem to use a meter with an external scale. In fact, come to think of it, ALL meters effectively have an external analytical scale except possibly the Gossen, and that's harder to use (I own both Pentaxes, a Gossen, and an SEI, and have used Minolta too).

Cheers,

R.

Roger,
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that one should (by and large) stick to incident metering ? Or do you mean that the averaging type meters are usually adequate most of the time, particularly since spot metering is difficult to do accurately ?
Also, since I would likely use single readings, I don't see any problem with using an external analytical scale.
Subhash

 

[jfdupuis]

I have the Pentax digital spotmeter and I find it excellent. I like the direct reading in EV right in the viewfinder. That way, you can scan the scene and really understand it. Of course, you need to know what you are looking at. I would say that this meter really make me understand how to look at a scene and to see live the different EV that it contains. I learned a lot with this meter. While using a spotmeter, I found it very informative to compare the value obtained from a spot analysis to an incident one. You can then compare how well you distributed your zones.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have a Spotmeter II.

Incident is normally better (and invariably quicker) than spot for transparency/digi -- and unless you want to read the brightness range, as you say, Subhad, one reading is all you need.

The great thing is that if you do it properly, spot metering FOR NEGATIVE keys the exposure to the darkest area in which you want texture and detail -- incomparably the best approach FOR NEGATIVE. Incident metering keys exposure to the highlights: great for tranny/digi, worthless for neg unless the subject brightness range is <about 64:1, preferably 32:1.

By 'external analytical scale' I mean one that recommends aperture/shutter speed combinations for each numerical reading on the meter scale. In other words, '4' or '14' tells you very little except the separation (in stops) between two readings.

And, of course, it doesn't take much experience -- just intelligence and an open mind -- to be able to modify an incident reading to be 99% as valuable as spot metering, as oftheherd points out.

Cheers,

R.

 

[srtiwari]

Ofttheherd,
I was referring to the inconvenience of trying to read the light falling on a distant subject.

 

[percepts]

Kenko have taken over Minolta meters. They look different but the internals are the same I think. I agree that a 5deg meteer is pointless. Personally I have a Minolta Spotmeter F which is an excellent meter but if I was buying new now I'd go for a sekonic which are weather proof and combine incident and spot meter in one unit.

The thing with a spot meter is that you must understand exactly how to use it and that varies according to film type and also camera type if you are using it with a digital camera. Basically you need to understand the principles of the zone system and how to apply them. And that means you need to know the usueable dynamic range of your film or sensor in order to meter and set the correct exposure. If you know that then very accurate metering can be done. If you don't then you'll be better off with an incident meter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Kenko have taken over Minolta meters. They look different but the internals are the same I think. I agree that a 5deg meteer is pointless. Personally I have a Minolta Spotmeter F which is an excellent meter but if I was buying new now I'd go for a sekonic which are weather proof and combine incident and spot meter in one unit.

The thing with a spot meter is that you must understand exactly how to use it and that varies according to film type and also camera type if you are using it with a digital camera. Basically you need to understand the principles of the zone system and how to apply them. And that means you need to know the usueable dynamic range of your film or sensor in order to meter and set the correct exposure. If you know that then very accurate metering can be done. If you don't then you'll be better off with an incident meter.

Well, that or basic sensitometry, of which the Zone System is a subset that is oversimplified in some ways and overcomplicated in others. But I completely agree that an uninterpreted reading is all but worthless. Or indeed, on occasion, less than worthless: actually misleading.

Cheers,

R.

 

[raid]

I have been using a Pentax digital spotmeter for about 20 years now, and I wouldn't want any other meter. In all of my SLR cameras I have always targeted cameras with a narrow built-in meter, and Canon was before Nikon in building SLR's with "spot meters".
This was the main reason why I preferred Canon cameras over Nikon SLR cameras. With a spotmeter, I can meter specific areas in the viewfinder, and I can adjust the exposure based on the type of light, type of film, and level of reflectiveness of the main subjects in an image field.

With experience, using a spot meter becomes natural.

 

[Peter Klein]

One place I find a spot meter indispensible is for stage and concert work. Measure a face and (for caucasian skin) open up one stop.

I don't usually find spot meters necessary in outdoor work. You can usually find substitute things to read to give you a highlight and shadow reading. Regular meters are "fooled" by the often dark background and glaring highlights on stage.

A reasonable substitute for a spot meter is any digicam with an on-screen histogram. Live view is better, but you can simply guess, shoot a test picture, look at the histogram and adjust accordingly.

The object of the game is expose so that either:
- The darkest thing in which you want detail is a bit above the low threshold of your medium.
- The brightest thing in which you want detail is a bit below the high "ceiling" of your medium.
- Your principal subject is placed where you want it to be (as in the face example above). It might be medium gray, or it might not.

You may not get all three if the brightness range is too much, and then you have to choose. I agree with Roger, an analog calculator dial is great, because you can see all the combination of f-stops and shutter speeds, and easily "place" your meter reading where you want it.

Note that it's pointless to play Zone System in fast situations. Use your experience and just take the bleeping picture, or it will pass you by. When in doubt, guess. And, since many spot meters look vaguely like handguns, I don't take mine on airplanes any more...

--Peter