skucera
Well-known
Light meters that I have don't have a different mode, but old camera manuals and books written in the Fourties, Fifties, and Sixties often mentioned that slides demanded absolutely accurate metering, where black and white film was much more forgiving, allowing pushing and pulling in the darkroom to get good results. Maybe this is where the "different for b/w versus color slide film" idea came from?
Scott
Scott
Last edited:
gdeprest
Newbie
Don't know of any camera having dedicated slide metering modes.
But some metering setups do seem to work better than others for slides.
I used to shoot slides almost exclusively, using a Canon FT at first. It had a convenient manual match needle system, with a very selective metering pattern, mostly limited to a rectangle in the middle of the view. For slides, I used it to meter relevant highlight areas.
I had very predictable results and no blown highlights.
My results were less predictable when i switched to an Canon AE-1, which had no convenient manual mode and no selective metering.
But some metering setups do seem to work better than others for slides.
I used to shoot slides almost exclusively, using a Canon FT at first. It had a convenient manual match needle system, with a very selective metering pattern, mostly limited to a rectangle in the middle of the view. For slides, I used it to meter relevant highlight areas.
I had very predictable results and no blown highlights.
My results were less predictable when i switched to an Canon AE-1, which had no convenient manual mode and no selective metering.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
It is an interesting question. It would have been a simple matter to add an exposure comp feature that increases the exposure a bit for B&W. It could even be a mark added to the exposure comp dial. I guess the black & white "mode" could be to set the exposure comp to +2/3 stop.
Huss
Veteran
Unless you know that your camera's shutter is completely accurate, and the film is going to be developed perfectly at exactly the right times, temps and chemical concentrations, with the chemicals being fresh, you're kidding yourself.
Just meter how you feel you want the scene to appear and shoot. Or use digital...
Just meter how you feel you want the scene to appear and shoot. Or use digital...
retinax
Well-known
The latter is my point - how I and most people want the scene to appear is different for slide film and negatives in high contrast scenes. Slide - avoid blown highlights, neg - get all the shadow detail, blown highlights are no worry. The difference can be several stops.
do you really use a handheld meter the same way for slide film and negative film? Then you're throwing shadow detail away. Can be fine of course if that's the look you're going for.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Wait wait wait -- we should mention: The film makers. They are quite exactly aware how exposure metering works -- Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Konica, to name but the most prominent, make (or made) cameras themselves.
Hence I'm very sure: the ISO/ASA/DIN numbers of transparency vs. negative films (at least those films for the hobby shooters) were (are) adjusted or rectified in a way that the dumbness of the built-in exposure meter cannot cause too bad mistakes.
Hence I'm very sure: the ISO/ASA/DIN numbers of transparency vs. negative films (at least those films for the hobby shooters) were (are) adjusted or rectified in a way that the dumbness of the built-in exposure meter cannot cause too bad mistakes.
retinax
Well-known
Wait wait wait -- we should mention: The film makers. They are quite exactly aware how exposure metering works -- Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Konica, to name but the most prominent, make (or made) cameras themselves.
Hence I'm very sure: the ISO/ASA/DIN numbers of transparency vs. negative films (at least those films for the hobby shooters) were (are) adjusted or rectified in a way that the dumbness of the built-in exposure meter cannot cause too bad mistakes.
Yes, I don't think the sensitivity rating for slide film is based on shadow detail like for negative film. Obviously averaging meters work fine for all films most of the time. It's just that the whole point of matrix meters is that they're supposed to give good exposures also in the rarer cases where averaging meters don't. And these are the cases where exposure strategies for negative and slide films tend to be different.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Darker, not lighter. If you meter, expose the film and develop to the ISO standard, pale-ish European skin (which reflects roughly 18% like an 18% grey card) comes out a middle grey - zone V, whatever you want to call it, which is unnaturally dark. To get good skn the nes, meter off the face, open up 1-1.5 stops, and fire away.
There is a good explanation of it starting p33 here: http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf - compulsory disclaimer - I have corresponded with Ctein, but don't know him, and I have no financial or professional links with him. It's just a good explanation that is worth reading and thinking about.
Marty
Beemermark
Veteran
Seems people rely too much on automation, which is fine in some cases, not so for others. I would suggest getting a copy of Ansel Adams "The Negative". The concept is that a negative displays a range of tones (or Zones) from blackest black (no detail) to a white with no detail. Each zone represents a difference of 1 stop. Pure black is Zone 0, pure white is Zone X. Zone V is in the middle progression an is 18% grey. Thus if you meter a white sheet of paper with no compensation the white sheet of paper will print as a 18% grey piece of paper. Like wise if you meter a black sheet of paper it will print as an 18% grey sheet of paper. If you what that sheet of paper to print correctly you need to know to open up or close down the approximate number of Zones - or f stops.
You can develop a large format B&W negative and obtain a range of 10 zones. 35mm negatives at best will be around 9 zones. Slide film is only about 6 Zones. so slide film is very contrasty compared to a B&W negative.
All of above applies to the final print. The point is you must know how you want your final print to turn out. No light meter can make this decision for you. If you take something like Nikon Matrix metering (which is very good) and get up close to take a picture of your black cat, tabby will print as a grey cat. Likewise if you take a picture of a snow covered mountain that is predominately snow the snow will turn out grey.
Printing B&W (or color) from a good negative allows you a certain range to adjust contrast to get the picture you want. For slide film, made for projection, you have no chance to correct the contrast (unless of course you print it but you will still have a very contrasty print).
For B&W (and color) you expose for the shadows to get a minimal amount of detail (for 35mm typical 2 or 3 stops from your meter's grey). You develop for the highlights by use of different contrast grades of paper. Slide, or reversal film, is just the opposite. You meter so you have some detail left in the highlights - 2 or 3 stops above your meter's middle Zone.
No metering system is sophisticated enough to make these decisions for you.
You can develop a large format B&W negative and obtain a range of 10 zones. 35mm negatives at best will be around 9 zones. Slide film is only about 6 Zones. so slide film is very contrasty compared to a B&W negative.
All of above applies to the final print. The point is you must know how you want your final print to turn out. No light meter can make this decision for you. If you take something like Nikon Matrix metering (which is very good) and get up close to take a picture of your black cat, tabby will print as a grey cat. Likewise if you take a picture of a snow covered mountain that is predominately snow the snow will turn out grey.
Printing B&W (or color) from a good negative allows you a certain range to adjust contrast to get the picture you want. For slide film, made for projection, you have no chance to correct the contrast (unless of course you print it but you will still have a very contrasty print).
For B&W (and color) you expose for the shadows to get a minimal amount of detail (for 35mm typical 2 or 3 stops from your meter's grey). You develop for the highlights by use of different contrast grades of paper. Slide, or reversal film, is just the opposite. You meter so you have some detail left in the highlights - 2 or 3 stops above your meter's middle Zone.
No metering system is sophisticated enough to make these decisions for you.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
... certainly more *magick* than science
See what Frances Schultz and Roger Hicks have to say:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps zone.html
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zone system.html
Except one is a BORG, I guess?
narsuitus
Well-known
I cannot directly answer your questions.
All I can say is that when shooting slides with averaging meters, spot meters, center-weighted meters, or no meters, I was getting about 70% accurate exposures.
When I started shooting slides with matrix metering, I started getting about 90% accurate exposures.
willie_901
Veteran
If we delegate exposure completely to a light meter, we are doing it wrong. An exception is when time is of the essence (action photography, spontaneous candids, etc.) since there is no opportunity to ponder exposure parameter selection.
The idea that metering is a precise means to compute exposure parameter is flawed.
The meter can only provides an estimate that we use to select exposure parameters. Often those estimates are sufficient. Sometimes they are not.
Photographers are responsible for using all of their prior experience to choose exposure parameters based on the meter's estimate. In the end, we are the smartest light meter (link).
Of course, light meters often make useful estimates. Vendors use a variety of techniques to improve how in-camera metering compute estimates. Nikon's 3D Color Matrix Metering II takes readings from highlight regions and compares them to an in-camera data base of 30,000 different scenes. In other words, they try to mimic what an experienced photographer actually does. Other brands offer similar sophisticated methods. But the creators of these algorithms face a profound disadvantage. They will never see what we see and they have no idea about our subjective preferences or how and when a photographer's goals will can change these preferences.
Bracketing three exposures by an appropriate number of stops is one technique to optimize exposure. For some cameras this is trivial to implement. For transparency film (where exposure is often critical) it does triple film and development costs.
The idea that metering is a precise means to compute exposure parameter is flawed.
The meter can only provides an estimate that we use to select exposure parameters. Often those estimates are sufficient. Sometimes they are not.
Photographers are responsible for using all of their prior experience to choose exposure parameters based on the meter's estimate. In the end, we are the smartest light meter (link).
Of course, light meters often make useful estimates. Vendors use a variety of techniques to improve how in-camera metering compute estimates. Nikon's 3D Color Matrix Metering II takes readings from highlight regions and compares them to an in-camera data base of 30,000 different scenes. In other words, they try to mimic what an experienced photographer actually does. Other brands offer similar sophisticated methods. But the creators of these algorithms face a profound disadvantage. They will never see what we see and they have no idea about our subjective preferences or how and when a photographer's goals will can change these preferences.
Bracketing three exposures by an appropriate number of stops is one technique to optimize exposure. For some cameras this is trivial to implement. For transparency film (where exposure is often critical) it does triple film and development costs.
Bill Clark
Veteran
The real challenge I had and liked is when I made photographs at a wedding. I worked with many lighting conditions and venues and had to have a game plan made of how I was going to capture beautiful images on a very important day.
The only time I let the camera control exposure was when making candids.
Otherwise I would form a picture in my mind and come up with how I was going to tell each part of a wedding day story. The 5 or 6 P’s, very important.
Light meter, hardly used it. Those that did, usually got into trouble. I can tell. See blown background while the in camera light meter is trying to properly achieve exposure of people in the foreground. White dress, dark tux, light meter has a difficult time with those two extremes. There are many others.
It was hectic but I really enjoyed it. Clients could tell it.
Hope this helps you to see the light and rely less on tools such as a light meter.
The only time I let the camera control exposure was when making candids.
Otherwise I would form a picture in my mind and come up with how I was going to tell each part of a wedding day story. The 5 or 6 P’s, very important.
Light meter, hardly used it. Those that did, usually got into trouble. I can tell. See blown background while the in camera light meter is trying to properly achieve exposure of people in the foreground. White dress, dark tux, light meter has a difficult time with those two extremes. There are many others.
It was hectic but I really enjoyed it. Clients could tell it.
Hope this helps you to see the light and rely less on tools such as a light meter.
Dwig
Well-known
I've never heard of any that had a user option like that.
The DX Code system does support an exposure tolerance factor with 4 options. Whether or not any camera ever made use of it is another matter. I've never read of any that do.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Light meters tell you how much light is falling on a subject (incident) or reflected by a subject (reflective). What you do with that information is up to you. I use either an incident meter or a reflective spot meter depending on the circumstances, and then think. The thinking is the important part.
Huss
Veteran
Exactly. Which is why I am always amused when people laud the matrix metering in Nikon cameras. I have the F6, have had the D750 and now also have the D850.
The matrix metering in the F6 is a joke if one thinks it's infallible. It is just an avg pattern meter. Have a heavily back lit subject? It will underexpose it. Have a subject in front of a dark background? It will overexpose it.
The D850 is better, as it should be given the advances in tech, but still does the same.
It's why Nikon also offer center and spot metering.
Here's an anecdote - ever see the documentary with Steve McCurry shooting the last roll of Kodachrome? He used a Nikon F6 but he first shot the scene with a DSLR to make sure the exposure would be correct, and reshot with the DSLR until it was correct. Then he transferred those settings to the F6. So much for that matrix metering.
retinax
Well-known
Somehow I really haven't succeeded in getting my point across. Thanks for all the practical advice, guys. That wasn't what I came looking for with this thread, as I've written a couple times, but I'm sure other readers will benefit from it. I agree with what all of you are saying, making deliberate choices about exposure is to be preferred over automation.
Yet, camera makers claim to have meters that are better than averaging meters. I say, if you want to refine metering beyond blindly following averaged readings, you quickly get to a point where you need to know if you're exposing for slide or negative film, and adjust accordingly. Which is what those of us that share my premise do when we're exposing deliberately. Matrix meters, however, don't.
I guess I could have phrased my whole question like this - why don't matrix meters do a standardized version of what a photographer with a spot meter does, something along these lines:
For slide or neg at night: If contrast is too hight to be reproduced completely, place highlights that cover an area larger than one metering point in zone VII. If that would mean that more than, say, half the image area falls below zone III, accept blown highlights and and expose for mid tones instead.
For negative: If contrast is too hight to be reproduced completely, expose so that no shadow area covering more than, say, three metering points falls below zone II.
Of course we who deliberately decide about our exposures would still sometimes want something different from that. But I imagine that in some critical situations, it would be better at what it's supposed to do than a metering system that is blind to its medium.
The answer to the question why why this isn't being done must be that there are practical obstacles to that level of sophistication, perhaps it would introduce too many new problems. Perhaps complex software is actually necessary for that. I wouldn't have thought so, but so it seems.
Yet, camera makers claim to have meters that are better than averaging meters. I say, if you want to refine metering beyond blindly following averaged readings, you quickly get to a point where you need to know if you're exposing for slide or negative film, and adjust accordingly. Which is what those of us that share my premise do when we're exposing deliberately. Matrix meters, however, don't.
I guess I could have phrased my whole question like this - why don't matrix meters do a standardized version of what a photographer with a spot meter does, something along these lines:
For slide or neg at night: If contrast is too hight to be reproduced completely, place highlights that cover an area larger than one metering point in zone VII. If that would mean that more than, say, half the image area falls below zone III, accept blown highlights and and expose for mid tones instead.
For negative: If contrast is too hight to be reproduced completely, expose so that no shadow area covering more than, say, three metering points falls below zone II.
Of course we who deliberately decide about our exposures would still sometimes want something different from that. But I imagine that in some critical situations, it would be better at what it's supposed to do than a metering system that is blind to its medium.
The answer to the question why why this isn't being done must be that there are practical obstacles to that level of sophistication, perhaps it would introduce too many new problems. Perhaps complex software is actually necessary for that. I wouldn't have thought so, but so it seems.
retinax
Well-known
Of course it's impossible for a meter to know the reflectivity of what it's aimed at. That's not a problem that can be automated except with "AI".
Contrast that exceeds what the medium can capture, however, is something a matrix meter can detect.
pagpow
Well-known
I, too, grew up with the Canon FTb and F1 with very well defined metering areas. Despite all the concern about the required precise exposure for slides, I simply uprated the slide film about a third of a stop, made sure that scene highlights fell into the measurement patch of the meter and shot. Nice saturated colors all the time. This is equivalent to shooting for the highlights and letting the shadows fall where they may, plus a bit of underexposure.
Moving to digital, with experience mostly with Canon 5D, 7D, Epson RD1, and the Canon Powershot S90, etc succession of small cameras, I have set, again, for underexposure.
No need for spot metering.
Haven't shot film with a matrix metering camera.
Isn't this the equivalent of programming the meter/camera for different media? Instead of saying "slide or negative", the button says "exposure compensation". The only difference I see is that the shift is "manual"; you have to set the exposure compensation dial, rather than "automatic" when you insert a roll of slide film. Or am I missing the point of the OP's question?
Moving to digital, with experience mostly with Canon 5D, 7D, Epson RD1, and the Canon Powershot S90, etc succession of small cameras, I have set, again, for underexposure.
No need for spot metering.
Haven't shot film with a matrix metering camera.
Isn't this the equivalent of programming the meter/camera for different media? Instead of saying "slide or negative", the button says "exposure compensation". The only difference I see is that the shift is "manual"; you have to set the exposure compensation dial, rather than "automatic" when you insert a roll of slide film. Or am I missing the point of the OP's question?