Hand-held Meters?

[newspaperguy]

Those of us blessed (cursed?) with this RF addiction, at least those of us using older cameras are still slaves to hand-held exposure meters. Well, maybe not slaves... but at least somewhat dependent.

Any chance that you and Frances will take a look at the current - or at least recent - crop of what's out there, and how they strike you?

 

[Chris101]

Hey! I second that request. I have an old Luna Pro sbc. I have put 'Wein cells' in it, but I am still not convinced of it's accuracy, especially at the extremes of it's range. Me thinks it's time for a better meter. I'd like it to be inexpensive and not too small (I'd lose the Voiugtlander clip-on meter in a minute.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Whew...

This is dependent on selling it to a magazine, on cost grounds, but I might just have a go at this year's photokina.

As a preliminary observation, though, I'll quote Garry Coward-Williams, Damien Demolder's predecessor as Editor at Amateur Photographer. I paraphrase from memory:

"How is it that everyone gets good exposures, regardless of the meter they use? Meters are often half a stop apart, sometimes a stop apart. But anyone who's any good gets good exposures. Is it latitude? Experience? What?"

I don't know, and neither did Garry. But I'll see if I can attack the question.

Thanks for the idea.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Chris101]

... "How is it that everyone gets good exposures, regardless of the meter they use? Meters are often half a stop apart, sometimes a stop apart. But anyone who's any good gets good exposures. Is it latitude? Experience? What?" ...

My guess would be that when used consistently, one makes other adjustments that compensate for meter inaccuracy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My guess would be that when used consistently, one makes other adjustments that compensate for meter inaccuracy.

This seems more likely than latitude (except perhaps with some of the less well-informed devotees of the Zone System), but most people aren't aware of these adjustments -- and it's not just meter inaccuracy but personal metering technique, meter choice, lens flare,whether you're metering neg or tranny, shutter inaccuracies...

Cheers,

R

 

[Ronald_H]

When I got my M2 I soon figured out my shutter was way off. But also that my meter (Gossen Digiflash) was inaccurate. Confirmed on an optical test bench at my CLA guy. He commented that my meter 'wasn't off at all' according to his bench.

What he didn't know was that I trail and errored the optimal calibration to -1 1/3rd of a stop. I also bought a vintage Gossen Lunasix with adapters for SR44 cells. It is consistent with the calibrated Digiflash.

Anyway, I now can meter well enough to get good slides back. For negative film I really don't need a meter.

 

[myoptic3]

I think that most shots aren't exposed correctly. It's film's latitude and the range of exposure correction in Photoshop that brings them into approximate correct exposure. I've been reading Ansel's books on The Negative, and that guy forgot more about metering than most people will ever learn. An abbreviated zone system understanding has helped me a lot in getting better exposures from my meter. A gray card don't hurt either.

 

[varjag]

This seems more likely than latitude (except erhaps with some of the less well-informed devotees of the Zone System), but most people aren't aware of these adjustments -- and it's not just meter inaccuracy but personal metering technique, meter choice, lens flare,whether you're metering neg or tranny, shutter inaccuracies...

Roger, could it be that due to statistical nature of many of those inaccuracies, and their sheer number, they get compensated by each other to an extent? There still should be outlier cases, but not that numerous.

(Of course this takes assumption that involved errors are of same order, which is purely a speculation at this point.)

 

[Windscale]

Many of my cameras do not have built in meters. Even if they do I would not trust them as they are mainly older cameras. For over 20 years I have relied on handheld meters. I now use 2, namely a Sekonic 308B and a 308S. Both are of the same size only the readout appears slightly different. However, from time to time I will compare the two and make sure they give the same readings under the same lighting conditions. Also I will take them back to Sekonic for a checkout once every two or three years. I wouldn't go out without them. It would be nice if Roger can do a piece on them. Thanks in advance.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, could it be that due to statistical nature of many of those inaccuracies, and their sheer number, they get compensated by each other to an extent? There still should be outlier cases, but not that numerous.

(Of course this takes assumption that involved errors are of same order, which is purely a speculation at this point.)

This is almost certainly a fundamental truth, though there are some errors that tend to be heavily skewed, i.e. slow shutters are a lot more common than fast ones. I did a piece on exactly this some 4-5 years ago for Amateur Photographer, and indeed, most errors do tend to be +/- 1/3 to 1/2 stop. But I did give an example of two cameras I own where the same fim could be rated more than 2 stops differently and still give identical densities.

There are also a lot of people who have learned to compensate for truly lousy exposures in the darkroom or when scanning/post processing. Amusingly, some of them think that their wildly eccentric practises are evidence of their accuracy at all steps in the process.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dmr]

This is dependent on selling it to a magazine, on cost grounds,

Hey, if you write it for Shutterbug, I promise I'll buy a copy. 🙂

Meters are often half a stop apart, sometimes a stop apart.

One thing I would like to see, and might suggest for your article, is a sidebar on what is used to set the standard for what they are measuring, and {dreaming i know} hints on how you can check your meter for accuracy.

 

[JTK]

I use a Gossen Digisix primarily. Dead accurate. It matches my Minolta Flashmeter IV's ambient readings at all light levels and in "normal" light levels it matches my two Canon F1s (both CLA and adjusted specifically to match the Minolta). By "match" I mean within 1/2 stop either way, for the most part, metering off the back of my hand (which is about 1/2 stop brighter than neutral grey).

Digisix is an excellent meter...it looks like junk because of its plastic, but that makes it light and makes it capable of withstanding virtually any abuse.

Digisix eats batteries...you have to carry a spare and I advocate removing the battery when it's in disuse..bad design, should be capable of shutting off.

Digisix is annoying in operation because it wants to give you the time and temp (really!) and it has an alarm clock function. Ridiculous. Still, as a meter it's exceptionally good (have used mine for 4 years).

 

[Gumby]

Part of the issue has to do with whether the interest/concern is a meter's precision, or accuracy. Also, an agreed definition of what "proper exposure" really is. Often these types of questions/comments/evaluations can't reach consensus on the basic terms.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Part of the issue has to do with whether the interest/concern is a meter's precision, or accuracy. Also, an agreed definition of what "proper exposure" really is. Often these types of questions/comments/evaluations can't reach consensus on the basic terms.

You are absolutely right, which is why Frances and I wrote the book 'Perfect Exposure', also translated into Spanish and French.

A major problem with exposure is that a lot of people know a certain amount about it; assume that this is all there is to know, regardless of how much or how little they actually know; and fiercely resist studying any of the real sensitometric theory behind it, because they think they already know it all (and because some of it can be quite hard).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

Agreed... it is virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is convinced they "know it all", especially when there is resistance to listening to real data.

What some folks don't realize is that an exposure meter doesn't really determine exposure... it just gives data that is suggestive of an exposure. Whether relying on detailed knowledge of sensitometry, or relying on the many degrees of latitude in photographic processes, this remains a fact that many simply don't understand or can't accept.

There has been a lot of books/articles written about exposure over the years, but this aspect of meter usage seems to be largely overlooked by many readers/students.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agreed... it is virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is convinced they "know it all", especially when there is resistance to listening to real data.

What some folks don't realize is that an exposure meter doesn't really determine exposure... it just gives data that is suggestive of an exposure.

My all time favourite was arguing with an otherwise knowledgeable photographer who was convinced that if you metered a grey card, there would automatically be enough detail in the shadow areas.

I asked him how the meter knew how much darker the shadows might be than a grey card.

"Well a grey card is Zone 5," he said, "So a shadow is always 3 stops darker..."

He would not accept that there is a difference between a misty day (brightness as low as 2:1) and a church with sunlight streaming through the window, where it can hit or even exceed 1000:1 between a sunlit white flower and the beams in a dark corner of the roof. I had him in mind when writing

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps subject brightness range.html

Then there are those who are convinced that an 'average' subject reflects 18% of the light falling on it; those who are unaware of the flare factor assumptions built into the ISO standard; those who are unaware what flare is...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Windscale]

I use the 'incident light' reading of my handheld about 99% of the time and do some mental adjustments based on those readings. I think this way I can get the right exposure easier than using 'reflected light' measurements where heavy reliance must be placed on the reflected surface ( which is normally not a grey card).

 

[Sparrow]

I’m flattered Roger, but you are misrepresenting my opinion there I’m afraid

Regards Stewart McBride

 

[Solinar]

Did the photographer with the grey card try an incident reading?

Cine photographers will film daylight scenes at night under artificial lighting because of the contrast ratio encountered under real daylight conditions, especially in summer. So, I'd be happier shooting on a misty day.

 

[usagisakana]

You are absolutely right, which is why Frances and I wrote the book 'Perfect Exposure', also translated into Spanish and French.

A major problem with exposure is that a lot of people know a certain amount about it; assume that this is all there is to know, regardless of how much or how little they actually know; and fiercely resist studying any of the real sensitometric theory behind it, because they think they already know it all (and because some of it can be quite hard).

Cheers,

R.

A very useful and well written book that is. If anyone wants to learn more about exposure I would heartily recommend it.