Hand-held Meters?

[oscroft]

I had him in mind when writing
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...s range.html

Hi Roger,

That's an excellent piece - everyone who thinks they know about exposure should read it (as should everyone who doesn't - so that's, er, everyone 🙄 ). The story of the guy with the grey card is really funny 😀. And I've just ordered a copy of "Perfect Exposure", because even though I've been doing it for 40 years now, I know I still have plenty to learn about the subject.

But back to the subject of the thread, I've also wondered sometimes - I know meters vary in accuracy and precision (I've used plenty), and I know shutters vary too (ditto), and I then read people saying things like "Kodachrome must be exposed to within 1/3 stop accuracy". And I also read that some people prefer to expose KR at ISO 80, or whatever. And the same goes for other films - different people prefer to expose at different speeds, develop for different times, etc.

I'm sure at least some of that must be down to differences in equipment accuracy and precision, and it really reinforces the idea that you need to work out a process (consisting of film, exposure, development, etc) that works for you.

And interestingly, I've just shot a lot of KR64 (at ISO 64) in Thailand in my M6, and it generally looks ever so slightly underexposed. The last time I shot KR64 there was in my Pentax SP500, and at ISO 64 the exposures were fine. Maybe in my M6 I need to rate it at ISO 50?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

That's an excellent piece - everyone who thinks they know about exposure should read it (as should everyone who doesn't - so that's, er, everyone 🙄 ). .. The last time I shot KR64 there was in my Pentax SP500, and at ISO 64 the exposures were fine. Maybe in my M6 I need to rate it at ISO 50?

Dear Alan,

God bless 'ee and keep 'ee, kind sir. And yes, re-rating to 50 is not unlikely, as old Pentaxes (at least in my experience) tend to expose, shall we say, generously. For the others:

Windscale: ANY metering system works well if you know how to interpret it, and I'd agree that incident is one of the easiest to interpret.

Simon: no, I'm not misrepresenting you as I was not talking about you.

Andrew: Not gonna matter much, if you know how to use a grey card. (Amazingly many don't, even though they think they're really clever). But incident is easier and (in my view) better.

Usigasakana: thanks to you too for the kind words.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[oscroft]

God bless 'ee and keep 'ee, kind sir.

And the same to you sir!

And yes, re-rating to 50 is not unlikely, as old Pentaxes (at least in my experience) tend to expose, shall we say, generously

That's interesting, thanks.

Something that has also struck me is that the stated exposure latitude of a film is not the end of the story. People can say you have 1/2 stop latitude with this film, or a 2 stop latitude with that film, but without knowing the lighting I think that's close to meaningless. Here in the north of the UK, for example, I've rarely had poorly exposed colour transparencies - not always perfect, but almost always usable. But in Thailand it has always been a lot harder getting good exposures - the greater the contrast range of the light, the harder it is to keep the two ends of the scale within useful range, and so the less the useful latitude.

And the same applies to something as generally forgiving as Tri-X. In British light I would rarely doubt my ability to get well exposed Tri-X shots. But in Thailand it's different. I can easily exceed its latitude, and so I find myself obsessing about writing notes about the lighting on the film cans with a Sharpie (and worrying about how to develop it when I end up shooting high contrast and low contrast shots on the same roll).

But it's all good fun 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

People can say you have 1/2 stop latitude with this film, or a 2 stop latitude with that film, but without knowing the lighting I think that's close to meaningless. Here in the north of the UK, for example, I've rarely had poorly exposed colour transparencies - not always perfect, but almost always usable. But in Thailand it has always been a lot harder getting good exposures - the greater the contrast range of the light, the harder it is to keep the two ends of the scale within useful range, and so the less the useful latitude.

And the same applies to something as generally forgiving as Tri-X. In British light I would rarely doubt my ability to get well exposed Tri-X shots. But in Thailand it's different. I can easily exceed its latitude, and so I find myself obsessing about writing notes about the lighting on the film cans with a Sharpie (and worrying about how to develop it when I end up shooting high contrast and low contrast shots on the same roll).

But it's all good fun 😀

Absolutely true! I think you'll find with Tri-X, though, that while generous exposure (+1 stop or a little more) will give you dense highlights, you'll still be well within the latitude. i.e. you won't be on the shoulder. You may need grade 1 or 0, but you should still be able to print wet. Whether or not a scanner can penetrate the maximum densities is another matter.

Cut the dev time for the Thai pics by 10-15% and the contrasty ones should print fine on grade 1-2 and the flat ones on 3-4.

Cheers,

R.

 

[weser]

I am considering using a light meter (with spot meter). Thinking of buying a Sekonic L-758DR. Apparently, it's the first light meter for digital photography that can be profiled to match the sensor of one's camera. The M8 in my case.
The thing is pricey of course. Not only the darn meter but also the additional Exposure Profile Target one needs to do the profile programming.

Anyhow, is it really necessary to get such a tricked out thing when shooting digital or would an older model (with spot meter) be as good.

What do you think? And which model/brand would you recommend?
Thanks.

 

[oscroft]

Absolutely true! I think you'll find with Tri-X, though, that while generous exposure (+1 stop or a little more) will give you dense highlights, you'll still be well within the latitude. i.e. you won't be on the shoulder. You may need grade 1 or 0, but you should still be able to print wet. Whether or not a scanner can penetrate the maximum densities is another matter.

Cut the dev time for the Thai pics by 10-15% and the contrasty ones should print fine on grade 1-2 and the flat ones on 3-4

I'm only scanning these days, sadly - no room for a proper darkroom (but I do keep wondering if it's possible). 10-15% less dev time sounds like good advice, thanks - I'm sure I need to get thinner negs from my Thai shots. I'll be back there in September for another couple of months and should probably not take any film with me but just use up what I have in the fridge there (my wife keeps complaining that there's less and less room for food!), but I'll at least take some APX-400 (I've just got some from an eBay seller) and some Tri-X. And I'll go for less development.

Thanks again,

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anyhow, is it really necessary to get such a tricked out thing when shooting digital . . .

No. ANY meter will give good results when used with even a small amount of understanding. True, Pentax publishes compensation factors for pure colours but pure colours are pretty rare.

For digital, an incident meter will probably work better than spot. Like tranny, DNG's latitude is almost all on the side of underexposure: overexposure wil 'blow' highlights very smartly indeed. With neg, the latitude (which is significantly greater with most films than with tranny or digi) is almost all on the side of overexposure.

Unfortunately the bits of my site that go into metering in detail are subscriber-only ($30/year) so I can't link them and I'm hesitant even to promote them here; I try to promote only the free bits.

Cheers,

R.

 

[oftheherd]

The first light meter I bought for myself was a Sekonic Auto Leader. A relatively inexpensive reflective meter that had a high and low setting. I was actually pretty useful and accurate. Next I got a Sekonic L28c2. Although is has a reflective mode, I never felt it worked well that way. As an incident meter and for reading contrast, it was great, until I dropped it the last time. The it only worked when held sideways. A later one I picked up on ebay is pretty nice, but frankly, not as accurate as the first.

Between those two, I got a Gossen Luna Pro and a Gossen Luna Pro SBC. Both good meters. I prefer the Luna Pro in reflective mode, and the SBC in incident mode, but I think it works well in both.

BTW, I think the Chris101, the number two poster, meant he had a Luna Pro. The SBC, at least all I know, use 9 voldt batteries. The Luna Pro needs wein cells or an adaper as it used a mercury battery when new. Both those Gossens are great, especially at low light. I still think I got better exposures from my first L28c2. Probably the latter ones I have just need some calibration. I don like to test meters agains the sunny 16 rule, but I don't think they are always linear, even though they should be.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I'm a 'simple soul', and now as I enter my 'dotage' and take pictures mainly for my own pleasure/amusement, I rarely bother with my expensive spot meter, relying on knowledge of regular film stock, dev. procedures and recollections of similar lighting situations, etc.. In younger days, as a racing cyclist, I recall one world champion being asked how to become really profficient at cycling, replying 'ride a bike....ride a bike......ride a bike'. 🙂
Dave.

 

[Ronald_H]

Well, frankly, I have been photographing for 10 years. I shot digital and film. I know a lot about photography and have a good background in maths and physics. I really do not claim to know everything and am always willing to learn new things, but I'm not stoopid y'know.

But from this thread I get the strong impression that there is some underlying magic principle to good exposure that is near impossible for mere mortals to grasp. Forgive my cynism, but it's not rocket science. Or is it?

 

[Livesteamer]

Don't discount the complexity of good metering. Look at how Nikon and others do metering in an slr. Divide the screen into 1000 segments, meter each segment in three colors and send all that to the computer. If Leica could take the meter from my N90s and put it in an M body, I'd buy one. Till then I prefer my Sekonic L398 incident meter. Joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, frankly, I have been photographing for 10 years. I shot digital and film. I know a lot about photography and have a good background in maths and physics. I really do not claim to know everything and am always willing to learn new things, but I'm not stoopid y'know.

But from this thread I get the strong impression that there is some underlying magic principle to good exposure that is near impossible for mere mortals to grasp. Forgive my cynism, but it's not rocket science. Or is it?

You certainly have the wrong impression as far as I am concerned, and I'm not quite sure how you have gained it.

No, getting good exposures isn't difficult: see my comment above that ANY meter will give good exposures if used with a modicum of intelligence or experience.

Nor is it especially difficult to grasp the underlying theory, though to be frank, there is little incentive to do so: it's more than easy enough on an empirical basis. And latitude takes care of a lot.

But there are quite a few people who latch onto a small part of exposure theory and imagine that it is the fons et origo of sensitometry, when it reality it may be anything from a collection of rules of thumb to a needlessly complicated sequence of shooting grey cards.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnTF]

A friend in LA has been using a printer/processor who worked with HCB, and he said he did a lot of compensation in the darkroom in terms of dealing with exposures. If so, he must be very good.

I will try and reconnect with my friend, there may be a reason for Roger and Frances to visit him, I can think of no better persons to chat him up.

Maybe I should use him. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[charjohncarter]

Roger, you point out the possible ways (including meter inaccuracies) a photo can go wrong. It is depressing. But here is a new one for me and my meter (Sekonic Master; 37 years old): we have been though very smoky skies here in California this summer (over a month). The glare from smoky skies has caused underexposure. not to mention ugly skies. Or maybe it is from one of you other factors.

 

[Gumby]

But from this thread I get the strong impression that there is some underlying magic principle to good exposure that is near impossible for mere mortals to grasp.

Here's my exposure formula (I'm a mere mortal also!):

(reliable meter) + (thoughtful user) + (reliable camera/shutter) + (film latitude) + (paper latitude) = decent exposure.

No magic underlaying pricnciples.

Easy enough, yes? 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

A friend in LA has been using a printer/processor who worked with HCB, and he said he did a lot of compensation in the darkroom in terms of dealing with exposures. If so, he must be very good.

I will try and reconnect with my friend, there may be a reason for Roger and Frances to visit him, I can think of no better persons to chat him up.

Maybe I should use him. ;-)

Regards, John

Dear John,

A few years ago, at Arles, Frances met one of HCB's printers (maybe the only one -- I don't know how many he had, over the years) and yes, she also gained the impression at HCB's mythical ability to frame and expose all his pics perfectly was, indeed, mythical.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, you point out the possible ways (including meter inaccuracies) a photo can go wrong. It is depressing. But here is a new one for me and my meter (Sekonic Master; 37 years old): we have been though very smoky skies here in California this summer (over a month). The glare from smoky skies has caused underexposure. not to mention ugly skies. Or maybe it is from one of you other factors.

Hmmm... Are you sure it's underexposure, or lack of contrast making prints look muddy and therefore underexposed?

Equally, if you're used to including clear blue Californian skies (clear blue sky being a pretty good mid-tone) then white/silvery skies could well lead to under-exposure when the meter 'thinks' the scene is brighter than it is.

Obviously not a problem I've ever given any thought to, but I'll discuss it with Frances and continue to ruminate on it.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[charjohncarter]

Roger, could be your OR, all I know is it was a wasted month. This one you can see the smoke in about 150 meters, and this was on the coast. Thanks for asking Frances, it's funny how much I hear/learn from her, yet she is so quiet.

 

[JohnTF]

Dear John,

A few years ago, at Arles, Frances met one of HCB's printers (maybe the only one -- I don't know how many he had, over the years) and yes, she also gained the impression at HCB's mythical ability to frame and expose all his pics perfectly was, indeed, mythical.

Cheers,

R.

Will try to post you if I get the facts confirmed. Did I read somewhere that some of the first 35mm cameras were used to test short runs of film for correct exposure, before the time of meters? Maybe a new cart/horse relationship?

My friend Gabe in LA was sending his film to a Man, so I am guessing there were more than one printer.

Regards, John

 

[charjohncarter]

Dave Wilkinson, was that 'Mike the Bike?'