thegman
Veteran
Also consider that if you shoot a lot of bright things (snow, sky, etc.) then your shots will be underexposed if you simply accept what the meter is telling you. The meter assumes everything is light grey, and in most cases this works pretty well, but snow and sky can be *a lot* brighter than this, and your meter will get it wrong.
If you're shooting C41 film, don't be afraid to over expose by 1 or 2 stops, as Roger said, halving the ISO speed from 400 - 200 or 200 - 100 is overexposing by one stop, don't afraid to go to 2 stops, i.e half again, so 400 becomes 100. Modern C41 film like XP2 or Portra 400 can handle this very easily.
If you're shooting C41 film, don't be afraid to over expose by 1 or 2 stops, as Roger said, halving the ISO speed from 400 - 200 or 200 - 100 is overexposing by one stop, don't afraid to go to 2 stops, i.e half again, so 400 becomes 100. Modern C41 film like XP2 or Portra 400 can handle this very easily.
kennylovrin
Well-known
I've tried something along the lines of "meter the darkest shadows I want to retain detail in and stop down 2 stops". But that is really the thing, the meter could very well be correct and my concept of shadows needs a tweaking, or the meter is off. That is why I need to know wether the meter is accurate or not. The problem isn't that I get underexposed shots, the problem is that I am not sure why.
If I was to meter off my skin I'd probably have to add 10 stops. I've always taken heat for being so pale no matter the season.
Sparrow
Veteran
If you have consistency that's all you need, just do what Roger says and take a stop or two off the iso/asa setting. What the metre indicates isn't what matters, it's the density of the negatives is the only thing that really matters.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kenny,
Don't look for accuracy that isn't there. You can give two people the same meter and the same scene, and they'll get different readings. It's a mixture of cumulative errors and individual technique. Likewise, all film manufacturers say that film speeds are a starting point, and should be raised or lowered to suit your requirements, equipment and technique. When you start out, it's all too easy to believe you're doing something wrong if you have to use a different film speed. You're not.
You can't really meter shadows anything like as accurately with an in-camera meter as with a true (1 degree) spot meter. If you can get CONSISTENT metering, that's all that matters -- not existential questions about whether the meter, shutter, technique, etc. might be responsible.
If you're consistently one stop down, then you're doing it right. If your exposures are all over the place, it's a different matter.
Cheers,
R.
Don't look for accuracy that isn't there. You can give two people the same meter and the same scene, and they'll get different readings. It's a mixture of cumulative errors and individual technique. Likewise, all film manufacturers say that film speeds are a starting point, and should be raised or lowered to suit your requirements, equipment and technique. When you start out, it's all too easy to believe you're doing something wrong if you have to use a different film speed. You're not.
You can't really meter shadows anything like as accurately with an in-camera meter as with a true (1 degree) spot meter. If you can get CONSISTENT metering, that's all that matters -- not existential questions about whether the meter, shutter, technique, etc. might be responsible.
If you're consistently one stop down, then you're doing it right. If your exposures are all over the place, it's a different matter.
Cheers,
R.
kennylovrin
Well-known
This reply makes sense to me, I do find that I am fairly consistent in my exposures. It's just that I find the negatives a bit too thin, and when I scan them they tend to also look underexposed.
I'm fine with adjusting the ISO just like you say, I've thought about it myself after reading about it in your book.
My only issue is that I don't like adjusting something without first settling on somewhat of a baseline.If I just adjust the ISO and shoot at half the box speed, then I pick up another camera, and I could potentially be completely off right? There is something with that I don't like, unless I first can decide if the meter is accurate. I mean, if I point the meter at a medium gray card, adjust the exposure and get an underexposed shot, then by definition the meter is off, isn't it?. I don't see how I should just settle with that and work around it. Working around stuff comes after fixing inaccuracies (it becomes adjusting instead of a workaround) in my world.
Right now it seems as it makes most sense to me to just compare it to my 5Dmkii, see where the M6 is at, then rate the film differently. Not that it will necessarily change how I rate the film, but at least then I know why I'm rating it differently - either it's because the meter is off, or it's because of the way I meter the scene. For some people that might not matter, but for some reason it does matter a lot to me. I need to know why I'm doing something.
I'm getting the sense that my way of thinking about this doesn't resonate with the rest of you guys regarding this. Maybe I'm just being stubborn, it just feels very strange adjusting in one place for something that might be wrong in a different place.
I haven't looked into it in detail, but I was somewhat happier with my exposures when using TRI-X compared to when using Ilford Delta. So based on that it could very well be that the box speed of the TRI-X is just closer to how I should rate it personally than the box speed of the Delta film is.
Anyway, my original question really was how weak batteries affect the M6 Classic meter, if at all. There is only one person so far that has suggested changing the batteries which I find interesting (a suggestion that makes sense to me). Does that mean that there is no problem with weak batteries and meter inaccuracy?
kennylovrin
Well-known
I have another question though regarding rating the film differently, just to check if I have understood it correctly.
Let's just say that I just rate my Delta 400 at 200 and shoot like that. That's all good. But when I develop later, I should still develop with standard times for the box speed right? When we are talking about rating it differently, it doesn't have anything to do with pulling or pushing in development right?
What I'm asking is, when I don't want to push or pull, I just want "correct" exposures, then I should for example rate Delta 400 at 200, but still develop it as Delta 400? (Like I've done so far).
Let's just say that I just rate my Delta 400 at 200 and shoot like that. That's all good. But when I develop later, I should still develop with standard times for the box speed right? When we are talking about rating it differently, it doesn't have anything to do with pulling or pushing in development right?
What I'm asking is, when I don't want to push or pull, I just want "correct" exposures, then I should for example rate Delta 400 at 200, but still develop it as Delta 400? (Like I've done so far).
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
I understand completely what you are saying. You want to determine whether the camera meter is working accurately first of all before you then start introducing measures such as changing film box speed, etc. You want some consistency when switching from one camera to another.
So I would say yes, firstly start with a fresh set of batteries so that by a process of elimination you can get to the bottom of the issue.
A test I would recommend is to photograph a grey card with black and white film, starting with what the camera tells you is the correct exposure. then over and under expose lets say five stops in each direction. When you process the film you should see a correct mid grey exposure and exposures leading to black at the bottom end and white at the top. This will show you how "off" your meter is at the exposure the camera determined to be correct exposure.
So I would say yes, firstly start with a fresh set of batteries so that by a process of elimination you can get to the bottom of the issue.
A test I would recommend is to photograph a grey card with black and white film, starting with what the camera tells you is the correct exposure. then over and under expose lets say five stops in each direction. When you process the film you should see a correct mid grey exposure and exposures leading to black at the bottom end and white at the top. This will show you how "off" your meter is at the exposure the camera determined to be correct exposure.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Thank you, it felt for a while there as if I was expressing myself in a way that was completely impossible to understand.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(1) Very true. Which is why you should ALWAYS put a test roll through an untried camera before you shoot anything important. But you'd have to do that anyway, regardless of why you need to re-set ISO on your existing camera.
(2) In my experience, either there's enough power to run an LED meter, and it works, or there isn't, and it doesn't. But I can't guarantee that this is true for your meter, because I've never used one for long enough.
(3) Different meters will not always give the same readings. A simple centre-weighted meter (Leica M) may not give the same reading as a multi-point meter.
(4) You may care to read http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps 18 per cent.html about why grey cards are of more limited usefulness than many people think.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
Yes, develop at box speed. Shoot a 400 ISO film as if it was a 200 ISO film, but develop like you shot it at 400 ISO. This will result in 1 stop over exposure, which is probably what you're looking for.
Test your meter against a digital camera though, to make sure it's OK. If they are both centre weighted, both pointed at the same brick wall (or whatever), the results should at least be similar, if they're 5 stops difference or something, then I'd say there is something wrong. 1 stop is within margin of error.
Richard G
Veteran
As you say, Kenny, you want to know that your camera is not off in some way. Use SR44s not alkaline. Sunny 16 as a standard would be good to compare to, but I suspect right now that would be Sunny 11 in Malmö. If an average bitumen street scene with some sunlit people and a not too pale building and a few trees sees those two LEDs balancing at 1/250 at f11 with 400 ISO film then your meter is likely fine. My M6 is a later one with the body black rubber bumpers for the strap rings and the meter is scarily good. I like to think a lot about exposure and rely heavily on Sunny 16, which is right for where I live, but I also use a handheld meter with other cameras. Truth is, if I just balance those LEDs in the M6 VF the exposure is right nearly all the time. The exceptions are the times I know not to trust a reflected reading.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Yeah I will do some tests like this as well, I mean, I have nothing against using sunny 16, I would like to be able to do that as I imagine it simplifies a lot, but I will first need to sort out if my tool is accurate.
What you mention is interesting though, because I have thought quite a bout about that - that it's probably closer to sunny 11 here now. Maybe even less actually. It seems to me as sunny16 becomes a little harder to handle when you're outside of daylight hours, and daylight hours in Sweden are quickly diminishing to just a few every day now.
I would imagine that at 2-3pm next month, it will be fairly dark even though my eyes will see it as daylight. I can't just go out and rely on sunny 16 in that situation without having more practice first.
crispy12
Well-known
I know that cameras that require silver oxide batteries perform poorly with alkaline batteries, such as the older Nikon SLRs and Canonet rangefinders. I use alkaline batteries in my M6 and the metering is very consistent. It's also has a very tight center weighted metering pattern so you have to take the reading when the square RF patch is over the subject.
The only way to test the accuracy of your meter is to sample it side by side with a handheld meter that is known to be accurate.
Personally I really like using a meter, I don't see it as a crutch whatsoever. I'm comfortable with metering with my eye, but I find that my negatives are much more consistent when I use my judgement together with the in camera meter. Being able to read the light lets me set the exposure to the approximate setting very quickly, I then use the camera to double check and fine tune the exposure. Usually I'm within a half stop of what I want it to be. The way I practice is to keep a consciously know what shutter speed and aperture the camera is set to, even when adjusting and looking through the VF.
The only way to test the accuracy of your meter is to sample it side by side with a handheld meter that is known to be accurate.
Personally I really like using a meter, I don't see it as a crutch whatsoever. I'm comfortable with metering with my eye, but I find that my negatives are much more consistent when I use my judgement together with the in camera meter. Being able to read the light lets me set the exposure to the approximate setting very quickly, I then use the camera to double check and fine tune the exposure. Usually I'm within a half stop of what I want it to be. The way I practice is to keep a consciously know what shutter speed and aperture the camera is set to, even when adjusting and looking through the VF.
f6andBthere
Well-known
I have a fool proof way of checking all my camera's meters:
Photograph something grey (a wall or whatever) with a digicam and in your post processing software use the brightness or exposure slider to set the image to match a specific EV reading (with associated ISO and shutter speed) with a refelective meter that is known to be accurate. Then aim your camera at the screen square on from a foot or two away and see if it matches the values you adjusted it to with your meter. I have four images all precisely a stop apart in brightness so I can check across an exposure range with my metered cameras to see if they are accurate.
Photograph something grey (a wall or whatever) with a digicam and in your post processing software use the brightness or exposure slider to set the image to match a specific EV reading (with associated ISO and shutter speed) with a refelective meter that is known to be accurate. Then aim your camera at the screen square on from a foot or two away and see if it matches the values you adjusted it to with your meter. I have four images all precisely a stop apart in brightness so I can check across an exposure range with my metered cameras to see if they are accurate.
j j
Well-known
Comparing different exposure meters is introducing more variables and will likely complicate matters further. Keep it simple...
Buy a new battery. Take a reading with your current battery and then take a reading with your new battery. If the readings are the same you have taken the battery out of the equation.
Buy a new battery. Take a reading with your current battery and then take a reading with your new battery. If the readings are the same you have taken the battery out of the equation.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
kennylovrin
Well-known
kennylovrin
Well-known
Hey
So a little update on the situation.
I've put new batteries in now, checking before and after. There was a 3V Lithium battery in it (I think I read these are somewhat more reliable), and I put 2xSR44 silver oxide cells in it now. I don't think there was a difference in the metering, perhaps after the change the meter indicated every so slightly lower exposure for the same setting, but it was such a small difference that it could just as well not be there. So I think we can conclude that the battery isn't the problem. I have a lithium battery on order as well that I might use instead if they are indeed more reliable, otherwise I'll keep it as a backup.
Anyway, so I first just checked the meter before and after changing the battery, and as I said it was the same. Then I started going from ISO 100 and up, and around ISO 800 it just started to act weird, jumping between over and under exposure in a strange way. But I remembered that I had read somewhere that turning the ISO dial back and forth a few times could help that kind of behavior, and as I figured the camera hasn't been used in years I did that, and after that it started to behave as expected.
Then I ran it between 100 and 6400 and it did indeed meter one stop shutter speed change for each step of the ISO, so that also seems correct. It did however look like it tended to indicate higher exposure the farther up the ISO range I went, but still within reason I guess, the LEDs were very even, but not completely.
So then I compared it with my 5D set to spot metering, and they both track the whole range exactly the same.
So, it seems the meter does indeed work as expected, at least now after turning the ISO dial a bit (I don't think that have been my problem though as I haven't shot anything above ISO 400 yet, and it seemed to behave below that before as well).
So, now I guess there are a few possibilities left:
1. The shutter speeds are off
2. I am metering wrong / adjusting for the subject wrong
3. I am developing it wrong
4. I am scanning it wrong
5. I am rating the film at the wrong speed.
I would suspect that the problem lies in me rating the film wrong (as has been said before in this thread, but I was a bit unwilling to accept as a final answer).
I may have the local technichian verify the shutter speeds just so I can sleep better, but this weekend I'll go out and shoot a TRI-X 400 @ 200 and see what happens. Maybe my negs are fine and it's just me scanning them a bit wrong, but I must say they look a bit thin to me, even the brightest highlights aren't very dense, or as I would imagine them to be, and I can see in the histogram when I scan that a lot of the data the scanner picks up is in the darker range. I also have to push the levels quite a bit to get the image to better brightness and that introduces digital artifacts in the shot. That being said, I'm pretty anal with things like this.
Anyway, it almost goes without saying, but this is a very helpful forum. So thanks a lot to all of you for taking the time. RFF is probably my favorite part of the interwebz at the moment.
Kenny
EDIT:
I can't help but wonder though, TRI-X is a very common film. Is it really that common that people shoot it at EI200? (you call it exposure index when it's your own rating right and not the box speed rating?).
So a little update on the situation.
I've put new batteries in now, checking before and after. There was a 3V Lithium battery in it (I think I read these are somewhat more reliable), and I put 2xSR44 silver oxide cells in it now. I don't think there was a difference in the metering, perhaps after the change the meter indicated every so slightly lower exposure for the same setting, but it was such a small difference that it could just as well not be there. So I think we can conclude that the battery isn't the problem. I have a lithium battery on order as well that I might use instead if they are indeed more reliable, otherwise I'll keep it as a backup.
Anyway, so I first just checked the meter before and after changing the battery, and as I said it was the same. Then I started going from ISO 100 and up, and around ISO 800 it just started to act weird, jumping between over and under exposure in a strange way. But I remembered that I had read somewhere that turning the ISO dial back and forth a few times could help that kind of behavior, and as I figured the camera hasn't been used in years I did that, and after that it started to behave as expected.
Then I ran it between 100 and 6400 and it did indeed meter one stop shutter speed change for each step of the ISO, so that also seems correct. It did however look like it tended to indicate higher exposure the farther up the ISO range I went, but still within reason I guess, the LEDs were very even, but not completely.
So then I compared it with my 5D set to spot metering, and they both track the whole range exactly the same.
So, it seems the meter does indeed work as expected, at least now after turning the ISO dial a bit (I don't think that have been my problem though as I haven't shot anything above ISO 400 yet, and it seemed to behave below that before as well).
So, now I guess there are a few possibilities left:
1. The shutter speeds are off
2. I am metering wrong / adjusting for the subject wrong
3. I am developing it wrong
4. I am scanning it wrong
5. I am rating the film at the wrong speed.
I would suspect that the problem lies in me rating the film wrong (as has been said before in this thread, but I was a bit unwilling to accept as a final answer
).I may have the local technichian verify the shutter speeds just so I can sleep better, but this weekend I'll go out and shoot a TRI-X 400 @ 200 and see what happens. Maybe my negs are fine and it's just me scanning them a bit wrong, but I must say they look a bit thin to me, even the brightest highlights aren't very dense, or as I would imagine them to be, and I can see in the histogram when I scan that a lot of the data the scanner picks up is in the darker range. I also have to push the levels quite a bit to get the image to better brightness and that introduces digital artifacts in the shot. That being said, I'm pretty anal with things like this.
Anyway, it almost goes without saying, but this is a very helpful forum. So thanks a lot to all of you for taking the time. RFF is probably my favorite part of the interwebz at the moment.
Kenny
EDIT:
I can't help but wonder though, TRI-X is a very common film. Is it really that common that people shoot it at EI200? (you call it exposure index when it's your own rating right and not the box speed rating?).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kenny,
Yes, it's EI when the film is not developed to ISO standards. And yes, many people DO habitually rate Tri-X at 200. There can be many reasons, but four of of the most common are willful underdevelopment (there is a popular internet myth that manufacturers' dev times are always too long); simple incompetence (if your metering is hopeless, there's always more latitude for overexposure than underexposure); variations in metering technique; and personal preference. In your case I'd back the third and fourth options.
Remember too that whereas slide & digi exposure is keyed to the highlights (you don't want them to 'blow' to a featureless white), neg exposure is keyed to the shadows (you don't want 'empty' shadows). Thus, with a long brightness range, a meter can indicate a correct exposure only for EITHER slide/digi OR negative. On this, see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/over-under-indices.html
Cheers,
R.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Thanks for your reply again! I wanted to get back to you on that specific part though that I have quoted here. So, you think it is more probable that I am making mistakes either when developing or when scanning rather than when exposing? This might very well be the case, which is why I have a few follow up questions:
1. To me, I imagine that my negs should be somewhat more dense because I can quite easily see through even the highlight parts. Somehow I imagine the highlights to be a bit more opaque than what I'm getting. Also, it just seems to me as if I have a bit too much transparent film on the negs, more than there should be black in the scene. This has lead me to believe that I am underexposing, because the negs don't seem extremely flat, rather just thin.
2. I have been developing based on the Massive Dev chart as I've heard good things about it. However, with the specific developer I'm using (FX-39) there are some revised times and alternative dillutions, and seeing that I'm new to this I'm not sure how to relate to this in regards of my specific developer.
3. Lately the weather in Sweden (or most often really) is pretty overcast, so I don't usually get very high contrast scenes unless it's summer. Lately it's been more like a giant soft box than a blue sky. Could it be that the combination of this flat light and the compensating FX-39 (as I understand it) leads to me getting underexposed/flat negatives?
I have been thinking that I should try Rodinal or something which everyone seems to use, instead of messing with something that isn't as common as it seems, at least now in the beginning.
Based on the FX-39 fact sheet I am actually agitating more than it says, and my understanding is that it should help the highlights and contrast, yet I'm not seeing huge contrast in the negs.
My problem is that I've read up a lot on the process, and I like to think that I have a good grasp on the theory. The thing is just that what I get out of my development I can't really compare to anything. I'm not sure exactly what a "good negative" should look like and so forth. There are a lot of variables for me because of this, and it makes it hard to adjust the process as I am not sure where to make the adjustments.
If I take a digital shot of one of my negs, does that even make sense to show here? Could more experienced people based on that tell if it is underexposed, under developed, etc? When I look at the negative, and think of it in terms of the scanning process, I have a really hard time imagining that it's so dense that the highlights would actually go white because they would block the light from the scan head.
EDIT AGAIN:
Now I just realized that you are refering to option three and fourth of what you we're listing, and not what I was listing in the previous post? That kind of makes sense to me now in the context of this discussion.
So you are saying I should maybe try both thinking harder on what I'm metering, and perharps also try shooting at EI200?