Landscape Light Meter

EdinburghGary said:
I have a week of Mull, me, and the cameras :) Gonna nail film. I promise.

Gary.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem is waiting for feedback with film from your experimental metering shots. Even then they don't mean a thing unless you've studiously kept notes of all your image exposure settings. Your DSLR is a boon for instant feedback and it's a lot cheaper than Polaroids. ;)
 
CT said:
The biggest problem is waiting for feedback with film from your experimental metering shots. Even then they don't mean a thing unless you've studiously kept notes of all your image exposure settings. Your DSLR is a boon for instant feedback and it's a lot cheaper than Polaroids. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't worry - my D3 will be in tow everywhere :D I plan on one or two film shots a day, and perhaps 10 digital.

Gary.
 
jerry12953 said:
Taking all that into account you can be sure that Ansel Adams would have been into digital .....
Click to expand...

He actually stated that digital imaging would be the next great advance in photography. I have no doubt he would have embraced it fully and used his previous experience and knowledge to adapt it to his needs.

EdinburghGary said:
Now this is NOT an accusation - however, if anyone wants to reply to this in the Digital vs Film context, PLEASE take into the war in the other thread :D
Gary.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why anyone should be against one or the other, they are both excellent photographic mediums in their own right and each have their supporters. Much like the debates (arguements) about 35mm/MF/LF, why? Each to their own, I would never have expected to see Cartier Bresson (I personally didn't rate him to be honest, he took a few good images, but then who hasn't) using a LF camera any more than I would have expected Ansel Adams to have used an fixed focal length, fixed exposure 110 camera, but each still had their exponents and even the 110 camera would have produced the odd good image (quality would still have been crap though).

EdinburghGary said:
Don't worry - my D3 will be in tow everywhere :D I plan on one or two film shots a day, and perhaps 10 digital.

Gary.
Click to expand...

You are going to have to get a trailor fitted out for you to move all your kit around for a shoot. I can't wait until you get into birding and start carting around 600mm & 800mm lenses too!

I hope you have been training hard like 'Wee Geordie' did? :lol:
 
CT said:
LOL. It's only has complicated as you want it be Gary - but I do know what you mean. :D

Sit down and play with it - at least have a token go at reading the manual and understanding at least one of the modes - Incident readings would be a good start.

This is where your digital DSLR comes in handy - you can now set your meter and DSLR on the same ISO. Now take an incident light reading with your new meter. Set your DSLR in Manual Mode and set exactly the readings from your meter( Ignoring any indicated imbalance in the camera meter display) See what you get. Now take the same scene with your DSLR on Aperture Priority and matrix metering, noting any difference in exposure readings. You'll be surprised how often there's a very significant difference between the two images.

Play, play and play some more. ;)
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting experiment. I've noticed that when using an incident reading (deliberately, because the exposure looked tricky) that matrix metering gets uncannily close to it :thinking:

If the camera is reading a few dozen different points from the scene, it knows the dynamic range of the image well enough. It also knows the dynamic range of the sensor. I guess it's not a huge task to programme it to know pretty well where to pin the exposure most of the time.

That's more or less exactly what you would do with a spot meter with the Zone System.
 
HoppyUK said:
That's a really interesting experiment. I've noticed that when using an incident reading (deliberately, because the exposure looked tricky) that matrix metering gets uncannily close to it :thinking:
Click to expand...

It's much the same with evaluative metering, which is Canon's version of matrix metering. There's no denying they give pretty good results most of the time. It's amazing though, that both these systems read from multiple points then reference thousands of images stored in the camera before giving a readout, yet a simple incident light reading often gives a better result.

If the camera is reading a few dozen different points from the scene, it knows the dynamic range of the image well enough. It also knows the dynamic range of the sensor. I guess it's not a huge task to programme it to know pretty well where to pin the exposure most of the time.

That's more or less exactly what you would do with a spot meter with the Zone System.
Click to expand...

Agreed - except you'd be making the decisions - not the onboard Dalek. :D

It's interesting that any decent meter can be user calibrated, but I've not yet seen a DSLR with this option. I know you can achieve the same end by adjusting ISO or exposure compensation, but what's wrong with a global setting somewhere deep in the menu system where it wont get accidentally reset? Perhaps it's me? :thinking:
 
EdinburghGary said:
Using the SPOT on my D3 and the SPOT on my new handheld, there is a slight difference. For example, D3 says f2.8 and 500th of a second on an area on my screen. Handheld, f2.8 and 250th.

Gary.
Click to expand...
I rest my case. :D Why should you have to calibrate the meter to the camera? :shrug: You've paid a lotta dosh for that meter which only has to perform one function - you'd think you should be able to trust it - especially on something as clear cut as a spot reading. That 'slight difference' is one whole stop btw Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Using the SPOT on my D3 and the SPOT on my new handheld, there is a slight difference. For example, D3 says f2.8 and 500th of a second on an area on my screen. Handheld, f2.8 and 250th.

Gary.
Click to expand...

LOL hardly a slight difference. One whole stop.

Funny thing is most SLR camera meters overexpose by about 2/3rds of a stop as the meters are calibrated against a 12% grey as opposed to the 18% grey of Zone 5. Would explain why your slides have been slightly underexposed as it is normal to underexpose a transparancy film by 1/3 - 2/3rds of a stop. Your reading would make that even lower by a 1/3 - 2/3rds of a stop.

You are now going to have to do some tests with your new meter against the Mamiya to verify the best setting for your film choice.

If using Velvia 50, you are going to have to take an average type image at various EVs and after processing decide which is best. Then adjust the ISO on the meter to give you the correct meter reading for that film. Based on what you have said, I suspect you will need to set somewhere in the region of ISO 80 to get the correct exposure.

But a test film is a must! Before you can rely on your meter you have to calibrate it against your film stock!
 
EdBray said:
LOL hardly a slight difference. One whole stop.

Funny thing is most SLR camera meters overexpose by about 2/3rds of a stop as the meters are calibrated against a 12% grey as opposed to the 18% grey of Zone 5. Would explain why your slides have been slightly underexposed as it is normal to underexpose a transparancy film by 1/3 - 2/3rds of a stop. Your reading would make that even lower by a 1/3 - 2/3rds of a stop.

You are now going to have to do some tests with your new meter against the Mamiya to verify the best setting for your film choice.

If using Velvia 50, you are going to have to take an average type image at various EVs and after processing decide which is best. Then adjust the ISO on the meter to give you the correct meter reading for that film. Based on what you have said, I suspect you will need to set somewhere in the region of ISO 80 to get the correct exposure.

But a test film is a must! Before you can rely on your meter you have to calibrate it against your film stock!
Click to expand...

The meter just arrived, and it was a quick test. I will try and be more conclusive, although I leave for mull in morning.

The D3 result, the whites appeared hotter. The hand held, I guess it seemed to air on the side of caution. Worth remembering the D3 has a focal point for spot, much larger than the 1 degree spot on the hand held.

I think this meter allows me to calibrate it to several film types and cameras, still reading the guide.

I will take tests and post results.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
The D3 result, the whites appeared hotter. The hand held, I guess it seemed to air on the side of caution.

Gary.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I find. When it's a non- difficult scene tones- wise and the light isn't unduly contrasty the camera seems to nail it well enough. The same scene in contrasty sunlight though and the camera seems to tend toward blowing the highlights while a straight reading from the hand held incident light meter preserves the highlights at the expense of the shadows which I find preferable.
 
CT said:
That's pretty much what I find. When it's a non- difficult scene tones- wise and the light isn't unduly contrasty the camera seems to nail it well enough. The same scene in contrasty sunlight though and the camera seems to tend toward blowing the highlights while a straight reading from the hand held incident light meter preserves the highlights at the expense of the shadows which I find preferable.
Click to expand...

Just taken some high contrast scenes, some interesting findings. Will post in next 10 to 15.

G.
 
OK. First thing I noticed, the light meter in its current settings refused to meter off the black couch, or Basil's black fur.

Here are the results of metering on Baxters white fur, and then brown / orange fur.

57727239.jpg



85728740.jpg



42765028.jpg



99157461.jpg
 
Okay, the second set of images, when you metered off the white leg, did you the open up the exposure by 2 stops?
 
EdinburghGary said:
I used the settings suggested by each device for the various photos...uploading another 2.
Click to expand...

I'm confused now.

You can't just aim it at a white object and use those settings, the result will be vastly underexposed. Similarly if you meter off a black object and use those settings it will be vastly overexposed. The meter always thinks you are pointing it at a mid tone.

Pop over to the two dogs and take an incident reading and fire off one like that.
 
EdBray said:
I'm confused now.

You can't just aim it at a white object and use those settings, the result will be vastly underexposed. Similarly if you meter off a black object and use those settings it will be vastly overexposed. The meter always thinks you are pointing it at a mid tone.
Click to expand...

I thought with spot (reflective metering), it would expose for the item in the reticule?

I am using spot on both the D3 and the Hand Held.

Gary.
 
EdBray said:
I'm confused now.

You can't just aim it at a white object and use those settings, the result will be vastly underexposed. Similarly if you meter off a black object and use those settings it will be vastly overexposed. The meter always thinks you are pointing it at a mid tone.

Pop over to the two dogs and take an incident reading and fire off one like that.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I see your point. Yes, I understand that if I meter off either extreme, it will destroy the photo. I was trying to illustrate the difference in the areas I exposed for (ie, fur detail - ignoring the rest I guess).

Gary.
 
You need to be taking exposures of images with a lot of different tones in them.

Choose subjects to meter from that give you a good basis for trial shots. The dogs white leg was a good one because it is a white object in which you wish to retain detail. Take your spot meter reading with camera and meter and then adjust the exposure to give you 2 additional stops, for example if meter says 1/60 @ f4 use 1/15 @ f4 also after doing both meters, take an incident reading just above the dogs leg and enter that reading directly into the camera.
 
EdBray said:
You need to be taking exposures of images with a lot of different tones in them.

Choose subjects to meter from that give you a good basis for trial shots. The dogs white leg was a good one because it is a white object in which you wish to retain detail. Take your spot meter reading with camera and meter and then adjust the exposure to give you 2 additional stops, for example if meter says 1/60 @ f4 use 1/15 @ f4 also after doing both meters, take an incident reading just above the dogs leg and enter that reading directly into the camera.
Click to expand...

Sorry for being a complete noob here :D Lets pretend I only want to retain leg detail on the white leg for a second. Forfeit the rest of the photo. If the meter says use 1/60 and f4, why would I add 2 stops?

Sorry I am obviously failing to grasp the concepts here :D Thanks for helping out.

Gary.
 
You don't want to blow the highlights, so I'd meter for those, which you know will under-expose the rest of the shot. The trick now is to give a bit more exposure for the shadows without blowing the highlights, so try opening up between one and two stops from what the straight reading indicates and you should get a more balanced result.
 
CT said:
You don't want to blow the highlights, so I'd meter for those, which you know will under-expose the rest of the shot. The trick now is to give a bit more exposure for the shadows without blowing the highlights, so try opening up between one and two stops from what the straight reading indicates and you should get a more balanced result.
Click to expand...

So is it safe to say, the meters "play it safe"? In my mind, I guess I thought the meter reading was at the limit. If I meter off a highlight for example, it was at the ceiling - if I go over by a stop, it would blow the whites. So, is it safe to assume I have some latitude for pushing above the readings?

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
So is it safe to say, the meters "play it safe"? In my mind, I guess I thought the meter reading was at the limit. If I meter off a highlight for example, it was at the ceiling - if I go over by a stop, it would blow the whites. So, is it safe to assume I have some latitude for pushing above the readings?

Gary.
Click to expand...

The bit your missing Gary is that a spot reading on the white leg only gives a correct reading just for the white leg. You need to assess the rest of the tones in the scene and adjust exposure accordingly. If you take readings from the white leg and the darkest area where you want to show detail, you'll find that the difference is actually a lot more than the 2 stops Ed suggests you open up.

Opening up two stops will reveal some shadow detail without blowing the whites. Try it!
 
EdinburghGary said:
Sorry for being a complete noob here :D Lets pretend I only want to retain leg detail on the white leg for a second. Forfeit the rest of the photo. If the meter says use 1/60 and f4, why would I add 2 stops?

Sorry I am obviously failing to grasp the concepts here :D Thanks for helping out.

Gary.
Click to expand...

Because the meter thinks you are aiming it at a mid tone, so the white leg will come out grey, yes it will retain detail but you will have lost detail in the shadows.

Most DSLRs have a normal dynamic range of about 7 stops if you imagine that the mid point is zone 5 then the lightest area in which you should retain detail should be on zone 7 and the darkest area in which you should retain detail should be zone 3 the other two zones 8 and 2 will give you white with no detail andblack with no detail.

If you take a spot reading from the dogs white leg and open up the exposure by 2 stops as suggested you will move what the meter thinks as a mid tone to the correct placement and you should still retain detail, by doing this, you should also retain detail in the black of the dogs fur.

Have a go, it ain't costing you anything for a change :p
 
What an interesting thread... top marks for this one Gary. I think it's important to have a sound technical understanding regardless of how creative you are, in order to get the best out of your photography.

This is my limited understanding...

The light meter ALWAYS thinks you are pointing it at something 18% grey. So, if you meter something white then what was white, will be exposed to come out 18% grey. So you need to 'over expose' to get the white coming out white.

Did I get that right?
 
68lbs said:
What an interesting thread... top marks for this one Gary. I think it's important to have a sound technical understanding regardless of how creative you are, in order to get the best out of your photography.

This is my limited understanding...

The light meter ALWAYS thinks you are pointing it at something 18% grey. So, if you meter something white then what was white, will be exposed to come out 18% grey. So you need to 'over expose' to get the white coming out white.

Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, but you are not over exposing, you are just adjusting the exposure to place the correct tone in the right place on the exposure curve.
 
Normally, in a landscape I would meter off cliff face, tree, field, anything greenish, or light brownish. I would normally chuck a grad on for the sky, without checking what was required.

This is all gonna have to change :D

Gary.
 
Way cool. If you understand what's happened Gary - the spot meter in your first shot considered the white leg to be 18 % grey so reproduced it somewhat darker than you'd like it to be, and the rest of the darker tones waaaay under-exposed. Obviously you now have quite a bit of latitude to increase the exposure without blowing the whites, which is usually the main consideration. Metering off a highlight is a useful way of metering providing you make the mental adjustment.

Another one to try is to meter off a highlight and again off the darkest part where you want to show some shadow detail. This should give you 2 spots on your hand held meter scale a few stops apart. Drop your exposure in the middle of those two readings and you shouldn't be far away.
 
CT said:
Way cool. If you understand what's happened Gary - the spot meter in your first shot considered the white leg to be 18 % grey so reproduced it somewhat darker than you'd like it to be, and the rest of the darker tones waaaay under-exposed. Obviously you now have quite a bit of latitude to increase the exposure without blowing the whites, which is usually the main consideration. Metering off a highlight is a useful way of metering providing you make the mental adjustment.

Another one to try is to meter off a highlight and again off the darkest part where you want to show some shadow detail. This should give you 2 spots on your hand held meter scale a few stops apart. Drop your exposure in the middle of those two readings and you shouldn't be far away.
Click to expand...


Thanks mate, I am gonna play with it lots on Holiday...talking of which, I have 4 camera bags to pack, tonight, and a dog cage to collect, tonight.

:help:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top