Lightmeter suggestions?

AAMOI and something to do and just to confirm what I did about 35 years ago for exposure and used the results then for my thinking and use today....I found my Kodak grey card and in the sunshine took a reading which was 1/250 @f13 h'mm is my very modern film camera more accurate that what I used then o_O Well it might be ok for the sunshine in America or Ibiza (Washington capital is the same latitude as Ibiza) and London would be sorta southern Canada (all fascinating ;)).... but I prefer 1/250 F5.6 for colour neg for general use in the UK and looks like I'm giving the neg about a stop more as a safety measure (well I use a lot of OOD film so no prob.).
Anyway even if the grey card was made for the US and a slightly darker one should be made for the UK, it doesn't matter as I just wanted to check exposure of other things and found blue sky above and winter green grass gave the same reading as the grey card...my patio with grey stone gave 1/250 @ f8.
And also mind wandering passing the time:- If using slide film up the mountains in the Himalayas it would be interesting to know what exposure to use, if me I suppose I would use bracketing so something should work..but I suppose a digi camera would help to see how the shot looks.
 
Last edited:
Well, Brian, from your tests and deductions there seems to be an easy solution to you metering properly in the UK, just take a slab of your patio with you. Shouldn't blow away like a grey card or a towel either, so looks like your sorted there. :D ;)
 
Did you hold the card at 45 degrees to the light source, which Kodak used to recommend as bringing down the brightness to the value meters are calibrated for? If you didn't, and if your 1/250 at f/5.6 includes one stop overexposre, then the grey card is indicating something like 1/250 at f/8.

The point about measurements based on incident light is that they depend only on the light, and so should be subject and location independent.
 
Did you hold the card at 45 degrees to the light source,

About 60 degrees....but the whole thing is too complicated for a scientific approach when you think about it as there is winter and summer sun and was the atmosphere (just outside London) very clear, then all the manufacturing tolerances of the gear esp using different cameras...it's just as well film has latitude (y)
.
 
A further example was in the Lakes with @Marcel and @Jimmy_Lemon some 6 odd years ago now. Marcel was using his DSLR and took a frame using, I believe, full matrix metering of a high-ish contrast scene. On chimping, the highlights were beyond gone while the rest of the frame was ok. On discussing it, I suggested using my Lunasinx F to spot the shadows and highlights and average the readings. The resulting exposure sat perfectly within the dynamic range of the sensor and was a perfectly usable shot.

Almost!
By this time I'd got my own Lunasix F, based purely on having used yours on a previous trip out! :D
 
but the whole thing is too complicated for a scientific approach when you think about it as there is winter and summer sun and was the atmosphere (just outside London) very clear,
.

I'm afraid that from where I sit, there's no real complication. A given light level will affect the film in the same way, whether it's 1000 ft candles from a winter or a summer sun, whether at the equator or the poles, and regardless of how much smog there is about. Yes, colour temperature will vary, but a glance at the spectral sensitivity responses for films should show that there won't be a great variation in daylight conditions (red light at sunrise and sunset slightly excepted).

I will agree that grey cards aren't simple to use, mainly because they're 18% grey not 12%.
 
Well, this morning I have bought a Lunasix F with tele/spot attachment for £38 - will see how I get on with that, then maybe add a Sekonic 208 for when I'm out and about :)
 
I will be posting a Sekonic L308 in classifieds tonight if it helps anyone - great little meter.
 
About 3 years ago I downloaded a free lightmeter app for my Android Sony smartphone and I found it worked rather well, about 1/3 of a stop off my digital 35mm SLR's meter and within the 'range of difference' between the two Gossen Lunasix 3 meters I own. After using this app for a few weeks I threw caution to the wind and spent £1.99p on the advert free version that has an expanded ISO range and other 'premium' features. The result being that I have a light meter with me at all times, as it's on my phone. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dq.fotometroNa&hl=en_GB I also have a couple of semi-redundant Lunasix 3 meters (that can't quite agree with each other what the light reading is!).

So, if you have an Android based smartphone with a reasonable camera on it then perhaps have a think about downloading the free light meter app and see how it compares with the meters you've got (on your camera or a stand alone light meter). If you find it works then you too can part with £1.99p for the advert-free 'de-lux' version (which you can alter the EV on).

On the other hand you can snail around junk shops, boot sales and flea-markets and see if you can find a working and accurate Weston meter that actually has ASA on the dial, or struggle to find a battery voltage conversion adapter so you can use a Lunasix 3 meter (that used to take the long since banned and unobtainable mercury batteries) and hope that still works and is accurate. On the other hand, you could spend over £200 on a modern light meter.

Yes, there's something nice about pulling a traditional old light meter out of your coat pocket and taking your time over plotting the correct exposure. On the other hand, you can try something free of charge that may well do the same (or perhaps even a better) job. No, I don't have anything to do with the app's creator or work on commission for sales, but if I find something that I think seems to work OK then I think it's only fair to tell my photography forum mates bout it. I suppose its accuracy may depend on the phone you use it on, but as there's a fee version to try at least you can find out. Hope this is useful.

I have to agree. Why the need for a meter now?

Obviously the cameras meter themselves, and are normally pretty good. Instinct/experience means I can make adjustments for shadows etc... For films, I would either use a digital camera to determine settings or use one of the free apps which are pretty good. Works well for me!
 
Are the selenium light meters on the likes of Canon 7 repairable or replaceale if they stop working? Hypothetical question, but I'm just getting back into photography and bought a couple of cameras.
Many thanks.
 
So, I have had my Lunasix F for a good few weeks now - I have been spending some time trying to get a feel for it's readings in various situations. Checking it against a digital body and looking at the histogram I have found that outside I can use incident readings and they will be accurate, also with the reflective or spot metering it will tie up with my digital bodies - so all good there.

The trouble I have with it, is using it in low light indoors - maybe with multiple light sources. If I try to use incident readings in these scenarios the Lunasix tends to give me a reading that results in gross overexposure. Generally, reflective readings give me better accuracy in these situations. Does this sound like the norm?

I have taken to using incident readings outside or inside in good light, but in low light I tend to use my spot meter attachment. This is fine, but most of the advice out there suggests that incident readings are the most accurate and easiest to use. Should I employ a different technique in low light situations? I have tried metering right at the subject in these conditions, but it's almost like the dome needs a correction factor in low light!?

I'm happy to use reflective, and generally I can equate good exposures, but it's something else to consider vs incident (i.e. accounting for reflectance levels of subject).
 
Silly question time... Have you tried NOT using a light meter at all?

Long long ago, I was once told, that you EYE is the most sensitive light meter ever invented, and tells you far more than a box of tricks thats says hos bright things are ever can... very luddite, BUT..... true,

And f-16 Sunny WORKS. I have even used it when I have found my electric-picture maker has a legacy lens on the front and wont meter, and got probably better results from it...... train your eye, don't buy gadgets.... has a lot of truth, especially when I recall my Grandad wandering around and spending hours NOT taking photos with a light meter, muttering about whether he was best taking a reflected reading or using the invercone, and if so where to stand to get it........

Film has a fantastic lattitude and tolerance to exposure vagary, and there is no such thing as an absolutely correct exposure anyway..... so even if you do use a meter, its for guidance only.... comes down to preference and experience and intent.. know that much, know where you might benefit from a meter, and how that meter may be of benefit, you will get results, whether you have a meter or not, and in the grander scheme, if you have a meter, whatever that is.....

As for selenium.... I have not experienced any great innacuracy from one being old.... calibrated against more modern meters or cameras... in fact, my favorite is a 1980's Lenningrad, I paid I think less than a fiver for off e-blay. No batteries required, easy to read swing needle meter, takes incident and reflected readings, and has a little calculator dial to translate EV's to stops..... and basic arithmatic skills go a long long way..... it's as accurate as anything else in the house, and just as useful, porobably more so, NOT fafing with buttons or stressing over settings or messing with menu's....... they have an awful lot of pro's on their side whatever the cons may be.

Takes us back to top... and a few steps backwards... have you tried taking photo's no meter? Have you tried training your eye? With or without a meter, that's where it starts, and a better meter wont help you get better exposures, even less better photo's, no matter how fancy it may be... a better 'eye' will.
 
Back
Top