Best light meter-good for a laugh

mark

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
5,703

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
News flash: The person who wrote that article is an idiot, a moron, and a dolt. The follow up comments are laughable as well. I will never cease to be amazed how technically inept so many supposed professionals on the Internet are, and by the ways in which they work. Goes to show you that making a living in photography has about 1% to do with technical matters. Good riddance from the world of analog photography!
 

John R.

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
158
Location
S Florida
Format
Multi Format
Humorous is right! To the point of the comments being almost hysterical.
 

Anscojohn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
2,704
Format
Medium Format
Digit-hel crapola. Never replace my Leudi, dontchaknow!! Not to mention a candle and a grease spot in a juice can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Poisson Du Jour

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
What are they trying to get off their backs in the blog comments that follow the article?
It's all a lot of pretentious, chest-beating, tongue-slapping piffle, v.i.z.:



Oh, come on! Not obviously a working professional!
As the OP said at the start, "good for a laugh". My bloody oath it is. Fit for the garbage.
 

Anscojohn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
2,704
Format
Medium Format
I know some amateurs who say it is important to use a light meter to impress the models.
******
First Model; Wow, look at that Leudi he has!
2nd Model: You should see his grease spot in the juice can!
Together: A REAL semi-professional photographer!!
 

Lee L

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format
APUG has had at least one member who consistently uses and recommends to others using Nikon F5/6 bodies in matrix metering mode to meter for 4x5 color transparency shots. They are his light meters for sheet film shooting. I've seen several others recommend something similar here on APUG.

Mike Johnston has been around photography as a magazine editor, equipment reviewer, and writer for decades, but has never made a living as a shooter, and admits that he may not be cut out for it. He sometimes uses hyperbole to make his points, but anyone who's read him over the years will know that he's not what you'd call dogmatic or inflexible in his thinking. He also puts his prejudices up front, and has things to say worth thinking about.

If you read what he says in the article then some of the responses here either assume he's lying about what he's seen in studios, or that he didn't admit that he may be missing something in his approach to thinking about light meters when doing digital photography, which is what the article is about. It's not about film photography. It's about not needing a light meter when you have instant digital feedback when shooting digital.

Lee
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,096
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format

Assuming the photographer is male...

Vaughn

PS...what I got from the article was -- understanding light is not important, understanding the histogram is.
 

EASmithV

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,984
Location
Virginia
Format
Large Format
Can someone please explain the grease spot and juice can thingy?
 

Anscojohn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
2,704
Format
Medium Format
EASmithV said:
Can someone please explain the grease spot and juice can thingy?
Click to expand...

************
Quote on:
One of the most common photometers is that of Bunsen, which consists of a screen of white paper with a grease-spot in its center. The lights to be compared are placed on opposite sides of this screen, and their distances are so adjusted that the grease-spot appears neither brighter nor darker than the rest of the paper, from whichever side it is viewed. When the distances have not been correctly adjusted, the grease-spot will appear darker than the rest of the paper when viewed from the side on which the illumination is most intense, and lighter than the rest of the paper when viewed from the other side. The intensities of the two lights are to one another as the squares of the distances from the screen at which they must be placed in order that the grease-spot may appear neither brighter nor darker than the rest of the paper. Quote off

I remember an article in an old photo mag about how to use this principle with a part of a brown paper bag and a juice can. That's all I remember. Perhaps other dinosaurs can help. And they may remember a Leudi, also
 

Ross Chambers

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
701
Location
Blue Mountai
Format
Multi Format

News flash 2:

Mike Johnston is an informed and generous commentator and photographer who--unlike some around here--covers the analogue and digital worlds with equanimity. He wrote a valuable column for the UK Black & White Photography journal for years without encountering the unsubstantiated hysteria above.

He single handedly runs his site and is trusted by many manufacturers to deliver objective reviews.

As with APUG, Photonet, LF Forum I have learnt from him as well.

The childish display by APUG members on this subject is embarrassing.

Ross
 

Ian David

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,132
Location
QLD Australia
Format
Multi Format
Hmmm, I dunno, Ross. There have been more embarrassing displays on APUG than this one...
I don't think Johnston is an idiot, and often what he writes is worth a read. However, he does firmly imply in the article referred to in the OP that even film users should probably just carry around a DSLR rather than a light meter. That is a pretty controversial idea, and bound to excite comment on an analogue forum, even if the article is a couple of years old. For mine, my camera bag is heavy enough already.
Ian
 

Ian David

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,132
Location
QLD Australia
Format
Multi Format
You can just call me Ian if you like...
I am not really reading anything into it. I just read the words and drew the obvious implications. But, hey, it is not super-important. It is just an old article stating someone's opinion, to which they are entitled.
Ian
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
The poster who wrote the following below the article hit the nail on the head:

" Let's face it, there's been an explosion of DSLRs sold with unprecedented numbers of people getting into "serious" photography. Where's the explosion in amazing photographs?"
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
andy - seems like that person is a realist!

====

what's wrong with this thread is that no one here has gone off on a long winded tangent
"explaining" the history and construction of the light meter, selenium cell and lcd screen
dropping as many names as possible, references to old pre-war german photo manuals and magazines,
and uploading pdf filescans of advertisements in edwardian photo annuals ...

maybe that is coming on page 6 ? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobNewYork

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
1,067
Location
Long Island,
Format
Medium Format
I used to like him - if he's the same guy who did battle with Fred Picker years ago ! learly the man needs to get out more and smell the Dektol

Bob H

P.S. - and as for variant meter construction............kidding
 

Jeff Kubach

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond VA.
Format
Multi Format
Interesting article, gives light to what has happen to photograph in the last few years!

Jeff
 

bsdunek

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
1,611
Location
Michigan
Format
Multi Format
Sounds to me like he never really learned to use a light meter. And "You didn't know how the exposure was going to look until you had the film developed, so you set the camera based on the light meter."??? I can hear Ansel rolling over now!
I agree that the image form the dicam shows what the photo will look like, but I have a pretty good idea what my film will look like too. Not that I haven't been mistaken. That little screen on the back of the camera may not look like the 11 X 14 print either. Still takes some work and experience, IMHO.
To each his own.
 

wclark5179

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
504
Format
35mm RF
"....takes some work and experience, IMHO."

Sure does.

On my first class I took with Monte Zucker, a few years ago, I was amazed that one of the first ideas, he said was that he was going to learn as much as his students. Didn't make any difference to him, film or digital capture, it's equipment and much more goes into creating photographs than equipment. He did make the transition to digital because of many reasons. His photography never suffered because of digital capture versus film. I was amazed at how simple his stuff was and how great his images he made. He was my mentor and coach.
 

Cheryl Jacobs

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
1,717
Location
Denver, Colo
Format
Medium Format
I couldn't resist adding a reply on the blog. In the course of my workshops over the last four or five years, I've converted MANY digital shooters to handheld meters. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how good the in-camera meter is if the operator doesn't understand how it works, and most of the professional shooters I've taught do not. They have no idea why the camera is exposing the way it is; they're just assuming it must be right. That's fine when you're shooting in soft, even light, but it doesn't work so hot in backlit situations. The camera simply can't read your mind. It doesn't know what you want the picture to look like.

Add a handheld meter, and people suddenly begin to understand exposure, and realize it's not nearly so complicated as they thought. It's amazing how much more fun it is to shoot when you're not "hoping" the exposure is OK.

- CJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…