Digital camera as exposure meter

[SeanElm]

I want to implement my hassy 500cm into my digital workflow more, I love analog but dont have the funds for good dark room equipment right now so i'm going to be scanning.
Since i'm going to be mixing natural and artificial light and i don't have a flash meter i am going to use my x100t set up next to the hassy, if i duplicate the settings that worked for the fuji will they be perfect for the hassy?. Some say the S in ISO isn't so standard and can be out by 1/3 stop or so depending on manufacturer is that tru?

 

[David Allen]

What you need to bear in mind is that, for digital, over-exposure is the great enemy whereas, for analogue, the great enemy is under-exposure if shadow detail is important to you. Therefore, the meter in your digital camera is going to suggest an exposure that is appropriate for a digital sensor but not necessarily ideal for analogue exposure.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[benjiboy]

The exposure meter in a digital camera is calibrated to that particular camera models digital sensor, not film. They did some extensive tests in the U.K Professional Photography Magazine a few years ago testing digital S.L.R's against light meters and films that came to the conclusion that 100 I.S.O. on digital equipment is not necessarily the same as 100 I.S.O on film.

 

[pdeeh]

Me now, I wouldn't worry too much about different iso values. For a normal human doing photography without a fully calibrated workflow from camera to film to paper with all times temperatures apertures and speeds within extremely low tolerances and every negative checked with densitometry ... The chances of noticing a difference are pretty slim.

On the other hand, a digital camera is usually much bigger and heavier than a pocket light meter.

 

[Chan Tran]

I do it all the time. Works perfectly fine. If you want you can calibrate it based on scanned values. It works better than a meter.

 

[jvo]

if you intend to shift to film entirely, i would get used to using a light meter. if you are gonna be a "hybrid" photographer, stick with the digital camera.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Sigma SD 14 or Konica Minolta D5 as my meter for MF and LF, I put a stroafome cup cut to shape over a 17 to 70 lens for use as an incident meter, or with long lens in spot mode for spot meter, both the Sigma and Konica Minolta match my Minolta 9 and Weston Ranger 9. In my way of thinking using a digital camera as a light meter is no different than shooting with a polaroid back to check exposure. If your digital camera does match your light meter just adjust until it does.

 

[Grif]

I'd go about it a bit differently. I would shoot a scene with the hassy and digital with 3 stops over and under bracketing, recording both the film and digital settings. Decide what you like on the hassy, see what the digital says at the same bracket level. Oh,,, now you've also got some good data about your preference for digital exposures.

One roll of film will get you close.. Of course ,,, then you get into the whole exposure/processing contrast zone pulling of hair conversation. I'm not a pro, but with several film cameras I've found (commercial processing and scanning) with negative film I over expose about 1/3 to 2/3 stop. Slow BW (pan F) I shoot at ASA 25, 160 Portra Portra at 125. Your mileage will vary ;-)

 

[tedr1]

The exposure meter in a digital camera is calibrated to that particular camera models digital sensor, not film. They did some extensive tests in the U.K Professional Photography Magazine a few years ago testing digital S.L.R's against light meters and films that came to the conclusion that 100 I.S.O. on digital equipment is not necessarily the same as 100 I.S.O on film.

My experience of exposure readings using a digital camera (Canon DSLR) and Pentax Spotmeter V (recently calibrated) agrees with this. Using a grey card (that filled the frame) as a target in diffuse light the DSLR indicates about one stop underexposure compared to the spotmeter. This is what might be expected because of the DSLR having vulnerability to washed out highlights compared to film. I would trust the digital camera to get you close, but some tests are needed before accuracy can be known.

 

[Chan Tran]

Just don't use the matrix meter for B&W film or even color negative. You can use the digital camera spot meter which works very well. The center weighted is OK.

 

[MattKing]

The meter in a digital camera can work, but you need to do a bit of work to see how best to make use of it.
Most likely, you have the ability to change the field of view (zoom lens or interchangeable lenses) with your digital camera. That has the effect of changing what the meter reads from. You need to learn how to take that into account if you plan to transfer the readings for use with film.
You need to either avoid any sort of evaluative or matrix metering function, or take the chance that that sort of "auto" exposure will work with film. It may be that that sort of metering would work better with slide film than negative film.
You would need to check how the meter responds in several different lighting conditions, and then check how the film responds in those situations.
You may learn that you can either transfer the settings from the digital camera directly to film (assuming some sort of adjustment for field of view). You may also learn that a constant correction (e.g. +1/2 stop) will work in all conditions.
Alternatively, you may learn that you need to use different adjustments for different lenses on your Hasselblad.
Some of the above steps are actually a good idea with a hand meter. It is just that with a hand meter, there are fewer variables to worry about.
Digital cameras are good substitutes for Polaroid tests to check lighting ratios.

 

[paul ron]

im sure you can get by for now n make it work, but as mentioned above, your digital camera is the equivalent of lugging around another MF camera. a hand held meter is much lighter and smaller.

plus... the price of great meters are so low. keep an eye on the classifieds meantime?

.

 

[Chan Tran]

im sure you can get by for now n make it work, but as mentioned above, your digital camera is the equivalent of lugging around another MF camera. a hand held meter is much lighter and smaller.

plus... the price of great meters are so low. keep an eye on the classifieds meantime?

.

The Fuji X100T is hardly the size and weight of a medium format camera. It can not only function as a meter but also as a polaroid back plus although it cost $800 the OP already own it. And it also a back up camera.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The Fuji X100T is hardly the size and weight of a medium format camera. It can not only function as a meter but also as a polaroid back plus although it cost $800 the OP already own it. And it also a back up camera.

The X100T is sweet. But, the OP needs to switch it over to the electronic finder rather than the optical one to ensure the scene is framed correctly (that is, avoid parallax with closeups).

 

[wiltw]

I want to implement my hassy 500cm into my digital workflow more, I love analog but dont have the funds for good dark room equipment right now so i'm going to be scanning.
Since i'm going to be mixing natural and artificial light and i don't have a flash meter i am going to use my x100t set up next to the hassy, if i duplicate the settings that worked for the fuji will they be perfect for the hassy?. Some say the S in ISO isn't so standard and can be out by 1/3 stop or so depending on manufacturer is that tru?

• I have been involved in photography for over 50 years now, and still have both film equipment and digital equipment. I will share some facts that I have found to be true:
• A hand held light meter (made in the days of film) can read exactly the same as the one in a digital camera...ISO is ISO, there is no such thing as 'digital ISO'
• My Minolta Autometer Vf incident meter reading exactly matches the reading from my Minolta Spotmeter F gray card reading.
• The above two meters, made in the day before digital photography, both match the in-camera meters of my Canon 40D, Canon 5D, and Canon 7D Mark II
• When I shoot with the exact same exposure settings in all three digital cameras aimed at a 18% gray card, the 40D and the 5D record a histogram peak just to the left of mid-line in the histogram, but the 7DII records the histogram peak precisely AT the mid-line in the histogram.

IOW, as far as the meter reading, there is zero difference between 'analog' and 'digital'.
But as far as how the recording medium responds to the same amount of light, there can be a difference in the RESPONSE from A vs. B, and that is true for film or for a digital sensor.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Get a PME 45 degree prism which will give you a much better light meter and get rid of the left right reversal. You will be glad you did.

 

[Helinophoto]

My advice; Shoot testshots with your *D* and give your film 0.5 stops more light from the ideal *D* exposure, film can take it of you err on the side of overexposure and my experience is that film-speed is a relative term (developer and processing influence results).

If you want mathematically-accurate and predictable results, you need to work with the proper tools to gauge your negatives properly, for everything else, the above will give you photos, especially since you will be scanning anyway.

 

[macfred]

I tried the (spot-) meter from my digital dinosaur (Nikon D2) for metering slide and negative film (mostly with my GW670iii and my Zeiss Super Ikonta III).
I can say it works very well and exactly but for me there's no need to fiddle around with those clumsy tools - I prefer a small handheld Gossen meter for the most of my needs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have used my Nikon N75 and Nikon F100, both film cameras, to take a light reading for my Hasselblad 903 SWC, Speed Graphic and Graflex. Notice all film equipment used for the benefit of film equipment. I do not use the light reading from my cameras nor the hand held light meters to take set phones or digital cameras, so why use a digital camera to take a light reading for a film camera? Heck this is APUG, not DPUG nor hybridphoto. Jes' sayin'

 

[Chan Tran]

I have used my Nikon N75 and Nikon F100, both film cameras, to take a light reading for my Hasselblad 903 SWC, Speed Graphic and Graflex. Notice all film equipment used for the benefit of film equipment. I do not use the light reading from my cameras nor the hand held light meters to take set phones or digital cameras, so why use a digital camera to take a light reading for a film camera? Heck this is APUG, not DPUG nor hybridphoto. Jes' sayin'

Why use a digital camera to take a light reading for a film camera? Because you're not supposed to take pictures with it!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nothing wrong with using your digital camera as a light metre. I use a Minolta digital 1 degree spot metre... It's digital. You'll have to calibrate it to your film and working methods to get the best out of it.

 

[jwd722]

Why not just get a handheld meter? A Gossen Luna Pro F can be had for as little as $50.00 up to about $150.00 and everywhere in between. Same for the Minolta Auto Meter. Both do ambient and flash. I have both but actually prefer the Gossen.

 

[Jarrett]

I did a shoot yesterday using strobes so I had to use my D7000 in monochrome to help see what it would look like. Came out better than I thought. Of course I had to watch the histogram.

 

[tomfrh]

It works well.

Don't just listen to what it suggests - you need to chimp and then copy over when it's exposed properly.

 

[tomfrh]

If you want mathematically-accurate and predictable results, you need to work with the proper tools to gauge your negatives properly

Life's too short for all that