Digital Camera instead of Spotmeter?

[Ben Altman]

Hi All,

I recently accidentally whacked my trusty Minolta Spotmeter and it's still dizzy.

So I'm wondering if anyone is using a small digital camera for metering LF shots?... Would be probably be smaller, lighter, and about the same price as another spotmeter on Ebay. And would give me a nice histogram to look at in one reading. And would take snapshots. Limited ASA choices might mean some minor mental arithmetic.

Maybe this was discussed before? Couldn't find the thread.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks, Ben

 

[pellicle]

Ben

Absolutely ... why not? I've done some testing myself and I more or less hung up my Pentax spot meter (especially for C-41 and E6 films)

I put my thoughts here.

 

[Ben Altman]

Thanks, Pellicle, now I remember it was your article I saw.

Anyone have a recommendation of a small, light, digital camera with a good light meter/histogram and a user-friendly interface? (Can't say my wife's little 4-year-old Canon is by any means intuitive.) Not necessarily new... happy to get something used.

Ben

 

[pellicle]

Hi Ben

Anyone have a recommendation of a small, light, digital camera with a good light meter/histogram and a user-friendly interface?

well none are 'intuitive' (nor is a spot meter without training) to be honest I really think no camera is intuitive without familiarization. I have nikons and my wife has canons. I like my older Nikons and her Canon A540 for the reason that they both have AV and Manual mode (meaning I can set f and shutter which make sence) and can use AA batteries. Rechargable NiMH last longer than proprietary Li-ION and in a pinch you can use alkalines from the shops

The A540 is so cheap as to make it worth getting new but ebay is normally under $100.

It might be worth while springing for a more modern one which has RGB histograms but I don't think it matters that much as I find that its blue which saturates first on C-41 and red on the digital camera.

Either way, if you scan, after a few chromes and comparing the results you'll be totally familiar with the correlation between the media (which is tight).

 

[mrladewig]

I was doing my metering with a dlsr and I felt that it was causing alot of problems. The response range of color films does not really match up with the linear nature of the digital sensors. The histogram doesn't display distribution in stops and it doesn't match with the typical dynamic range of either slide or negative films, so it the histogram results often cannot be translated to results on film.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I was doing my metering with a dlsr and I felt that it was causing alot of problems. The response range of color films does not really match up with the linear nature of the digital sensors.

well, if you're looking at the histogram of a JPG then its no longer linear. I don't have my camera set to "adapt" the JPG as some cameras do. This will result in biased and ever-altering figures. I don't know which camera you're using but perhaps if it has some 'contrast' setting (or worse auto contrast) then this may be a culprit.

I tested with a Coolpix 5000 and a 10D (hardly exhaustive I agree) and found that I got consistent results when disabling any such features in the generation of the jpg. As far as I know no camera makes its histogram from RAW.

The histogram doesn't display distribution in stops and it doesn't match with the typical dynamic range of either slide or negative films, so it the histogram results often cannot be translated to results on film.

I agree that the histogram is not representing anything in stops (that's not what a histogram does) but by determining the 'blinking hilights' in conjunction with looking at scene (on display) and histogram you can certainly get a feel visually of the exposure bias (NB, is it more to the shadows or more to the hilights).

I guess it all comes down to how you've been trained before and if you feel comfortable with quantitative numbers of qualitative impressions. I think you'll find though (when scanning the negatives) there is quite some correlation between the exposures of digital and film. That is not to say they are identical (nor are films such as Provia, Kodachrome, Pro160S, Tri-X ADOX ... when it comes down to it).

Bottom line though is if it doesn't work for you then don't do it, but if you wish to explore it then perhaps my page is a good start. (I really should get around to making a tutorial for that).

 

[mrladewig]

My photography is oriented towards landscape and nature, so my comments and experiences are base on that. I shoot color film, both slide and color negative. I typically will have 4-6 different color films available to me.

I don't shoot in jpeg and I've set my camera's white balance to correspond with the film I'm shooting (in other words, daylight). Whether you want it to or not, even in RAW a jpeg is created based on your configuration preferences and this is what the "blinking lights" are triggered by. That jpeg is embedded in the CRW/CR2 or NEF file and used to display the image on the LCD. You can search through the popular digicam forums and I think you'll find a solid consensus on this behavior.

If the histogram was shown with a reliable EV scale then I think it could be a very useful tool to judge exposure. In addition, not all digital SLRs are accurately shooting at their indicated ISO. This information can be verified in the DXOMark website. The digital camera can give general information for metering a scene, but I feel that especially for slide film, it simply is not precise enough. One other feature that I like about a spot meter is that it is both smaller and lighter than any dslr and pretty much on par with my point and shoot LX3.

I certainly got some really nice 4X5 slides where I used the DSLR as the meter, but I also got some where the dslr was misleading.

That said, if I were shooting in a studio, I think I could find a DSLR to be a very good evaluative tool for flash lighting setups and exposure.

 

[donbga]

That said, if I were shooting in a studio, I think I could find a DSLR to be a very good evaluative tool for flash lighting setups and exposure.

I agree- electronic Polaroid so to speak though I use a flash meter to determine exposure not the in camera DSLR meter.

I would much rather use my incident meter to determine exposure than to carry a DSLR around. I don't think it is really an effective tool for exposing film.

As for the histogram being based on a JPEG of the exposure I'm not convinced of that though I'm not disputing it either.

Don Bryant

 

[pellicle]

Hi

My photography is oriented towards landscape and nature, so my comments and experiences are base on that.

mine too

I don't shoot in jpeg and I've set my camera's white balance to correspond with the film I'm shooting (in other words, daylight). Whether you want it to or not, even in RAW a jpeg is created based on your configuration preferences and this is what the "blinking lights" are triggered by. That jpeg is embedded in the CRW/CR2 or NEF file and used to display the image on the LCD. You can search through the popular digicam forums and I think you'll find a solid consensus on this behavior.

indeed ... I think you'll find that's what I said above .... so its seeming that you didn't read what I wrote, just dismissed it. Here it is again

As far as I know no camera makes its histogram from RAW.

If the histogram was shown with a reliable EV scale then I think it could be a very useful tool to judge exposure.

In addition, not all digital SLRs are accurately shooting at their indicated ISO. This information can be verified in the DXOMark website.

to be sure, but each individual camera should be giving consitent results. The same is true of many light meters and these things should be part of your individual equipment testing.

The digital camera can give general information for metering a scene, but I feel that especially for slide film, it simply is not precise enough.

well that could be true, especially if you're pressing the upper limits of your exposure. I have had just as many issues with a spot meter when starting out with its use. I have a Pentax Digital spotmeter which I rarely use now, but I did use it exclusively for some dozen or so years (so I do have some idea on the comparison). Especially for negative I have enough leeway in the hilights to afford some blinkies in the digital and have found very good correlation between what I can ferret out of the shadows in both. The neg holds hilights better than the slide for sure.

One other feature that I like about a spot meter is that it is both smaller and lighter than any dslr and pretty much on par with my point and shoot LX3.

true, but you LX3 can take pictures and your spot meter cant ;-) I often take my Coolpix 5000 with me as the 'alternative' camera. Its smaller and lighter than my spotmeter and takes images too. As well I use this to have a reference to what it was that I saw and some colour reference too. I find it also documents my settings (so that I can KNOW what I did) better than a bit of paper (and faster). I also use it for a scene reference rather than the rough sketch of where I metered from.


Anyway, I'm not wishing to convert you, just present the issues as I see them and as it seems you do not see the same things. I have an older friend with some extra 20 years experience on me, he's been dead against the digital thing for almost the whole time I've known him. Strangely enough after I gave him a digital (Nikon 990) he became quite fond of it, and now uses it increasingly. Sure it hasn't replaced his Canham 8x10 but he takes more pictures of the 'scene' before taking a 8x10 now (not to mention of his family).

I'm not arguing that a spot meter should be replaced in your work (or in mine) especially if you already have a flow that works around it well, but that if you don't (and many people find out about subject failure with a spot meter) then try the digital camera, read my page as a guide and see how you go.


and they do make nifty ambient / flash balance meters, I used that to take this image (which is of the camera which will be replacing my Coolpix as my "meter"

 

[mrladewig]

I don't mean to be argumentative, or dismissive. I did read your previous thread and I believe that I understood it. I simply found that there were two many variables with a DSLR as meter for slide film that I could not get repeatable results. I found the lack of precision frustrating specifically for slide film. With negative film I don't feel that I would have those issues all, but I do prefer consistency in my metering so I stick with the spotmeter regardless of film type.

Regarding the LX3 I mentioned. I got this camera primarily to serve as a trail camera when hiking to replace my DSLR. The 24-60mm equiv lens is very useful to me for this purpose and the image quality is excellent for this type of camera. It will be coming along when I backpack with my 4X5 to capture shots along the trail when the 4X5 is buried in my pack. But there is no way I would try to meter for slide film with this camera. DXO labs indicate that its ISO 80 is actually closer to ISO 50 and ISO 100 is closer to ISO 160. This is pretty common among DLSRs. I'm not willing to waste sheets of film to test the digicam as meter when I know that my spot meter meters reliably ever time.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I don't mean to be argumentative, or dismissive. I did read your previous thread and I believe that I understood it.

and if my style of replies seems like a jack in the box argumentor I would like to apologies for that too. I often wonder (while writing) why am I bothering to try to offer advice to those who have not really asked it. Perhaps its because I'm always seeking a better way myself.

dunno

I simply found that there were two many variables with a DSLR as meter for slide film that I could not get repeatable results.

fair enough. There certainly are many variables (and mostly I meter with my coolpix 5000 not my DSLR as its a 10D, too bloody heavy and left at home unless I'm using only it). On a side note I've just bought a Panasonic G1 so I'll have to run some tests on it against the Nikon to see how close it gets me.

I found the lack of precision frustrating specifically for slide film.

I understand, especially if you are trying to expose 'right' as far as you can and determine exactly what will (if anything) get washed out. Personally I've never been a "within a 10th of a stop" kind of guy with slide but I really don't use it anymore as scanning gives me better (different, preferable to me) results with negative. I was sold after this test I did.

Regarding the LX3 I mentioned. ... DXO labs indicate that its ISO 80 is actually closer to ISO 50 and ISO 100 is closer to ISO 160. ... I'm not willing to waste sheets of film to test the digicam as meter when I know that my spot meter meters reliably ever time.

I understand, and my Nikon is probably not 100 either. What is important though is that when set to "100" that it goes to what it is consistently each time. I sent my Pentax in for a service once and was stunned how different my black and whites were after it (I thought my processing was duff at first). This consistency is the real issue, so its important to keep your digital set to a consistent setting. Don't use: AWB, Auto ISO, Simple mode (notorious for shifting ISO at will), or any "auto contrast" settings. Vanilla is best.


As an Australian (where the cost of film is sky high) I understand the reticence to use 4x5 sheets, I used a roll of 35mm slide film in one of my older 35mm EOS bodies (which have more accurate shutters than any of my LF lenses I'm sure). I thought that a roll of 35mm was worth the test. I then started testing with sheets of black and white (cheaper) and used my scanner for densitometric measurements.

My philosophy is that its the density on the negative (or slide) which determines 'correct' exposure and that all the numbers are just tools to get us there. I've found that the nature of the digital capture gives me a very accurate point for blow outs (not to mention a finer graduation than 1 degree) and knowing how much this is important for slides I'd feel that it was important to know. For instance this image:

Dead Link Removed

on Provia RDP III was metered with my Coolpix and interestingly I get green channel blow out in the leaves in the upper right on both scanned slide and digital at about the same rate.

Anyway, sorry if I came across as overbearing, tis not my intention

 

[2F/2F]

Any light meter that is consistent, and which you have personally calibrated to your process will work. The important thing is the calibration part. I would not expect that you can push your DSLR into service as a spot meter and expect your working EI to be the same. Every light meter is made with a different grey in mind as middle grey. Good to know if you are using an external meter! Certain cameras are [stupidly] set to automatically overexpose by 1/3 or 2/3 stop, as they are intended to be used by amateurs shooting color neg film, and Canon thinks that these people will get better results this way. Another interesting thing is that my Canon 10D's actual EIs are one EI higher than the ISO setting. Thus, when I set the camera at 1600, I am really shooting at EI 2000. When I set the camera to 100, I am really shooting at EI 125. Does this mean the camera is set to underexpose to compensate? Who knows? I never use the thing anyhow. But I am pretty sure that Canon, Nikon, et al set up their digital meters differently than they set up their film meters. A light meter is s light meter, and it can work fine, but the point is that testing must be done with any light meter you use.