Film and the Sekonic L758DR lightmeter

[ljsegil]

I admit to being intrigued by some of the capabilities of this meter, including its purported ability to use actual user generated digital sensor profiles to improve performance of the Sekonic meter over a particular digital camera's own meter. Now that is fine and dandy, but we don't care about fancy digital stuff over here. More to the point, Sekonic also claims that the meter can use profiles for up to three different film types in order to improve accuracy and information provided by the meter to the photographer in order to help us analogue types improve our photography (yes, maybe another magic bullet, but I'm one of those suckers that was born every minute). However, I have been unable to find any information anywhere, including Sekonic's online manuals for both the meter and its software, about how film profiling is actually done, and what information it may yield if different from the digital functionality. Does anyone have any knowledge/experience with this meter and its use with film? I'd very much like to hear what people have found.
Thanks,
Larry

 

[Nick Zentena]

Have you tried the manual for the 558? Same idea. OTOH I never went to the trouble.

 

[tim_walls]

Hi Larry,

I've been using this meter for about 3 months now, and love it to bits. It's comfortable to use, well made, and the spot memory is a feature I find fantastic (it's the reason I bought it in fact.) I fell in love with multi-point spot with the Canon T90 - yes, I know you can do exactly the same thing using your brain, but being able to see the range of metered values in a scene immediately on a handy little diagram is great.

What I haven't done yet is use the calibration facilities - I'm still using the mark 1 brain to remember the latitude of the film I'm using. Using the calibration function is one of those things on my to-do list though.


Basically, calibration is easy, and there's no difference between doing it for film or a digital sensor, other than that there are fewer combinations with digital, of course!

Basically, you just need a test target. Take repeated photos of the test target under different lighting levels, develop, scan, and feed the images into the software they provide. It will then produce a calibration profile you upload to the meter. You can also feed in additional samples taken at different speeds - e.g. pulled a stop/pushed a stop; the profile will then interpolate the values for all speeds for that film/developer combination.

Once you have a profile in the meter, you can choose the film/developer combo you are using on the meter. You can then be sure that the meter's idea of 18% grey matches your film/developer combination, but in addition the meter will also show markers on the display indicating the exposure latitude of the film at the speed you are metering at - four marks are shown, Dmin/Dmax and the top/bottom of the straight line of the film response.


Obviously, a given profile is only valid for a particular film/developer combination, and since you have to scan the developed samples to get them into the computer you need to be comfortable that you can scan them in a 'neutral' way that is useful to you, but I still think it's a neat idea.


The only downside is this: The exposure target required is ridiculously expensive. As in, almost as much as the meter itself. That's why I've not given it a try yet

 

[benjiboy]

Makes you wonder how the great photographers of the twentieth century ever managed without one.

 

[tim_walls]

Makes you wonder how the great photographers of the twentieth century ever managed without one.

My guess is the great photographers of the 20th century, probably used the best of whatever tools were available to them, rather than wearing a hair shirt and whipping themselves with birch twigs before every shoot to make sure it was as difficult as possible.


Contrary to popular belief, "shooting with film" and "being a luddite" are not actually the same thing (although for some, I grant, that is their motivation.)

 

[benjiboy]

Tim , the whole of the photographic manufacturing industry perpetuates itself , like the car industry trying to convince the public that their current wonder product is better than the one they already own ( i.e.. digital photography ), I realize this from more than twenty years experience of selling photographic gear for a living. I aren't technophobic , I think the technology is wonderful I just don't think it will significantly alter the final results.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Wasn't it Karsh who explained his exposure system by pointing to his bulb release and saying, "If it looks bright, I squeeze fast; if it is dim, I squeeze slow,"

 

[tim_walls]

And yet Saint Ansel devotes three pages of The Camera to meters, describing them as "critical to any photographer, and its characteristics and correct operation must be fully understood," and metering is of course pretty much all The Negative is about.


The features described of the 758DR is nothing more than semi-automated zone-system testing; it enables you to "fully understand [...] its characteristics" (and that of your film/developer combo) in a systematic manner.

Sure, you don't need it (like I say, I've not even used it myself yet,) but then again you don't need a meter at all, if you're happy working without one. But it's just absurd posturing and makes you look rather ridiculous when you conflate "I don't need or wish to use this" with "noone has any need or wish to use this and noone would benefit from it."


(I'm actually struggling to think of anything more critical to the successful practice of photography than metering, however you choose to do it, to be honest...)

 

[Ed Sukach]

And yet Saint Ansel devotes three pages of The Camera to meters, describing them as "critical to any photographer, and its characteristics and correct operation must be fully understood," and metering is of course pretty much all The Negative is about.

Strange, isn't it .... the MOST significant, the most well respected photographers, seem to travel their own chosen paths. Maybe - possibly - there is NO one all-encompassing concrete, uncontestible truth.

But it's just absurd posturing and makes you look rather ridiculous when you conflate "I don't need or wish to use this"

A reasonable statement. ALL expressions of opinions are.

.. with "noone has any need or wish to use this and noone would benefit from it."

Not reasonable. I do not have - or WANT the ablility to decide on someone else's course of action.

Does the "conflatation" make sense? No, it does not.

(I'm actually struggling to think of anything more critical to the successful practice of photography than metering, however you choose to do it, to be honest...)

I think I might have found something ... you might consider,

"What to Photograph".

 

[tim_walls]

But it's just absurd posturing and makes you look rather ridiculous when you conflate "I don't need or wish to use this"

A reasonable statement. ALL expressions of opinions are.

with "noone has any need or wish to use this and noone would benefit from it."

Not reasonable. I do not have - or WANT the ablility to decide on someone else's course of action.

Does the "conflatation" make sense? No, it does not.

I'm going to assume you realise that you're agreeing with me, and say thanks.

I think I might have found something ... you might consider,

"What to Photograph".

Touché . Although sometimes round these parts it's easy to forget...

 

[jeroldharter]

Tim,

I determine exposure by squinting with my left eye while counting backwards from ten and then base the calculation on 30 years of arcane experience that I will not share with you.

After that, I use my Sekonic spot meter. I forget which one I have, it is the one with the big lens on front and looks like a pistol. I think it is great except that the EV mode does not show marks for a series of readings.

Sounds like the calibration function of the new meter is of limited usefulness. Does the readout on the inside show a dot or graph for a sequence of EV readings?

 

[tim_walls]

I determine exposure by squinting with my left eye while counting backwards from ten and then base the calculation on 30 years of arcane experience that I will not share with you.

When I'm out with my Zorki I use much the same technique - I can't help thinking you're missing a trick by not using your right eye though; using your left eye is just a bourgeois affectation that none of the greats would have entertained.

Sounds like the calibration function of the new meter is of limited usefulness. Does the readout on the inside show a dot or graph for a sequence of EV readings?

The 'through the viewfinder' display is relatively simple, and just displays the most recent reading (and the shutter speed.) Like the main display, you can switch between EVs and f/stops at will.

The main display on the meter though shows a horizontal range of stops from -7 to +7; the calibrated midtone of your film is 0 (indicated by a small pip,) and then two pips either side mark the limits of the film's characteristic curve as determined by the calibration (i.e. there are pips at start of toe/end of toe/midtone/start of shoulder/end of shoulder.)

(If you've not done the calibration, the default positions are something like: -3-and-a-bit, -2-and-a-bit, 0, +2-and-a-bit, +3-and-a-bit)


Each successive reading you take (assuming you press the 'memory' button) is shown above this line as a solid black mark. A button-push switches between telling the meter to assume the first readying you took is the desired midtone (i.e. the first reading you take is 0 and all other readings fall either side of this,) and using a computed average of all readings (i.e. 0 is the average of readings you've taken - the average is shown as a flickering rather than solid mark - and the readings you've taken fall around the average as appropriate.)

(When I say 'first reading' that's just the default; if you hold down the 'Mid Tone' button and then move the dial, you can select any of the readings you've taken to be the notional midtone.)

You can also switch the display to f/stops, but personally I prefer to leave it in the EV mode described as I'm more interested in the range of exposure values than the absolute numbers - if you switch the scale to f/stops then obviously the whole construction moves up and down the scale as you change shutter speed.


It's a lot more complicated to explain than it is to use, but it's genuinely bloody useful. The calibration function is obviously less useful - and to be honest for B&W or colour negative photography probably a waste of time. If I ever get my hands on the target though, I can see value in it for calibrating the meter to various slide films (which is what I mostly shoot.)

 

[Robland]

Seperate Group for Sekonic programable?

Would it be beneficial to have a separate Group for the Sekonic programmable meters? We could post specific examples, share profile files including "slopes" for different film/developer combinations. For myself this meter is overwhelming, very technical. A place for FAQ would be very helpful. Without a dedicated group we can still use the search feature.

Sharing profiles is my main goal after FAQ and examples of what works and what does not.

 

[tim_walls]

Would it be beneficial to have a separate Group for the Sekonic programmable meters? We could post specific examples, share profile files including "slopes" for different film/developer combinations. For myself this meter is overwhelming, very technical. A place for FAQ would be very helpful. Without a dedicated group we can still use the search feature.

Sharing profiles is my main goal after FAQ and examples of what works and what does not.

I don't know whether there are enough of us using it to warrant a full group, but the idea of sharing profiles etc. sounds great to me. I was actually rather surprised I couldn't already find any for download on't net when I first got it!

The cost of the exposure target is rather prohibitive though :-(. I was considering seeing if I could cobble one together myself on the computer to print that would vaguely match the official target (same shape etc. so the software samples the right points,) at least so I could get an idea of how effective the calibration process is.