Sure.
I tried to resist, but i will now point out that 'even St Ansel' carried two films, with two processing options each.
He didn't do badly, did he?
No, he didn't do badly at all. (He used a Pentax Spot Meter V)
How Many People Use A Hand-Held Meter?
-
A
- Thread starter Ektagraphic
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale DAHLE 552 (20-inch) Trimmer
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Leica M2 Camera ("Body Button", No Self-Timer Type) CLA'D
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Agfa Super Isolette CLA'd Medium Format 6x6
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
No, he didn't do badly at all. (He used a Pentax Spot Meter V)
Only in his old age
The Pentax Spotmeter V wasn't made when AA made the vast majority of his well known images.
IaN
Only in his old age
The Pentax Spotmeter V wasn't made when AA made the vast majority of his well known images.
IaN
Yes, very true. He used a number of meters throughout his career. Interestingly, Moonrise was made sans meter. On the subject at hand AA considered the incident-light meter, which measures light falling on the subject, to be of limited usefulness because it takes no account of the specific subject luminances that actually produce the image.
Ansel Adams used a good number of meters including none, a set of tables, Wynne Actinometer, S.E.I. photometer, Pentax Spotmeter V and Pentax Digital Spotmeter. He had always tried to make spot readings and dismiss the incident light meter as of only limited usefulness. Ansel isn't god but an argument against the spotmeter by quoting him isn't such a good idea.
Did he not also put some sort of tube on the S.E.I. photometer to make it more of a "spot meter" ?
He did put a tube to another meter I don't know which one but not the S.E.I. because the SEI is actually a 1/2 degree spotmeter.
I was right, i shouldn't have mentioned AA.
The point was, J Brunner, not about what meter he used, but that even he did not bother with all that individual fine tuning.
He carried a film back for normal contrast, one for low, and one for high.
An assesement of a scene, figuring out in what category it belongs, does not even really require a meter. Just the grey matter in your head.
The point was, J Brunner, not about what meter he used, but that even he did not bother with all that individual fine tuning.
He carried a film back for normal contrast, one for low, and one for high.
An assesement of a scene, figuring out in what category it belongs, does not even really require a meter. Just the grey matter in your head.
I was right, i shouldn't have mentioned AA.
The point was, J Brunner, not about what meter he used, but that even he did not bother with all that individual fine tuning.
I think I'll let that one stand on its own....
Wasn't meant to be compelling. Just an observation.
Well, when it comes to exposure, I don't really "believe" anything. A spot meter isn't the tool for all seasons. I believe it is the single best tool for understanding exposure, you don't. I haven't dismissed incident or averaging meters as you have dismissed spot metering, just put forth that they are more precise in capable hands. I believe your premise is precision doesn't matter, but then again I'm not really sure what your premise is at this point. It seem to be being "right", so ok, your right. I'm done with this inanity.
J,
You don't believe anything? I think you hold a very strong believe.
I haven't dismissed spot meters.
Nor do i think that precision does not matter.
(You probably think that, because i'm not joining in in the "a spot meter is best, the tool of the select few who really know their stuff" choir, while you appear to be singing the lead. )
What i am saying is that with any (!) meter, you can get the same excellent results, because that does not depend on the meter used, but on who is using it.
And it is not difficult; you do not need to be a genius to know how to use one.
But when you are not, the spot meter is the least likely to help you get excellent results.
Quite simply because it, of any type meter, puts the highest demand on your skills of interpretation. (You call it precision, and say that it is something the meter offers. I say that to turn what the meter tells you into 'precision', you have to work at it yourself).
And here's a test you can run yourself: next time you start are using your spot meter, also carry an incident light meter. After carefully assessing the scene with the spot meter, and having decided upon an exposure, meter the scene using the incident meter. It will tell you the same 'in one go' your spot meter eventually told you.
What the incident meter does not do is tell you the brightness range of a scene. It will not tell you whether it needs compressing or expanding.
But (and i mentioned that too before), it's not hard to tell that even without a meter. And yes, that is not very precise. You can perhaps only guess full N-steps that way. But that's precise enough. (It's exactly like how meters like to display f-stops and shutter speeds in 1/10 increments. I have yet to see the shutter or lens that let's you set those thingies with that 'precision', and lo and behold, nothing bad ever came of it).
But the really important bit (and that's why i point to it again) is that you - not the meter - are in charge. You have to assess the scene. Your judgment is asked for. Allways. No matter what type of meter. And that, not the type of meter you are using, is all deciding.
Using a spot meter, you look at the scene, and select bits of it to meter. You then have to judge the result, relate it to other measurements taking from other points you have selected.
That same judging of the scene is done when using any other meter. (It's a process that runs in your head, not in the meter.) And the same decisions regarding how to interpret the readings are necessary. The difference is that when using non-spot meters the process is less lengthy (and thus also that there is less opportunity to get things wrong). The skill involved, the 'precision', and the results are the same.
Oh and: no, i am not dismissing spot meters. I just don't overvalue them either.
You don't believe anything? I think you hold a very strong believe.
I haven't dismissed spot meters.
Nor do i think that precision does not matter.
(You probably think that, because i'm not joining in in the "a spot meter is best, the tool of the select few who really know their stuff" choir, while you appear to be singing the lead.
)What i am saying is that with any (!) meter, you can get the same excellent results, because that does not depend on the meter used, but on who is using it.
And it is not difficult; you do not need to be a genius to know how to use one.
But when you are not, the spot meter is the least likely to help you get excellent results.
Quite simply because it, of any type meter, puts the highest demand on your skills of interpretation. (You call it precision, and say that it is something the meter offers. I say that to turn what the meter tells you into 'precision', you have to work at it yourself).
And here's a test you can run yourself: next time you start are using your spot meter, also carry an incident light meter. After carefully assessing the scene with the spot meter, and having decided upon an exposure, meter the scene using the incident meter. It will tell you the same 'in one go' your spot meter eventually told you.
What the incident meter does not do is tell you the brightness range of a scene. It will not tell you whether it needs compressing or expanding.
But (and i mentioned that too before), it's not hard to tell that even without a meter. And yes, that is not very precise. You can perhaps only guess full N-steps that way. But that's precise enough. (It's exactly like how meters like to display f-stops and shutter speeds in 1/10 increments. I have yet to see the shutter or lens that let's you set those thingies with that 'precision', and lo and behold, nothing bad ever came of it).
But the really important bit (and that's why i point to it again) is that you - not the meter - are in charge. You have to assess the scene. Your judgment is asked for. Allways. No matter what type of meter. And that, not the type of meter you are using, is all deciding.
Using a spot meter, you look at the scene, and select bits of it to meter. You then have to judge the result, relate it to other measurements taking from other points you have selected.
That same judging of the scene is done when using any other meter. (It's a process that runs in your head, not in the meter.) And the same decisions regarding how to interpret the readings are necessary. The difference is that when using non-spot meters the process is less lengthy (and thus also that there is less opportunity to get things wrong). The skill involved, the 'precision', and the results are the same.
Oh and: no, i am not dismissing spot meters. I just don't overvalue them either.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do agree that the spotmeter requires more work to use it. Rarely with the spotmeter, one can take just one reading per scene and it will be enough. On the other hand, most of the time one only need one reading from the incident light meter. The incident light meter in sense is easier to use. Each type of meter has its own use and none is always better than the others.
I personally like to have them all. I make light measurements even when I don't take pictures. I learned that way as how bright things are. So many times on the other hand, I don't use any kind of meter to set exposure.
I personally like to have them all. I make light measurements even when I don't take pictures. I learned that way as how bright things are. So many times on the other hand, I don't use any kind of meter to set exposure.
Generally use a Sekonic 608, unless conditions are easy, when I might just estimate using 'Sunny 16.
The poll options don't include my response which would be "I occasionally use a hand held meter".
Steve
Steve
In LF and MF I use a hand held incident meter and carry a spot meter for those specific situations where it shines. I rarely use the on camera meter in my MF. For 35mm I almost always use the onboard meter - and most often in ne of the program or other auto modes. My "base" meter is my Minolta Auto V incident to which I calibrate all other meters, (including the onboard ones.)
Bob H
Bob H
And there's always the "hybrid" approach ...
I don't generally do this, but I own the (rather expensive) accessory shoe adapter for my Digisix.
(Assuming PBase is sort of back to life ...)
I don't generally do this, but I own the (rather expensive) accessory shoe adapter for my Digisix.
(Assuming PBase is sort of back to life ...)
What folding camera is that?
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2008
- Messages
- 10
- Format
- 35mm RF
a Gossen Lunasix.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |