not if you scan with all manual settings. I never use the auto settings in the scanner.
Unfortunately, color neg has wide exposure latitude, and scanning software often neutralizes any exposure difference from shot to shot, making digital scanning of film deceiving in assessing exposure accuracy.
I was referring to Alan's specific posts #45 & #48.., Chan..... "histograms, blinkies & clipping"....none of those are pure analog.... The Kerrkid just wants to buy a light meter...... how hard can people make it for him ??
So in addition to carrying my film camera and lenses you are recommending that I go out and buy a bulky dlsr to drag around as a light meter so I can have the (dis)honor of squinting at "histograms, blinkies & clipping"? WTF???
I was referring to Alan's specific posts #45 & #48.., Chan..... "histograms, blinkies & clipping"....none of those are pure analog.... The Kerrkid just wants to buy a light meter...... how hard can people make it for him ??
I agree. But my Luna F which shows all the settings at once, only works with incident readings while the Minolta does both incident and reflective (as well as flash).
Caveat: The Luna F has a reflective attachment. I think mine is 5 degrees. But it doesn't work accurately for some reason while the incident methods works fine. Maybe someone has a solution. )
Using a digital camera to determine the exposure for a manual film camera is no big deal especially if you've been using it manually to expose digital shots. The OP could then make a simple transition at no cost. If he doesn't;t like it, then he can go out and buy a light meter, analog or digital to his liking.
Arguing that "histograms, blinkies & clipping" are not pure analog makes no sense. Film photographers used digital meters to determine exposure already. A digital camera has the same features as a digital light meter plus those additional features. Film photographers also use digital thermometers to determine developer temperature. Are they required to use an analog thermometer to avoid being called a traitor?
The only requirement for film photography is to use film.
The only requirement for film photography is to use film.
With the built-in slide moved aside, the Gossen Lunasix or Luna F Pro reads 30 degrees.
There is an accessory viewfinder which measures either 7.5 degrees or 15 degrees.
As there are multiple accesory attachments, there could be an electrical contact actuated by a pin being depressed. My Minolta Autometer IVf had such a pin, and readings would be inaccurate if that switch actuation did not register the placement of the reflected light attachment...a somewhat common failure, which could be fixed by the service dept.
Alan, you can do whatever you like, however it pleases you...but at the very top of this page is this caveat:
Analog Workflow Forums (100% Analog/Traditional)
so we're not discussing your personal definition:
There you go again misinterpreting me. I said I use a micro 4/3 camera. It's not larger than a digital meter. I don't even own a DSLR. Regarding histograms, blinkies, and clipping, that's similar to when you check highlights and shadow areas with a spot meter. With both methods, you're trying to determine the range of stops and whether you'll be clipping and need a GND. I told you what I do. I'm not twisting your arm to do the same.
You are looking at a lot of unneeded information. All one needs is a light reading without the sky in the field of view -- period. If one is looking at the Zone System then a spot meter reading in a shaded area and placing it the selected zone is all that is needed -- period. If the composition is mostly dark or mostly light then an incident meter reading is all that it needed -- period. It does not matter whether the light meter is analog or digital. There is no need for blinkies, clipping, phase of the Moon, what was eaten for breakfast or whether on not coffee was drunken in the morning. Anyone that may choose to use a GND, can decide that with one glance. I personally have never used nor needed a GND.
Actually, if I wasn't using a GND filter, my choice would be to expose for the sky and let the darker areas fall to dark even silhouette rather than letting the sky get washed out by exposing for the ground. A picture is ruined if you let the sky blow out. Better off eliminating the sky totally.
Here is exposed for the sky using Velvia 50 chrome. Exposing for the ground would never work.
Chestnut Point, Manasquan Reservoir by Alan Klein, on Flickr
You are looking at a lot of unneeded information. All one needs is a light reading without the sky in the field of view -- period. If one is looking at the Zone System then a spot meter reading in a shaded area and placing it the selected zone is all that is needed -- period. If the composition is mostly dark or mostly light then an incident meter reading is all that it needed -- period. It does not matter whether the light meter is analog or digital. There is no need for blinkies, clipping, phase of the Moon, what was eaten for breakfast or whether on not coffee was drunken in the morning. Anyone that may choose to use a GND, can decide that with one glance. I personally have never used nor needed a GND.
You're describing negative BW photography. I shoot chromes. I want to know what the sky is doing to avoid clipping. Also, since I'm shooting chromes which is more similar to digital photography, if the exposure looks right in my digital camera, then I use the same exposure setting or possibly 1/2 stop less to avoid clipping. That's pretty simple. I also get to see what the picture will look like before taking it something a meter can't do. Since I'm using it as a director's viewfinder anyway, getting an exposure reading is simple. I admit that it's a process in review. I'm experimenting with it. I may be an old dog. But I'm not afraid to try new things.
Spot meters are apparently great and I would probably use them if I had one. I still keep my Minolta IIIf ambient/reflective 10-degree meter with me in the bag and use it for quick reading at times. I also compare the readings to see if I'm on the right track with the camera's meter.
What I posted works for slides as will as prints. You are making thing much too hard. A good slide film will keep the skies as they are meant to be. If you want to use a GND, fine, but there is no need to count the number of fairies on the head of a pin while juggling bowling pins at the same time. I have shot over 100,000 slides very successfully, many with Minolta slr from SR-7 to X700 and never needed to look the numbers on the morning's cereal box top, while playing the slide trombone, clipping my toe nails and picking my nose.
If you only meter the ground and ignore the sky, what exposure setting do you use and how did you determine that for chromes?
Except in your avatar.Only meter the subject, not the ground. The skies fell into place without a problem starting with Kodachrome 64, Ektachrome 64 and Ansco 100 on and I never had a problem with blown out skies.
The camera has blinkies for dark as well as highlights. So depending on the film you're using, each end can be flagged if you're clipping. With the Olympus, clipping highlights are shown in red, and clipping shadow areas in blue. Even if there's no clipping, what I do is give a little more exposure to negative film and little less to chromes, maybe 1/2 stop. But that may not be necessary. I'm still experimenting.
Frankly, with all the latest technology, I don't understand why light meter manufacturers like Sekonix don't include histograms and clipping alerts in their meters. It's a no-brainer. Even the cheapest P&S cameras have these features.
Only meter the subject, not the ground. The skies fell into place without a problem starting with Kodachrome 64, Ektachrome 64 and Ansco 100 on and I never had a problem with blown out skies.
I don;t usually use the Luna F. But I have another question about it. The globe points forward if you hold the unit so you can see the readings. With another typical ambient meter like my Minolta IIIf, you aim the globe back at the camera. How does the Luna work pointing forward?
All hand-held light meters are essentially "dumb" devices. They are designed to do one thing, and one thing only (measure light intensity), but they can do that very well. Hand-held light meters have only one metering cell, and that cell can't see any image, just an average light value. It's just like a bathroom scale, except it's measuring light intensity instead of weight. It has no idea if it's measuring a human or a bucket of nails. Since the 70's, most SLR film cameras had more than one metering cell in the camera. This was done to get more information about the scene that was being photographed, so decisions could be made about how to adjust exposure. For example, center-weighted metering meant that more emphasis was placed on the cell that read the light from the center of the image, rather than the light readings from cells at the outer edges. This made these cameras "smarter" in terms of getting a good exposure more of the time. Into the late 80's, Nikon introduced matrix metering, which brought several metering cells into the camera, which allowed them to use complex algorithms to handle all kinds of scene scenarios to provide even better exposure results. All the other camera manufacturers came up with similar systems. At that time, 35mm cameras were so sophisticated that it would have been a backward step to use a hand-held meter.
Today, with digital cameras, every pixel becomes a metering cell. You literally have millions of metering cells in the camera, and that's how you can get fancy histograms and clipping alerts. That's a physical impossibility with a hand-held meter with a single metering cell.
These days, hand-held meters are still useful for cameras that have no meters (large format cameras, old cameras), or for cameras that have a single meter cell (better light sensitivity and possibly better accuracy with hand-held). Digital, in terms of hand-held light meters, just means that the display output is digital, it still has only a single metering cell. It still can't do anything at all like what a digital camera can do.
In the "old days", pro photographers used Polaroid shots to confirm their exposure was correct, and if not, adjust accordingly. You can do the same thing with a digital camera today, and it's much cheaper than using Polaroid. What you're doing with the digital camera to test exposure, makes perfect sense. By correlating your exposure on the digital camera, with your film camera, you should be able to get good results more easily than with a hand-held meter.
Every hand-held meter is designed to give the appropriate exposure for 18% gray average scenes. That works well for many scenes, but it's the photographer that needs to know when that doesn't apply, and adjust accordingly. The hand-held meter is still "dumb", and can't tell when the scene being shot doesn't meet the "normal" 18% gray average.
Hi Alan. First, I want to acknowledge and congratualte you on incredible stamina. I've been watching htis discussion in amazement... so much so that I've not made a comment heretofore.
I use Sekonic Luna Pro and Luna Pro SBC often in the incident metiring mode. Since incident is reading the light from the subject postiion (opr equivelent light) facing towrd the camera, one simply holds the meter in one's hand and turns one's body (or twists a wrist around) so the dome faces the camera.
That's pretty much how I'm using the digital camera as a meter. I just adjust it to shoot a digital picture checking the aperture, shutter, the scene on the LED back, and maybe the histogram and clipping points. The scene on the back is important because I can adjust the stops to see how it looks above and below "normal" exposure, just like a Polaroid back. The camera scene shows me what's happening with the various changes in stops. Since I'm shooting chromes which is like digital, I transfer the settings to the film camera reducing the exposure by 1/2 stop just in case to prevent clipping highlights on the film. If I'm shooting BW negative film I add a 1/2 stop. I'd do the same with color negative, but I'm not using that currently.
Funny thing, I still have my Polaroid back for my Mamiya RB67 medium format camera to check exposure. OF course, there's no instant film available that works in it any longer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?