- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 640
- Format
- Multi Format
"He's frequently wrong. But never, ever in doubt."
"He's frequently wrong. But never, ever in doubt."Poor advise can abound online. I remember in a discussion about darkrooms are guy (with that same avatar) insisting that zoning in Southern California required new construction to have carpeting in living spaces, therefore creating a dust problem for potential darkrooms. No citation was provided, even after being requested, and after I posted links to several Zillow listings for new construction in that area that had no carpeting no reversal of position was provided.
Let’s just say that the “Ignore” feature of this site’s software is a wonderful thing.
Poor advise can abound online. I remember in a discussion about darkrooms are guy (with that same avatar) insisting that zoning in Southern California required new construction to have carpeting in living spaces, therefore creating a dust problem for potential darkrooms. No citation was provided, even after being requested, and after I posted links to several Zillow listings for new construction in that area that had no carpeting no reversal of position was provided.
Let’s just say that the “Ignore” feature of this site’s software is a wonderful thing.
I remember there being someone here awhile back, a real expert in his own mind, who insisted that the proper use of an incident meter was to position it at the camera and pointed toward the subject. And no matter how many people questioned this assertion and pointed out his error, he insisted he was right over and over again until a point of critical mass was reached and he kind of just had to slink away. Remember that guy? His avatar was the same as yours.
You have proven that your SRT-101 metering is in error.
Not likely that a phone app would match a D200 and both of them be equally in error.
The SRT-101 existed in a time when almost every camera with metering used the same PX-625/PX-13 1.35V mercury oxide cell.
My OM-1 had variable error when there was an alkaline button inserted in place of a mercury oxide battery, and the degree of error was dependent upon the brightness of the ambient light being measured! I proved that to be the case many decades ago.
But you missed the comment that the HOA in building next to mine and the unit owner got sued for violation the city noise code because someone had put wood floors in the bedrooms. The unit owner had to take out the hardwood floor and replace it with carpeting and was fined by the court and the HOA was also fined for allowing it.
In fact, I may have proven just the opposite. Both SRT 101's and SRT 201 were calibrated by John Titterington to use 1.5v batteries. I use silver oxide and zinc oxide batteries. I tested 6 cameras. All three SRT's, my Pentax KM, Minolta X-570, and Nikon N75. All 6 analog cameras of different makes, models, and eras meter exactly the same. The iPhone app is suggesting a shutter speed 3X the speed suggested by the cameras' meters. I'm very interested to see what the Vivitar 45 has to say about this.
The D200 is not metering anything wrong for itself. It produces great pix and I don't need to use it as a meter for my analogs. Ditto for the iPhone app. It would be nice if it worked, but no loss there.
But a meter calibrated for one, will be inaccurate if used with the other chemistry battery. Don't mix up which camera uses which kind of battery!
- Silver oxide has a pretty flat output voltage profile, so calibration of a meter for 1.55V might well hold its accuracy well...the question is whether the accuracy remains constant regardless of the brightness of the ambient light for the scene.
- The zinc air cell has a pertty flat output voltage profile, and its output is more similar to the mercury oxide button cells of old.
You have two meters which agree, but it sounds like you think the third one is accurate! It sounds like you need some additional homework to determine which one(s) are correct still. According to the intenational standard for calibration of light meters, all three should be within about 1/6EV of each other, if metering a uniformly illuminated featureless target area.
The D200 accuracy is self-evident in the quality of its resulting image, which you can assess moments after exposure both visually and via the histogram generated from its image. The meter app on your phone matches the exposure of the dSLR.
OTOH, you state, "The iPhone app is suggesting a shutter speed 3X the speed suggested by the cameras' meters. "
They cannot all be 'right'. Color me puzzled by your initial question about the phone app...either the exposure suggested results in a good exposure by the D200, or it does not.
Let’s see if the Vivitar 45 meters the same as the app and D200 or the same as the analog cameras. Or neither.
I assume that being in TX, you have some clear blue skies available to you, even in winter...While Sunny 16 is a guideline and NOT a 'hard and fast precise rule', it should give you a reading of about ISO250 1/250 f/16 when metering an 18% gray card (which is held so that surface sheen of the card is minimized, as seen by the meter)...giving you an indication of which meters are wildly off.
Lacking an 18% gray card, substitute the palm of your hand as the target...a reading taken off your palm should be +1EV brighter than a gray card.
BTW, this photo series shows how underexposure can readily be misjudged to be 'right'...only photo 1 is 'right exposure', so it is easy to misjudge.
Under expose for bright sunlight? -- General Photography Talk in photography-on-the.net forums
Under expose for bright sunlight? in General Photography Talkphotography-on-the.net
This is why I went with the Criscam adapters. They have a voltage regulator, a zener diode I believe, that provides a steady voltage throughout the lifespan of the battery and I didn’t have to have my cameras or meter recalibrated.
While Sunny 16 is a guideline and NOT a 'hard and fast precise rule', it should give you a reading of about ISO250 1/250 f/16 when metering an 18% gray card (which is held so that surface sheen of the card is minimized, as seen by the meter)...giving you an indication of which meters are wildly off.
The reading will be "wildly off" if the grey card is not illuminated by the sun.
Which proves that some people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near code, since hardwood floors can in fact, be installed to be just as quiet as carpet.
I have 6 meters in 6 different cameras that agree with each other. All are using fresh #357 silver oxide batteries. I have no idea if accuracy will remain with changes in light levels. In 45 years of shooting one of the SRT 101’s there has not been a problem.
I’m shooting Kentmere 400. I’m not sure I need to split hairs with meter accuracy, I just want a handheld meter that will get me close if the need arises. The iPhone can’t be trusted to do that.
In fact, I may have proven just the opposite. Both SRT 101's and SRT 201 were calibrated by John Titterington to use 1.5v batteries. I use silver oxide and zinc oxide batteries. I tested 6 cameras. All three SRT's, my Pentax KM, Minolta X-570, and Nikon N75. All 6 analog cameras of different makes, models, and eras meter exactly the same. The iPhone app is suggesting a shutter speed 3X the speed suggested by the cameras' meters. I'm very interested to see what the Vivitar 45 has to say about this.
The D200 is not metering anything wrong for itself. It produces great pix and I don't need to use it as a meter for my analogs. Ditto for the iPhone app. It would be nice if it worked, but no loss there.
I seem to recall you wrote the D200 was on auto ISO many pages ago (sorry if I misremembered). Are you certain of the ISO it selects? Three steps off the film cameras' readings and good exposure is implausible.
Phone apps can be way off if they know little about the hardware (unlikely with the iPhone as a version off the app has to be written for that) or if they try to incident meter without the necessary hardware (oddly common design flaw, simply can't work without a matted dome or at least flat panel above the sensor).
But high heels and toddlers with shoes made a big racket, not the tennis type.
Doesn't matter. Underlayment will keep the noise from traveling through, and I assume that the building itself has a wooden floor between levels. It's a silly rule, made by a committee that doesn't understand construction. A better question would be, why is the building built so poorly that sound travels from one unit to another so easily?
My personal opinion is that most HOA's, even the ones that start off well intentioned, become a haven for the worst control freaks in the neighborhood. Avoiding them was a primary criteria when I bought my current house.
Since you are in Florida you would not know that the way the floors need to be constructed for earthquake protection, the sound will travel through the floor regardless of the underlayment used. The HOA did quite extensive research at stores and working with structural engineers. In order for the building to withstand earthquakes vibration and therefore sound below 20 Hz must pass through the building. No matter how much padding or underlayment is used, the vibrations will pass through the floor.
At the risk of further derailing a derailed topic, 20 Hz and below isn't really audible. Most sound equipment doesn't bother reproducing it.
I would also argue that there is a difference between vibration passing though a structure, and vibration passing from the air space of a room into, and through, the structure. A floating engineered hardwood floor, with a sound-deadening material underneath, such as cork, is not going to weaken the structure of a building.
I guess you can't have recording studios in California either, because deadening the sound in the room would make the building susceptible to earthquake damage....?
Edit: Someone should mention vinyl planking to your HOA-- quiet, flexible, and resistant to spills, especially chemicals. Would be ideal for a darkroom.
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?