Meter type preference for large format.

[trondsi]

I have so far been using my iPhone app meter, but I'll soon find myself a spot meter. I try to follow some simple instructions that I got from a seasoned photographer. Basically as follows:
Measure the brightest and darkest areas that you think are important to your photo in terms of coverage of some detail and texture. Then, use the average of the two as your exposure. So if the brightest part that you want to be able to see clearly reads, say f 16 1/400sec and the darkest areas in which you want to retain textures etc is at f 16 1/100 sec , then use f 16 1/250 sec (i.e. (100+400)/2=250)

 

[bdial]

A few years ago in a workshop I was determined to get my head around zone system exposure methods. I borrowed the instructor's spot meter and spent probably 20 minutes doing readings from shadows, highlights, various mid-tones and figuring out zone placement for the scene I had the camera set up for.
Finally came up with an exposure and it was exactly the same as the incident reading on my Luna-Pro.

I've since bought a spot meter, but hardly ever use it.

 

[RobC]

I have so far been using my iPhone app meter, but I'll soon find myself a spot meter. I try to follow some simple instructions that I got from a seasoned photographer. Basically as follows:
Measure the brightest and darkest areas that you think are important to your photo in terms of coverage of some detail and texture. Then, use the average of the two as your exposure. So if the brightest part that you want to be able to see clearly reads, say f 16 1/400sec and the darkest areas in which you want to retain textures etc is at f 16 1/100 sec , then use f 16 1/250 sec (i.e. (100+400)/2=250)

If you are going to average the readings from a spot meter then you may as well use an incident meter which will give you better results. Using a spot meter to its full potential requires very precise testing and calibration. For most people that never happens. They think they have done it but its usually half arsed and therefore their results are no better and often worse than if they had used an incident meter. Incident meters are easy peasy to get up and running with. Spot meters aren't. But if you put in the leg work with spot meter and film calibration, then you can improve your sucess rate.

I would suggest that all the people who berate spot meters couldn't calibrate their way out of a paper bag.

p.s. the method you suggest above will get all the subject on the film BUT I would suggest it won't do it optimally to make printing very easy and can make printing difficult.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I tend to agree with this, I have met many students of spot metering and the zone system who are having all kinds of difficulty with their printing. Basically their negatives were all over the place and not usable. I think its because they did not really have great teachers or plain not willing to work hard enough to figure it out.

I am not dissing this system because in the right hands with very good testing, process and repeatablity the zone practioners have it made.
For poor smucks like me I rely on sunny 16 and an incedent meter if I happen to have one on me and my negs are quite printable.
I always use my hand to look at the lighting ratio of the scene I am trying to photograph and I always base my exposure on open shade and process for the ratio.
Works for me and is very simple. This works for large and small format which btw I never change my basic approach.

If you are going to average the readings from a spot meter then you may as well use an incident meter which will give you better results. Using a spot meter to its full potential requires very precise testing and calibration. For most people that never happens. They think they have done it but its usually half arsed and therefore their results are no better and often worse than if they had used an incident meter. Incident meters are easy peasy to get up and running with. Spot meters aren't. But if you put in the leg work with spot meter and film calibration, then you can improve your sucess rate.

I would suggest that all the people who berate spot meters couldn't calibrate their way out of a paper bag.

p.s. the method you suggest above will get all the subject on the film BUT I would suggest it won't do it optimally to make printing very easy and can make printing difficult.

 

[Regular Rod]

So far with large format I've been using either a light meter app on my phone or my old incident meter to judge exposure but I read a lot about the benefits of using a spot meter and have thought about getting one. It seems though for everything I read that recommends a spot meter I read an opposing article that claims they are unnecessary now and using a handheld incident meter or the evaluative meter on a digital camera to calculate exposure for scenes is as good or better. What is the consensus here? Is a spot meter still the way to go for view cameras or have they been supplanted?

Just get a Pentax Spotmeter V, fix a Zone scale on it and start taking your readings from the shadows that you want to retain texture in the image. Set the reading at III and make your exposure. Worry about the highlights later.

RR

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use a spot meter if

• The spot will be the middle gray/grey tone.
• If the spot will be translated to a zone and then the exposure is set to get that spot to be that tone. Hence the use of the Gossen Luna Pro SBC spot attachment with the Zone capabilities.
• The spot is used as a quick check to see where the highlights and darkest areas will fair with an averaged or matrix reading.
• A series of spot readings used to calculate the overall reading.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My favorite meters of all time: For color chrome film: Pentax digital spotmeter. For color negative film: Pentax digital spotmeter. For black
and white films: Pentax digital spotmeter. For Zone System work: Pentax digital spotmeter. For "to hell with the Zone System" work:
Pentax digital spotmeter. Well... you get the point.