Spotmeter angles of view

[digiconvert]

I am looking at buying a meter to complement my Weston to use when I can't get close to the subject (covered in another thread) and got to wondering about spot diameters.
For anyone interested I have attached a pdf file of my spreadsheet. The 8.5 degree value is there because I am considering an L228. The scales are in metric and imperial measures (near enough to US feet and inches).

Hope others find it as useful as I did . If anyone sees any glaring errors let me know.

Cheers ; Chris Benton

 

[Nick Zentena]

If you're trying to figure out how small a spot you need a 35mm with a zoom lens might help. Assuming the 35mm has a spotmeter you can vary the size of the spot by zooming the lens.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am looking at buying a meter to complement my Weston to use when I can't get close to the subject (covered in another thread) and got to wondering about spot diameters.
For anyone interested I have attached a pdf file of my spreadsheet. The 8.5 degree value is there because I am considering an L228. The scales are in metric and imperial measures (near enough to US feet and inches).

Hope others find it as useful as I did . If anyone sees any glaring errors let me know.

Cheers ; Chris Benton

Dear Chris,

I have a spot attachment for my LunaSixes, a few 1 degree meters and an SEI Photometer (1/2 degree, usable for even smaller readings because it's a comparison meter). For general use, I'd regard 1 degree as being as wide as I want to go.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hey Chris. I went through your thought process many years ago (15 or 20, perhaps) and bought a L-228. I loved that meter. For me it was the perfect compromise - spot metering without getting too detailed. I'm more of an "averaging" kind of guy and don't get too tied up in the nth degree nitty-gritty details. One thing to know about the L-228 is that it takes a no-longer-available 1.35v battery. I wrecked my meter (and still crying about it) when I tried opening up the case to modify it with a voltage-reducing diode. I think the Gossen (Cris, etc) adapter will likely work in it but didn't verify before I messed it up. At some point I 'upgraded' my Weston to a Gossen Luna-Pro and tried their 15/7.5-degree spot attachment. It works okay, but isn't nearly a clear to view through as the L-228 was. Now I have a L-558R spot/do-everything meter. I'm still adapting to the 1 degree spot... my conclusion right now is that I still prefer averaging and focus more on composition than absolute light values. The L-228 seems to be in fairly short supply onthe auction site but when available they don't cost too much. I still have the case, lanyard, and instructions and occasionally contemplate maybe trying to find one myself.

 

[digiconvert]

Hey Chris. I went through your thought process many years ago (15 or 20, perhaps) and bought a L-228. I loved that meter. For me it was the perfect compromise - spot metering without getting too detailed. I'm more of an "averaging" kind of guy and don't get too tied up in the nth degree nitty-gritty details.

Just missed one to a sniper on the auction site ($36 would you believe ? - that's about 10 films in the UK) as I see it a view of 7 feet at 50 feet away gives enough to get a tree exposed right against a sky. I have my eye on a very nice Minolta Autometer II with 10 deg spot on e-bay now

Cheers; Chris Benton

 

[David Henderson]

Whilst its interesting to have the size of the spots quantified, nearly ten years of spot-metering virtually every frame indicates to me that I very often meter areas little larger than the 1 degree spot. Any larger than this and I couldn'r meter the way I want.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Whilst its interesting to have the size of the spots quantified, nearly ten years of spot-metering virtually every frame indicates to me that I very often meter areas little larger than the 1 degree spot. Any larger than this and I couldn'r meter the way I want.

My experience spot metering over the last 20 years is essentially the same as David's. I don't meter areas larger than 1 degree - though I may meter several different 1 degree (or smaller) areas within a subject while establishing the SBR (Subject Brightness Range).

 

[jstraw]

I don't even do all my metering from the area where my tripos is. Sometimes I meter much much less than 1 degree as measured at the camera when I walk up to what I'm metering to meter it.

 

[naturephoto1]

Shooting transparencies, I need the accuracy of a spot meter to measure for (and to then expose and correct for) the highlights. Therefore I rely on a 1 degree spot meter.

Rich

 

[Roger Hicks]

Shooting transparencies, I need the accuracy of a spot meter to measure for (and to then expose and correct for) the highlights. Therefore I rely on a 1 degree spot meter.

Rich

Dear Rich,

I have no wish to argue -- what works for you, works for you -- but I'd be obliged if you could explain what advantage you see in spot metering highlights as compared with the much easier 'artificial highlight' method (aka incident light metering).

Of course there are times when you can't read at the subject, or take an equivalent reading, and in those cases, a spot highlight reading is obviously best; but I find that the vast majority of the time an incident light reading is easier, quicker and pretty much by definition produces the identical result. Negatives are of course another matter.

Cheers,

R.

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Roger,

I have just found having used both methods, that I am more successful in setting my exposure this way. It does take me a little longer, but I measure several spot locations in the highlight areas to determine the brightest location. Once I find the brightest "spot" I normally open the aperture by about 1 1/2 f stops to maintain some detail in the highlight areas for my transparencies. I will then normally still bracket my exposutes in 1/2 stop increments just to cover my butt. I normally find the 1st shot just about dead on for the correct exposure. If I am out shooting for extended periods of time, with my 4 X 5 camera I may bracket in 1/3 stop increments if I am having my transparencies processed on an ongoing basis. When possible I use a local lab to process the transparencies on a long trip to assure my exposure accuracy since it is so much cheaper to know that you are exposing correctly on the trip rather than to find that the whole shoot is lost and you would have to return at another time.

Rich

 

[Roger Hicks]

...it is so much cheaper to know that you are exposing correctly on the trip rather than to find that the whole shoot is lost and you would have to return at another time.

Rich

Dear Rich,

Thanks very much for the answer -- which, as I suspected, came out to 'it works best for me, and these are the assumptions/changes I make'. The latter is, I suspect, the basis of all successful exposure: picking a method (almost any method) and learning via experience what changes to make. Of course, I use incident for much the same reasons...

Do you not find it feasible to use 'process 1, hold 1' when you are travelling? This is what I tend to do with LF instead of bracketing; the contrast changes at +/- 2/3 stop do not seem to be a problem. On the other hand it's a LOT easier to do this from the studio than when you're travelling.

Cheers,

R.

 

[naturephoto1]

Dear Rich,

Thanks very much for the answer -- which, as I suspected, came out to 'it works best for me, and these are the assumptions/changes I make'. The latter is, I suspect, the basis of all successful exposure: picking a method (almost any method) and learning via experience what changes to make. Of course, I use incident for much the same reasons...

Do you not find it feasible to use 'process 1, hold 1' when you are travelling? This is what I tend to do with LF instead of bracketing; the contrast changes at +/- 2/3 stop do not seem to be a problem. On the other hand it's a LOT easier to do this from the studio than when you're travelling.

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger,

I have never really tried the process, hold, push, pull method for travel. I have however been in the situation where I had to just "wing it" to expose the photo below (in my gallery and also been used in other discussions) because of the combination of the exposure time for the star trails around Old Faithful Geyser and the lights around the Geyser. Additionally, I have had to guess and push on occassion only because we were beyond the limits of the film (beyond 3 1/2-4 comfortable stops for Velvia 50). I didn't terribly care for the results. But now with Photoshop, perhaps we could better "tame" the exposure than conventional printing.

Here is the link for any interested Subscriber about info for the photo:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Rich