^Although this discussion is quite interesting (to say the least), looking at the original problem - a built-in light meter. Why not shoot a roll of film, record the exposures used, and look at the negatives? If the neg looks good then the meter is okay. If not, you can easily estimate how much the meter is off.
Do you have a recommendation for a densitometer to purchase to carry out these sensitometric measurements?^
And what you suggest is precisely the basis of the steps that I outlined in post 26. And it the basis for why folks do their testing with sensitometric measurements with densitometers to determine their personal Exposure Index with their film with a different ISO rating.
Not me, as I have not ever bothered with densitometry. Someone else can offer their recommendations.Do you have a recommendation for a densitometer to purchase to carry out these sensitometric measurements?
Yes, it is. You wrote it first; I give you that credit! But nobody seems to be paying attention to the obvious, and there could be too much distraction with words like "densitometer, light standard, personal EI, and sensitometry" so I just tried to simplify the thought.^
And what you suggest is precisely the basis of the steps that I outlined in post 26. And it the basis for why folks do their testing with sensitometric measurements with densitometers to determine their personal Exposure Index with their film with a different ISO rating.
Unfortunately the meter can be perfectly calibrated, but it is the uninformed use of that meter that can lead to exposure error..and given enough shots poorly exposed can result in doubt about the accuracy of that meter. I see enough poorly exposed shots posted to know this is true that it is not the meter's fault, just misguided users.I'm assuming this is a film camera being discussed. The simple solution is to expose and process one short roll of film. One item that the OP never mentions is what makes him/her think that the in-camera meter isn't accurate. Bad negs? A quest for absolute perfection? I'd be very interested in why the question is being asked but, perhaps, it really doesn't matter.
That, sir, is a whole other, and equally valid, issue.Unfortunately the meter can be perfectly calibrated, but it is the uninformed use of that meter that can lead to exposure error..and given enough shots poorly exposed can result in doubt about the accuracy of that meter. I see enough poorly exposed shots posted to know this is true that it is not the meter's fault, just misguided users.
Unfortunately the meter can be perfectly calibrated, but it is the uninformed use of that meter that can lead to exposure error..and given enough shots poorly exposed can result in doubt about the accuracy of that meter. I see enough poorly exposed shots posted to know this is true that it is not the meter's fault, just misguided users.
Get me started and it will be hard to stop.Do you have a recommendation for a densitometer to purchase to carry out these sensitometric measurements?
One item that the OP never mentions is what makes him/her think that the in-camera meter isn't accurate. Bad negs? A quest for absolute perfection? I'd be very interested in why the question is being asked but, perhaps, it really doesn't matter.
That, sir, is a whole other, and equally valid, issue.
the Minolta 303 had a 6 stop difference compared to the Minolta 101
I totally agree. Even including forgetting to load film. IT'S THE METER'S FAULT!I prefer to blame my equipment. Even when I don't use a meter and quick take a shot before setting my aperture I'll blame the meter for the bad exposure. Or when I switch film backs and forget to set the meter to the correct ISO before I use the Auto mode... yeah, that's the meters fault, too.
I agree with you that I would never shoot a roll of film to test the meter. The meter must be tested on its own. Film has way too much variations to use it for testing.Unfortunately the meter can be perfectly calibrated, but it is the uninformed use of that meter that can lead to exposure error..and given enough shots poorly exposed can result in doubt about the accuracy of that meter. I see enough poorly exposed shots posted to know this is true that it is not the meter's fault, just misguided users.
So just how would you test a meter with a camera like Medium Format or 135?!...it takes a roll to test!I agree with you that I would never shoot a roll of film to test the meter. The meter must be tested on its own. Film has way too much variations to use it for testing.
So just how would you test a meter with a camera like Medium Format or 135?!...it takes a roll to test!
In my test procedure I remove the error possibility of wrongly using meter, by filling the frame with
so that matrix metering or center-weighted, or spot metering or other form of biasing ...all zones are totally eliminated fas factors, via the entire unitorm frame content, so that no matter what type of meter, all readings should recommend the identical exposure, and that validates the entire system via shots at different combinations of equivalent exposure, proves out accuracey of shutter speed increments vs. f/stop increments, too!
- a uniformly illuminated,
- featureless surface,
Do not forget What-Cha-Call-It.
A dongle is actually not a generic thing, it's a specific thing. A hardware device that connects to a computer port, originally for copy protection. Now sometimes for other things, like datalogging.
And on topic, I compare camera meters by comparing cameras and my sekonic. Just point 'em at a grey card, and sometimes the sky. Also, incident here is a dead nuts match to my agave plants out front, so I sometimes cheat there mid day when I know what to expect.
One of the wiser members here warned me about green stuff, though, as some meters can be fooled by the IR reflectivity. Doesn't seem an issue with modern camera meters, but if I cared about perfect accuracy I'd always use grey cards.
Strange now that I think about it, I've done this with most of my meters and never had one really too far off. Even my Leicameter, which is 50s vintage, is close enough or black and white. I think the only one marginal was the porofinder meter for my C330, though I don't actually use that for the meter.
He has a Pentax in good working order so his Minolta’s are obviously the test subjects while the Pentax establishes the baseline.OP issue is that he knows his meter is off by 6 stops, how do does he set up a stand in which a camera with it's metering circuit open for adjustment?
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?