Using a digital camera as a light meter to shoot film

Signs & fragments

A
Signs & fragments

  • 1
  • 0
  • 10
Summer corn, summer storm

D
Summer corn, summer storm

  • 1
  • 1
  • 23
Horizon, summer rain

D
Horizon, summer rain

  • 0
  • 0
  • 29
$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 6
  • 5
  • 167
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 163

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,814
Messages
2,781,228
Members
99,711
Latest member
Ramajai
Recent bookmarks
0

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
I don't believe there is any such light meter that would be helpful the situation I outlined. Using a digital camera's settings is very helpful as a starting point from which to bracket.

Please explain your belief.
  1. If my handheld meter reads to 0EV light minimum, so that it CAN read to ISO 100 and tell you ' f8, 40 seconds', WHY would it not be helpful in that situation?
  2. If my in-camera meter for film reads to 0EV light minimum, so that it CAN read to ISO 100 and tell you ' f8, 40 seconds', WHY would it not be helpful in that situation?
  3. If my in-camera meter for digital sensor reads to 0EV light minimum, so that it CAN read to ISO 100 and tell you ' f8, 40 seconds', WHY would it not be helpful in that situation?
...that is, all meters meet the ISO standard for meter calibration, and they all result in the SAME READING.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,918
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The real question here isn't about the ISO standards or the reliability of the metering systems in various cameras.
The question is about whether the displayed exposure information (not the actual meter reading) from one camera is going to be reliable enough to base one's exposure decisions on when one uses a different camera, exposing either a similar photographic medium, or a different one.
You can ask the same question about film cameras with built in meters, although the film cameras that are used for manual metering (not auto-exposure) already have a built in test.
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,816
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
The real question here isn't about the ISO standards or the reliability of the metering systems in various cameras.
The question is about whether the displayed exposure information (not the actual meter reading) from one camera is going to be reliable enough to base one's exposure decisions on when one uses a different camera, exposing either a similar photographic medium, or a different one.
You can ask the same question about film cameras with built in meters, although the film cameras that are used for manual metering (not auto-exposure) already have a built in test.
The answer to that is yes. I have many cameras and most of them (the ones that I would use the meter) do not display a difference more than 1/2 stop. The ones I use the most are within 1/3 stop.
I found that my Nikon D1x and my Df display the same exposure but using the same settings result in significant difference in brightness.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,918
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The answer to that is yes. I have many cameras and most of them (the ones that I would use the meter) do not display a difference more than 1/2 stop. The ones I use the most are within 1/3 stop.
Which means you have tested the results, and they have satisfied your requirements.
Which is all that I've been suggesting!
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Are you sure that the ISO standard for chemical photography is the same as the ISO standard for digital capture? Better cite the standards documents.
That’s actually a good question. I’ve not seen that standard and lost the access I once had when I retired. So far all we’ve seen is the marketing blurb from ISO and nobody’s yet indicated that they’ve read the standard or understood it. The devil is in the details. I’m guessing that the alignment between film and digital, mentioned in the marketing blurb, means a real alignment… sameness. But standards evolve over time so old meters or digital cameras, if they conform, may not fully conform to the current standard. And I’ve never noticed in any of my meter or camera information any conformance statements, other than ISO 9001 QA process. Just because there is a standard does not require anyone to comply or conform… they are voluntary standards by definition. And if a company complied or conforms, it can be full or partial… by definition.
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,816
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
That’s actually a good question. I’ve not seen that standard and lost the access I once had when I retired. So far all we’ve seen is the marketing blurb from ISO and nobody’s yet indicated that they’ve read the standard or understood it. The devil is in the details. I’m guessing that the alignment between film and digital, mentioned in the marketing blurb, means a real alignment… sameness. But standards evolve over time so old meters or digital cameras, if they conform, may not fully conform to the current standard. And I’ve never noticed in any of my meter or camera information any conformance statements, other than ISO 9001 QA process. Just because there is a standard does not require anyone to comply or conform… they are voluntary standards by definition. And if a company complied or conforms, it can be full or partial… by definition.
And if you do remember I think they do not allow you to tell us what the standard is right?
 
OP
OP
Alan Edward Klein
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
The real question here isn't about the ISO standards or the reliability of the metering systems in various cameras.
The question is about whether the displayed exposure information (not the actual meter reading) from one camera is going to be reliable enough to base one's exposure decisions on when one uses a different camera, exposing either a similar photographic medium, or a different one.
You can ask the same question about film cameras with built in meters, although the film cameras that are used for manual metering (not auto-exposure) already have a built in test.
That's a good point. But that can be simply checked by testing against another known meter or camera to see if the readouts are the same.
 
OP
OP
Alan Edward Klein
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
That’s actually a good question. I’ve not seen that standard and lost the access I once had when I retired. So far all we’ve seen is the marketing blurb from ISO and nobody’s yet indicated that they’ve read the standard or understood it. The devil is in the details. I’m guessing that the alignment between film and digital, mentioned in the marketing blurb, means a real alignment… sameness. But standards evolve over time so old meters or digital cameras, if they conform, may not fully conform to the current standard. And I’ve never noticed in any of my meter or camera information any conformance statements, other than ISO 9001 QA process. Just because there is a standard does not require anyone to comply or conform… they are voluntary standards by definition. And if a company complied or conforms, it can be full or partial… by definition.
But meters are calibrated to a standard that provides EV based to what they're reading. That has nothing to do with film or digital cameras. Now I think the question you're posing is, do digital cameras handle it differently than film cameras?

The other question I have, unrelated I believe, is are there different readings between incident and reflective?
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
And if you do remember I think they do not allow you to tell us what the standard is right?
No, the limitation is basic copyright… cannot redistribute. All of the standards organizations are basically funded in 2 ways: technical genius is donated by the volunteers on the committee, and the administrative aspects are funded by sale of the standards. But the content of the standard itself is not a secret. Unfortunately standards tend to be priced in a way that individuals probably aren’t willing to pay but companies will. But even that’s not always true as there are both government agencies and multi-billion folate corporations that are so cheap that the try to get standards via nefarious means. That always hurt my head.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
If one is really concerned about the difference of calibration standards for film versus digital, instead of checking the standards directly, one could take a page out of the Zonistas Handbook and engage in thorough detailed endless testing and retesting of an infinite number of lighting situation will all the various type of cameras that can be found.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter
  • ISO 2720:1974. General Purpose Photographic Exposure Meters (Photoelectric Type) — Guide to Product Specification. International Organization for Standardization.
  • ISO 2721:2013. Photography — Film-based cameras — Automatic controls of exposure. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO_2720_1974.jpg


ISO_2721_2013.jpg


ISO_5800_1987.jpg


ISO_12232_2019.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
"Digital camera ISO speed and exposure index
In digital camera systems, an arbitrary relationship between exposure and sensor data values can be achieved by setting the signal gain of the sensor. The relationship between the sensor data values and the lightness of the finished image is also arbitrary, depending on the parameters chosen for the interpretation of the sensor data into an image color space such as sRGB.

For digital photo cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI) rating—commonly called ISO setting—is specified by the manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the camera will have a lightness similar to what would be obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same exposure. The usual design is that the camera's parameters for interpreting the sensor data values into sRGB values are fixed, and a number of different EI choices are accommodated by varying the sensor's signal gain in the analog realm, prior to conversion to digital. Some camera designs provide at least some EI choices by adjusting the sensor's signal gain in the digital realm ("expanded ISO"). A few camera designs also provide EI adjustment through a choice of lightness parameters for the interpretation of sensor data values into sRGB; this variation allows different tradeoffs between the range of highlights that can be captured and the amount of noise introduced into the shadow areas of the photo.

Digital cameras have far surpassed film in terms of sensitivity to light, with ISO equivalent speeds of up to 4,560,000, a number that is unfathomable in the realm of conventional film photography. Faster processors, as well as advances in software noise reduction techniques allow this type of processing to be executed the moment the photo is captured, allowing photographers to store images that have a higher level of refinement and would have been prohibitively time-consuming to process with earlier generations of digital camera hardware.

The ISO (International Organization of Standards) 12232:2019 standard
The ISO standard ISO 12232:2006[66] gave digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different techniques for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model. Three of the techniques in ISO 12232:2006 were carried over from the 1998 version of the standard, while two new techniques allowing for measurement of JPEG output files were introduced from CIPA DC-004.[67] Depending on the technique selected, the exposure index rating could depend on the sensor sensitivity, the sensor noise, and the appearance of the resulting image. The standard specified the measurement of light sensitivity of the entire digital camera system and not of individual components such as digital sensors, although Kodak has reported[68] using a variation to characterize the sensitivity of two of their sensors in 2001.

The Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique, new in the 2006 version of the standard, allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model's EI choices arbitrarily. The choices are based solely on the manufacturer's opinion of what EI values produce well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings. This is the only technique available under the standard for output formats that are not in the sRGB color space. This is also the only technique available under the standard when multi-zone metering (also called pattern metering) is used.

The Standard Output Sensitivity (SOS) technique, also new in the 2006 version of the standard, effectively specifies that the average level in the sRGB image must be 18% gray plus or minus 1/3 stop when the exposure is controlled by an automatic exposure control system calibrated per ISO 2721 and set to the EI with no exposure compensation. Because the output level is measured in the sRGB output from the camera, it is only applicable to sRGB images—typically JPEG—and not to output files in raw image format. It is not applicable when multi-zone metering is used.

The CIPA DC-004 standard requires that Japanese manufacturers of digital still cameras use either the REI or SOS techniques, and DC-008[69] updates the Exif specification to differentiate between these values. Consequently, the three EI techniques carried over from ISO 12232:1998 are not widely used in recent camera models (approximately 2007 and later). As those earlier techniques did not allow for measurement from images produced with lossy compression, they cannot be used at all on cameras that produce images only in JPEG format.


The saturation-based (SAT or Ssat) technique is closely related to the SOS technique, with the sRGB output level being measured at 100% white rather than 18% gray. The SOS value is effectively 0.704 times the saturation-based value.[70] Because the output level is measured in the sRGB output from the camera, it is only applicable to sRGB images—typically TIFF—and not to output files in raw image format.[citation needed] It is not applicable when multi-zone metering is used.

The two noise-based techniques have rarely been used for consumer digital still cameras.[citation needed] These techniques specify the highest EI that can be used while still providing either an "excellent" picture or a "usable" picture depending on the technique chosen.[citation needed]

An update to this standard has been published as ISO 12232:2019, defining a wider range of ISO speeds.[36][37]
 
Last edited:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter
  • ISO 2720:1974. General Purpose Photographic Exposure Meters (Photoelectric Type) — Guide to Product Specification. International Organization for Standardization.
  • ISO 2721:2013. Photography — Film-based cameras — Automatic controls of exposure. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO_2720_1974.jpg


ISO_2721_2013.jpg


ISO_5800_1987.jpg


ISO_12232_2019.jpg

Why would you mess up a thread with standards and facts when everyone was having such a good time pushing their individual beliefs and prejudices? Killjoy!
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
Why would you mess up a thread with standards and facts when everyone was having such a good time pushing their individual beliefs and prejudices? Killjoy!

mea culpa...after all we let misbeliefs guide us in other areas not related to photography, don't we?
 
Last edited:

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
But meters are calibrated to a standard that provides EV based to what they're reading. That has nothing to do with film or digital cameras. Now I think the question you're posing is, do digital cameras handle it differently than film cameras?

The other question I have, unrelated I believe, is are there different readings between incident and reflective?

'It depends'. In my own experience with a mix of incident and reflective meters, of in-camera vs. handheld type, of spot vs 'wide' view type, I get the same reading regardless of use of incident vs. [reflective meter seeing 18% grey card]
and my meters are made 'pre-digital' (for film) vs 'for digital photograph (built into the camera)'

But I will also state that I can get grey card to give DIFFERENT RESULTS, too...shown are two series, at two different angles relative to sun position

grey%20series%20two%20angles%20to%20sun_zps86qtuw2y.jpg


...the naked eye shows that 'same exposure' for all shots of the grey card causes different density simply because of surface reflectivity of the card!
 
Last edited:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
'It depends'. In my own experience with a mix of incident and reflective meters, of in-camera vs. handheld type, of spot vs 'wide' view type, I get the same reading regardless of use of incident vs. [reflective meter seeing 18% grey card]
and my meters are made 'pre-digital' (for film) vs 'for digital photograph (built into the camera)'

Nota Bene: Photons are not prejudiced against 18% cards, incident meters, reflective meters, spot meters, film or digital sensors.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
It depends, as Wiltw said, and "sometimes" as I would add to that. I just metered two scenes with a LunaPro SBC. The scene with no sky metered the same, reflected or incident. The scene with sky [EDIT: above and]behind me metered 1 stop greater incident than reflected.
 

cowanw

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
2,235
Location
Hamilton, On
Format
Large Format
....The standard specified the measurement of light sensitivity of the entire digital camera system and not of individual components such as digital sensors...
Because the output level is measured in the sRGB output from the camera, it is only applicable to sRGB images—typically
JPEG...

At the risk of spreading nonsense, a couple of highlighted points.​
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
It depends, as Wiltw said, and "sometimes" as I would add to that. I just metered two scenes with a LunaPro SBC. The scene with no sky metered the same, reflected or incident. The scene with sky [EDIT: above and]behind me metered 1 stop greater incident than reflected.

Illustrating that it isn't necessary the meter type as much as what the meter sees.
Evalulative/matrix is simply an effort to bias results, so that undue influences by certain metering zones seeing light bright sky or reflections off mirrors/chrome do not unduly bias the readings in the wrong direction.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Alan Edward Klein
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
'It depends'. In my own experience with a mix of incident and reflective meters, of in-camera vs. handheld type, of spot vs 'wide' view type, I get the same reading regardless of use of incident vs. [reflective meter seeing 18% grey card]
and my meters are made 'pre-digital' (for film) vs 'for digital photograph (built into the camera)'

But I will also state that I can get grey card to give DIFFERENT RESULTS, too...shown are two series, at two different angles relative to sun position

grey%20series%20two%20angles%20to%20sun_zps86qtuw2y.jpg


...the naked eye shows that 'same exposure' for all shots of the grey card causes different density simply because of surface reflectivity of the card!
This is why I asked the question. When I tried using a gray card, I found there were differences in comparison to incident readings. It seems I'm not using the card correctly. So what is the right way that you found works best? Thanks for that great photo comparison.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
At the risk of spreading nonsense, a couple of highlighted points.​

Good thing it is only at risk of being nonsense, instead of being nonsense.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
OP
OP
Alan Edward Klein
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

markbau

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
867
Location
Australia
Format
Analog
Please explain your belief.
  1. If my handheld meter reads to 0EV light minimum, so that it CAN read to ISO 100 and tell you ' f8, 40 seconds', WHY would it not be helpful in that situation?
  2. If my in-camera meter for film reads to 0EV light minimum, so that it CAN read to ISO 100 and tell you ' f8, 40 seconds', WHY would it not be helpful in that situation?
  3. If my in-camera meter for digital sensor reads to 0EV light minimum, so that it CAN read to ISO 100 and tell you ' f8, 40 seconds', WHY would it not be helpful in that situation?
...that is, all meters meet the ISO standard for meter calibration, and they all result in the SAME READING.
apollo_bay_test.jpg

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. (please excuse the quality, it's a reject print used as a toning test print)
In the scene, the only reading I could get with my Pentax digital spot was from the white reflections in the water, the meter didn't even register the sky. (In the print the sky is actually dodged)
My meter goes to EV 1 according to the manual. Are you saying that a meter that goes down to EV 0 would have given me useful light readings?
I just looked up the specs for the Sekonic L 858D and it says it goes to EV -5. Are you saying this meter would give me useful readings in such a low light situation, if so I may consider buying one for sure.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom