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.
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.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.
Which means you have tested the results, and they have satisfied your requirements.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.
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.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.
And if you do remember I think they do not allow you to tell us what the standard is right?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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.And if you do remember I think they do not allow you to tell us what the standard is right?
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.
The other question I have, unrelated I believe, is are there different readings between incident and reflective?
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!
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)'
....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...
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.
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.'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
...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!
At the risk of spreading nonsense, a couple of highlighted points.
Thanks, Brian for the Kodak instructions. I was hoping to get his actual experience and tips. Kodak also gives box ISOs that half the people here don't follow either.My consulting fee is $100; please remit payment now; there is no grace period.
https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/gray-card
https://www.zonephoto.it/images/pdf/kodak-grey-card1903061.pdf
http://www.sjphoto.com/kodak-18-graycard.pdf
Please explain your belief.
...that is, all meters meet the ISO standard for meter calibration, and they all result in the SAME READING.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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's the subject under discussion.If you just do it right, you do not have to bracket.
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?