When streaks of white start to show through. Like white hairs on a dog's mussel.
Maybe that's why I was getting different readings from my incident readings. The gray card I was using might have been twenty years old. How long does it take before they're not good anymore?
Since I shoot landscapes, an incident meter, or reading a gray card often doesn't help when I shoot distant views where the lighting is different.
Alan, I like the idea.I started using my digital camera as a light meter. Here's what I do.
I adjust the manual settings so the histogram on the camera is in range so it's not clipping at either end. I check the LED viewfinder to see if it looks right. Then for BW film, I raise the exposure by about 1/2 stop to pick up more shadow details as long as I'm not clipping the highlights.
With color chromes, I do the opposite lowering the exposure so I don't clip the highlights.
Of course, if the range is way beyond the histogram like you get with sunny skies, I might need a graduated ND filter to keep everything in range.
One issue I see in my method is that the digital camera's range of stops is greater than my film. So where it clips would be incorrectly shown on the histogram. But I'm figuring that's really no different than a handheld meter using reflective readings. So as long as the "average" reading is in the middle, a little 1/2 stop adjustment should work.
Does anyone have any comments on this process or ideas to get better exposure readings?
For Velvia 50 couldn't you just put a neutral density filter on the lens? Then just set the ISO to twice what you need, e.g. 100 if you are using Velvia 50, 800 if you are using Tri-X, etc.That is a problem when I shoot Velvia 50. The digital camera's lowest setting is 100 so I have to add a stop. I also shoot Ektachrome 100, Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 so those ISOs can be set. .
The other issue is f stops. I have a Sony P&S but the aperture setting doesn't go down far enough. So my micro 4/3 Olympus on the other hand can be set at f/22 which is where I leave it for 4x5 shooting. I mentally adjust from there if I need a smaller aperture.
For Velvia 50 couldn't you just put a neutral density filter on the lens? Then just set the ISO to twice what you need, e.g. 100 if you are using Velvia 50, 800 if you are using Tri-X, etc.
Maybe that's why I was getting different readings from my incident readings. The gray card I was using might have been twenty years old. How long does it take before they're not good anymore?
No, you do not have 'religion' so your opinion will never be a valid one, according to predominant beliefs of the analog faith, unfortunately. Religion is firmly embedded in many, and cannot be changed.Alan, I like the idea.
I also suggested using a digital camera as an exposure meter. That was a few years ago, and I was roundly criticized for the idea, maybe not by everybody but by a lot of people here at APUG (as it was known then). I hope your suggestion is better received.
You're right that you can read locally with an incident meter the lighting far away. But only if the light is the same. If it's overcast at one end and clear at the other, you have to use a reflected reading with a meter. Of course using a digital camera, I can do the same and see the full histogram reading and view that display to check for a good picture and transfer the exposure settings. Like someone else mentioned, it's like taking a Polaroid as in the old days.Agree 100%. But when I used a landscape shot as an example in a discussion with one of the "One true exposure" people, here's what they had to say:
"You don't have to walk to the (scene) to take an incident reading. You're standing in the same light."
and
"Reflected meters are all that can be built in to a camera. CLC, averaging and multi-pattern systems are attempts to do what a designer can do for a lazy photographer given the restraints of putting something in the camera."
I'd have to set Velvia 50 at 25, not 100, since the ND reduced the light by one stop. I'd have to expose for twice as long or open my aperture by one stop losing DOF. The only way to get smaller f stops is to find a micro 43 zoom lens that goes down to f/32 or smaller. I'm actually getting good responses for using a camera as a meter. I appreciate everyone's comments.For Velvia 50 couldn't you just put a neutral density filter on the lens? Then just set the ISO to twice what you need, e.g. 100 if you are using Velvia 50, 800 if you are using Tri-X, etc.
I believe the poster was referring to putting the ND film on your digital camera to reduce its effective ISO to match your film speed.I'd have to set Velvia 50 at 25, not 100, since the ND reduced the light by one stop. I'd have to expose for twice as long or open my aperture by one stop losing DOF. The only way to get smaller f stops is to find a micro 43 zoom lens that goes down to f/32 or smaller. I'm actually getting good responses for using a camera as a meter. I appreciate everyone's comments.
Based on your experience, that means I just wasn't using mine right.I have two Kodak cards from 1948..I know, the included instruction has that date. I have one from 2001. I have a Douglas grey card from around 2004. And I have an EZBalance disk that I just bought after my old one's fabric white-grey-black coating deteriorated. None of them are noticeably different from the other,either, not by eye nor by measuring with spotmeter with 0.1EV precision.
So if grey cards ever go bad, it might be only when perpetually exposed to the light, which eventually bleaches it.
In addition, there are 2 separate standards for in-camera metering, one for film cameras and another for digital. Having only seen the catalogue and the insufficient preview, it’s not clear if they are harmonized or not. I would think that they are.No, you do not have 'religion' so your opinion will never be a valid one, according to predominant beliefs of the analog faith, unfortunately. Religion is firmly embedded in many, and cannot be changed.
I grew up shooting film since about 1960, I did not 'convert' to digital until 2004. And I still have over a half dozen film cameras with meters and assorted handheld meters of both incident and reflective type, as well as now having digital cameras with meters. And having compared all of them in metering a uniformly lit no-detail wall for absolute uniformity of measurement (and done comparisons on multiple occassions under multiple circumstance, I can find no difference of any significance in the metered result.
And when I expose digitally it puts 18% grey at 48% density, which is numerically darned close enough to 'middle tone between white and black' for my purposes!
I have had 'analog' as a religion for decades, yet i am firmly convinced that meters are agnostic (not 'analog' meters vs 'digital') and the members of both faiths can believe they are not worshipping a false god by using either kind of meter (film camera meter vs. digital camera meter)
The God of Gods, ISO, has separate standards
1. for incident meters and for reflective light meters,there are not TWO separate meter standards, one 'for film' and ther other 'for digital'! So ISO has a similar belief as me that meters are agnostic, too.
2. for film sensitivity, and
3. for digital camera sensitivity...
Ok I see. That would work with Velvia 50. Then I'd forget I had the ND on when I switched to Tmax 100 or Provia 100. This is where stand-alone meters are more convenient.I believe the poster was referring to putting the ND film on your digital camera to reduce its effective ISO to match your film speed.
In addition, there are 2 separate standards for in-camera metering, one for film cameras and another for digital. Having only seen the catalogue and the insufficient preview, it’s not clear if they are harmonized or not. I would think that they are.
https://www.iso.org/ics/37.040.10.html
Sure, perhaps I should have been more clear... In addition, there are 2 separate standards THAT INCLUDES in-camera metering AS PART OF THE TOTAL IMAGING EQUATION, one for film cameras and another for digital. It appears that they are harmonized for film and digital equivalency, for cameras that conform to the current standard.It is NOT 'for metering'...the standard is for film response to light vs. the total digital system response to light (not only the sensor)....it has nothing to do with calibration of meters, which is one separate ISO standard of its own.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...eter-to-shoot-film.189162/page-5#post-2507711
Not literally the ISO standards, which would cost us money. But I have had opportunity to read what I will call 'interpretations', although I can't say I have sufficient recollection to relate even part of one interpretation pertaining to film or to digital system., I've only seen the titles and previews. The most important content are in the "normative" portions of the standards. Have you had the opportunity to actually read the standards? As mentioned earlier in one of these rabbit-hold discussions, I lost my access to standards when I retired... and I really miss that.
Not literally the ISO standards, which would cost us money. But I have had opportunity to read what I will call 'interpretations', although I can't say I have sufficient recollection to relate even part of one interpretation pertaining to film or to digital system.
That brings up an interesting question.In addition, there are 2 separate standards for in-camera metering, one for film cameras and another for digital. Having only seen the catalogue and the insufficient preview, it’s not clear if they are harmonized or not. I would think that they are.
https://www.iso.org/ics/37.040.10.html
For all practical purposes… I’d agree that those are the same.That brings up an interesting question.
Just for fun, I did a quick non-exhaustive test. I compared the exposure reading from my Canon XTi digital camera to the exposure read by my Gossen Lunapro F. I set both to 200 iso. I checked them against a uniform white surface and the two gave the same reading. I checked them against an overcast sky and they were within 1/3 stop. I figure this means that for all practical purposes the digital camera gives the same reading as my hand held meter, or at least close enough. I also compared the XTi to a Canon T2 film camera, and they gave the same readings.
Or the camera was calibrated to the reading used in that camera.If they were different, and it was the camera that was mis calibrated, then all the pictures you took would be over or under exposed.
Your experience is precisely why I said earlier, "I have had 'analog' as a religion for decades, yet i am firmly convinced that meters are agnostic (not 'analog' meters vs 'digital') and the members of both faiths can believe they are not worshipping a false god by using either kind of meter (film camera meter vs. digital camera meter)"That brings up an interesting question.
Just for fun, I did a quick non-exhaustive test. I compared the exposure reading from my Canon XTi digital camera to the exposure read by my Gossen Lunapro F. I set both to 200 iso. I checked them against a uniform white surface and the two gave the same reading. I checked them against an overcast sky and they were within 1/3 stop. I figure this means that for all practical purposes the digital camera gives the same reading as my hand held meter, or at least close enough. I also compared the XTi to a Canon T2 film camera, and they gave the same readings.
Good point.Your experience is precisely why I said earlier, "I have had 'analog' as a religion for decades, yet i am firmly convinced that meters are agnostic (not 'analog' meters vs 'digital') and the members of both faiths can believe they are not worshipping a false god by using either kind of meter (film camera meter vs. digital camera meter)"
In addition, there are 2 separate standards for in-camera metering, one for film cameras and another for digital. Having only seen the catalogue and the insufficient preview, it’s not clear if they are harmonized or not. I would think that they are.
https://www.iso.org/ics/37.040.10.html
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?