Using a digital camera as a light meter to shoot film

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah. I know. Switch to a handheld meter. That's not what I want to do though even though I've used one for years. I started this journey based on another photographer's suggestion whose work I like. The camera also gives me the ability to see the views in BW and figure out which lens I need using the zoom. I can also record settings, and other notes and capture an image of the scene for reference.

 

[BrianShaw]

Why not? To me it sounds like a lot of time involved but if you get the image you want there is no harm and no foul.

 

[BradS]

It seems like a valid and interesting approach. Does it not work well for you?

 

[BrianShaw]

But after all of that, why bother capturing the image on film?

 

[fiddle]

I also know a photographer who uses a 4/3rds camera I believe, closer framing to 4x5, and uses it as a viewfinder/light meter.
He does amazing work. I've used my.phpne before in a pinch and have been pretty spot.on.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It seems like a valid and interesting approach. Does it not work well for you?

Well, I've only used this method for a while. I'm still playing with it and have had good success although some pictures are screwed up. But that could be from other issues as I'm new to 4x5 cameras. Right now I'm trying to see how issues caused by the difference in stops between the camera and film might affect my process. I'm looking for ideas. Thanks.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I also know a photographer who uses a 4/3rds camera I believe, closer framing to 4x5, and uses it as a viewfinder/light meter.
He does amazing work. I've used my.phpne before in a pinch and have been pretty spot.on.

What's his name or link. I'd like to see his work. Where can I see your work?

 

[nbagno]

What's his name or link. I'd like to see his work. Where can I see your work?

Alex Burke uses a digital camera for metering.

 

[ColdEye]

I use to do this, when I had cameras with no light meter and I had no hand held meters. You can use a grey card and spot meter that via digital camera for an easy all around value to work with. A grey card is about a Zone V. Obviously this would be tough to use on far away subjects.

 

[fiddle]

That's exactly who I was talking about. Alex Burke.
As far as me, I don't post all that much online, I did create a site out of boredom, needing practice with my web skills.
Aimlessphotos.com
Wouldn't really consider it work tho.

 

[Paul Howell]

I do use my Sigma SD 9 and 10 as a light meter for MF and LF, I've found that in most cases the Matrix mode of my Sigma work really well with B&W and Color, my Sony A77II does not work as well, while the CCD sensor on my Pentax K2000 is also good. Some have posted that over the generations digital camera metering has evolved and the same ISO setting will not result in the same exposure on film as on the sensor. Although the back screens on my SD 9 and 10 are really poor, they do give me an idea of the final wet print will look, sort of like a crappy polaroid. But, if I really want to visualize I use a spot meter. I could use the SD 10 with a long lens in spot metering mode, but I find a spot meter to be more accurate.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alex Burke uses a digital camera for metering.

Yes. That's who I got the idea from in the first place. But I'm still confused by the stops difference issue between camera and film and would like to explore that further.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use to do this, when I had cameras with no light meter and I had no hand held meters. You can use a grey card and spot meter that via digital camera for an easy all around value to work with. A grey card is about a Zone V. Obviously this would be tough to use on far away subjects.

The digital camera has a zoom lens. If I zoom in, I can do a 1-3 degree spot reading with it.

 

[benjiboy]

I know I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest here Alan, but in the U.K version of the magazine Professional Photographer a few years ago did extensive tests to see if several different digital cameras sensors gave the same results as a light meter on film, the conclusion they came to was that with each manufacturer's digital camera the sensor was calibrated to that particular camera's sensor and that the results on film without using a light meter couldn't be relied on to give accurate exposure. In short for example, 100 I.S.O even on different makes and models of digital cameras are not the same.
P.S. I have no axe to grind I don't even own a digital S.L.R.

 

[fiddle]

same can be said for light meters, not all meters read the same, but, you own one, and know what it reads, so you shoot with that one.

 

[Pieter12]

Black and white film has enough range so that using pretty much any digital camera for meter reading should work out fine. Color reversal film is another story, but I only shoot color on digital, so that's not an issue for me. One drawback to using a digital camera as a meter is some don't have the low ISO range I sometimes use for film, so calculations and compensation needs to be done. Although I end up using a flash meter for readings, I often use a digital camera as a preview (like Polaroid in the old days) when shooting with strobes.

 

[tokam]

I know I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest here Alan, but in the U.K version of the magazine Professional Photographer a few years ago did extensive tests to see if several different digital cameras sensors gave the same results as a light meter on film, the conclusion they came to was that with each manufacturer's digital camera the sensor was calibrated to that particular camera's sensor and that the results on film without using a light meter couldn't be relied on to give accurate exposure. In short for example, 100 I.S.O even on different makes and models of digital cameras are not the same.
P.S. I have no axe to grind I don't even own a digital S.L.R.

Yes, this is what would concern me - the correlation between film ISO and digital sensor ISO sensitivy. I have couple of good Gossen meters plus a few Canon FD bodies that I trust so it might be time to drag a couple of old Olympus 4/3 cameras which don't get much use and see how the meter readings compare. If the variance in readings is reasonably constant then it should be practicable to program in exposure compensation on the digital camera and proceed from there. This would need to be done for each digital camera separately.

 

[DMJ]

I might need a graduated ND filter to keep everything in range

And you can visualize the effect of the graduated ND on the LCD while looking at the histogram. I used to use an Olympus M43 camera and set up the clipping indicators to match my metering for b&w film. It also had the option to shoot 1:1 and with the right lens I could visualize and meter the scenes I shot with my Bronica SQ-A.

The main issue is that the histogram is based on a jpeg image created for the LCD display, and not the raw image, so even if the image is clipping on the screen it might be within the sensor range. You could easily run several tests with a roll of 35mm and then adjust the clipping indicators accordingly if your digital camera allows for it. Each digital camera/lens combination need to be tested as they all show different histogram readings.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I know I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest here Alan, but in the U.K version of the magazine Professional Photographer a few years ago did extensive tests to see if several different digital cameras sensors gave the same results as a light meter on film, the conclusion they came to was that with each manufacturer's digital camera the sensor was calibrated to that particular camera's sensor and that the results on film without using a light meter couldn't be relied on to give accurate exposure. In short for example, 100 I.S.O even on different makes and models of digital cameras are not the same.
P.S. I have no axe to grind I don't even own a digital S.L.R.

I checked my digital camera against my handheld meter and it appears they're the same readings. That was the first thing I checked when I started using the camera as a meter. Maybe it's coincidental with my camera. I'm using an Olympus E-PL1 micro 4/3. I think it was their first micro 4/3 model. The handheld is a Minolta IIIF Autometer. Of course, if the readings are different after checking, you can then adjust the ISO setting to offset the error.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yes, this is what would concern me - the correlation between film ISO and digital sensor ISO sensitivy. I have couple of good Gossen meters plus a few Canon FD bodies that I trust so it might be time to drag a couple of old Olympus 4/3 cameras which don't get much use and see how the meter readings compare. If the variance in readings is reasonably constant then it should be practicable to program in exposure compensation on the digital camera and proceed from there. This would need to be done for each digital camera separately.

My old Sigma SD 9 and 10 matchs my Gossen, as does my Pentax K2000. I send my Gossen off every couple of years for calibrating so I petty sure I get good reading which matches my SA 7 and 9, not surprising as the SD 9 and 10 use the same meter as the SA 7 and 9. On the other hand my Sigma SD 15 is a stop under my Gossen, Sony A900 and A77II around a stop and half under. No issues with exposure when copied to Corel, different sensors, different meters, work fine in digital land, not so much with film, not I could not adjust by adjusting E.I of film by a stop.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Black and white film has enough range so that using pretty much any digital camera for meter reading should work out fine. Color reversal film is another story, but I only shoot color on digital, so that's not an issue for me. One drawback to using a digital camera as a meter is some don't have the low ISO range I sometimes use for film, so calculations and compensation needs to be done. Although I end up using a flash meter for readings, I often use a digital camera as a preview (like Polaroid in the old days) when shooting with strobes.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, this is what would concern me - the correlation between film ISO and digital sensor ISO sensitivy. I have couple of good Gossen meters plus a few Canon FD bodies that I trust so it might be time to drag a couple of old Olympus 4/3 cameras which don't get much use and see how the meter readings compare. If the variance in readings is reasonably constant then it should be practicable to program in exposure compensation on the digital camera and proceed from there. This would need to be done for each digital camera separately.

I don;t have a DSLR. But if I did, I don;t know if I want to use it as a meter. It;s so much larger than the micro 4/3 which is about the same size as most hand held meters. I also keep it in my camera bag just in case.

 

[MattKing]

Of course, if the readings are different after checking, you can then adjust the ISO setting to offset the error.

This assumes that the difference is both consistent and linear.
You need to check at a variety of different light levels, and make sure you are reading the same area.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And you can visualize the effect of the graduated ND on the LCD while looking at the histogram. I used to use an Olympus M43 camera and set up the clipping indicators to match my metering for b&w film. It also had the option to shoot 1:1 and with the right lens I could visualize and meter the scenes I shot with my Bronica SQ-A.

The main issue is that the histogram is based on a jpeg image created for the LCD display, and not the raw image, so even if the image is clipping on the screen it might be within the sensor range. You could easily run several tests with a roll of 35mm and then adjust the clipping indicators accordingly if your digital camera allows for it. Each digital camera/lens combination need to be tested as they all show different histogram readings.

I think you meant it would be in the film's range. That makes sense. The Olympus has a dynamic range DR of between 7 and 10 depending Assuming film is less, then if clipping shows on the digital camera's histogram, it might not be apparent on film. So my lowering the exposure setting a half of a stop if it does show clipping is just a safe measure.

Also, isn;t the fact I'm reading an average with the camera jus as I would be reading a gray subject with its reflective reading or even an incident reading on a hand held meter? They're all giving average readings in effect. So how you compensate for an average reading with a meter would be about the same with using the digital camera as a meter. Or am I missing something?