Using an external meter by choice

[MattKing]

I think using a digital camera as a reflective meter is interesting, and possibly quite flexible, especially when a tiny camera like the ancient Canon G9 is involved. I shall not discuss it here, as it is unwelcome.

Just pick the right sub-forum, and the discussion is welcome.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I use more fingers on a camera where I manually focus, set aperture, and shutter speed, wind the film on and take off the lens cap (rather then press the power button, the internal lens cap opens, auto-exposure is set, auto-focus occurs, and then with a second touch of the same index finger I press the 'shutter' button), is not the first camera more 'digital'?
I know, I'm being silly. But sometimes silly people exist to point fun at silly rules. Probably doesn't apply here.

Still, it seems there is room for a discussion about choosing an external meter, especially with old film cameras that may have agëd and faulty internal meters. And even when they work as new, incident metering, or spot metering may be better than the built-in meter. I think using a digital camera as a reflective meter is interesting, and possibly quite flexible, especially when a tiny camera like the ancient Canon G9 is involved. I shall not discuss it here, as it is unwelcome. Ultimately, a good incident meter either outperforms all that bother, or gets to the same result with one press of a digit, rather than use of many digits, extending into the billions.

Before I had a spot meter I would use my Nikon F100 with a 28mm to 300mm zoom set in the 250mm to 300mm range as a spot meter for my Hasselblad and 4"x5" cameras. No need for digital in that case.

 

[faberryman]

If I use more fingers on a camera where I manually focus, set aperture, and shutter speed, wind the film on and take off the lens cap (rather then press the power button, the internal lens cap opens, auto-exposure is set, auto-focus occurs, and then with a second touch of the same index finger I press the 'shutter' button), is not the first camera more 'digital'?
I know, I'm being silly. But sometimes silly people exist to point fun at silly rules. Probably doesn't apply here.

Still, it seems there is room for a discussion about choosing an external meter, especially with old film cameras that may have agëd and faulty internal meters. And even when they work as new, incident metering, or spot metering may be better than the built-in meter. I think using a digital camera as a reflective meter is interesting, and possibly quite flexible, especially when a tiny camera like the ancient Canon G9 is involved. I shall not discuss it here, as it is unwelcome. Ultimately, a good incident meter either outperforms all that bother, or gets to the same result with one press of a digit, rather than use of many digits, extending into the billions.

I don't see the advantage of carrying a digital camera around to use as a light meter. It is a lot easier to just to carry around a light meter. Besides, after a while, you might think it is a lot easier to just carry around a digital camera. I mean you've got it right there; you might as well use it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't see the advantage of carrying a digital camera around to use as a light meter. It is a lot easier to just to carry around a light meter. Besides, after a while, you might think it is a lot easier to just carry around digital camera. I mean you've got it right there; you might as well use it.

Large cameras especially if accompanied by tripods increase in mass by the cube of the distance carried.

 

[faberryman]

Large cameras especially if accompanied by tripods increase in mass by the cube of the distance carried.

I have never done the math, but that sounds about right to me. Besides, when you get old, you take smaller steps, which means you have to go further to get there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have never done the math, but that sounds about right to me. Besides, when you get old, you take smaller steps, which means you have to go further to get there.

Also for some as the age the ground underneath them becomes less stable. Growing old is not for the wimpy or weak willed.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've done a number of tests with a spotmeter and going through the whole zone system exercise to determine an exposure and then compared to the matrix metering on my Nikon. Every time the Nikon gave the correct reading, so I have just used it. The only time I use a hand held meter if if I am using a large format camera exclusively and have left the 35mm at home.

It's hard to beat matrix metering. It's fast too!

 

[Bill Burk]

It's hard to beat matrix metering. It's fast too!

Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.

Anymore, these days I am trying to use cameras with manual shutter speeds.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.

When Nikon released AMP metering (I think in 1983 and I first saw it in 1984 in Australia) one of the big claims was the speed with which the metering system evaluated every single frame, even if the camera (Nikon FA) was being driven by a motor drive attached.

The idea being that no two frames were identical, even if the camera was moved by only one millimetre, there would be an ever so slight change in the evaluation.

I have been using a Gossen Profi-Six meter for most pictures I take since 1985 when I picked it up in Germany. If I don't have the Gossen I invariably use a Wallace Expo-Disc on the end of the lens with the camera pointed to the light source to get an extremely accurate light reading.

When using 35mm cameras I don't take a light reading prior to every shot, I take a light reading, set the camera and unless the light changes, or the subject reflectance matter changes, I leave the exposure settings as they are. Pretty much worked very well ever since.

I seem to remember that Nikon received some kind of scientific award from the Japanese government for this metering system.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's hard to beat matrix metering. It's fast too!

And that makes it even more fun.

 

[Bill Burk]

…

The idea being that no two frames were identical, even if the camera was moved by only one millimetre, there would be an ever so slight change in the evaluation.

I’d sure enjoy a matrix metered match-needle on a camera with fully mechanical shutter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.

Anymore, these days I am trying to use cameras with manual shutter speeds.

Then come down half way down on the trigger and the light meter will reset the exposure.

 

[Craig]

I’d sure enjoy a matrix metered match-needle on a camera with fully mechanical shutter.

The Nikon F4 basically fits that. In manual mode correct exposure is at the center of the scale, and then it adds dots either to the positive or negative side to show if you are over or underexposed. Not quite a needle, but it functions exactly the same in terms of indicating under or over exposure.

It's a mechanical shutter, just happens to be electronically timed. All shutters are mechanical devices on film cameras at least.

 

[wiltw]

This link wrongly calls it 'calibrating', but it really is cleaning the contact so that oxidation no longer prevents the contacts from connecting!
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...ype=&tbs=#kpvalbx=_N8LgYYfnEMvLkPIP59mI8Ak119

To test, remove the incident dome and locate a spring-loaded pin beneath. The meter reading should be different when the pin is fully extended than when you push it into the housing. If there is no difference, the contacts need to be cleaned.

I found an old post of mine:

"On the Autometer IVf, there is a metal pin which is revealed when the hemisphere is removed. The pin is normally depressed by a raised surface on the underside of the black plastic ring around the white hemisphere. This same pin is NOT depressed by the reflected light attachment (hole in the center) black ring. The pin is actually a switch and it alters meter sensitivity and readings.​

It sometimes occurs that the pin/switch stops functioning, so that the white hemisphere presses on the pin but the switch does not alter the readings. Sometimes, if the pin/switch stops functioning correctly, if you merely press and release the pin multiple times it starts working again (oxidation on the contacts of the switch?!?!). In other cases, it was necessary to send it to Minolta repair to have the switch replaced. My own Autometer IVf meter acted up a couple of times, and pressing and releasing the pin multiple times would fix it."​

I just found another old post of mine...
"in a test I just did, with the hemishere without switch pressed vs. with switch pressed the reading changes +4.5EV"

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When Nikon released AMP metering (I think in 1983 and I first saw it in 1984 in Australia) one of the big claims was the speed with which the metering system evaluated every single frame, even if the camera (Nikon FA) was being driven by a motor drive attached.

The idea being that no two frames were identical, even if the camera was moved by only one millimetre, there would be an ever so slight change in the evaluation.

I have been using a Gossen Profi-Six meter for most pictures I take since 1985 when I picked it up in Germany. If I don't have the Gossen I invariably use a Wallace Expo-Disc on the end of the lens with the camera pointed to the light source to get an extremely accurate light reading.

When using 35mm cameras I don't take a light reading prior to every shot, I take a light reading, set the camera and unless the light changes, or the subject reflectance matter changes, I leave the exposure settings as they are. Pretty much worked very well ever since.

I seem to remember that Nikon received some kind of scientific award from the Japanese government for this metering system.

That's a great idea especially if you need a series of pictures to look the same from shot to shot.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Alan, that technique works very well if you print your own negatives and it is extremely effective if you are printing almost every frame. Once you are in the swing of things in the darkroom and reading the slight differences in density from a contact sheet, you can almost seamlessly print one negative after the other without requiring test prints.

That technique is great for the majority of prints one makes and hands out to friends and family, but if a well printed image is required, then one is virtually required to do at least one test print, or test print strip from each negative. I don't think I have ever made an excellent print with one go; ever!

The Wallace Expo Disc is also the perfect tool to get the most accurate neutral grey reference negative possible, which makes working in the darkroom colour printing almost as easy as counting 1, 2, 3.

 

[Alan Gales]

Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.

Anymore, these days I am trying to use cameras with manual shutter speeds.

That's true of course but I don't quite understand your point. If I'm photographing something and reframe and the light's different, I'm going to take another meter reading anyway.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Except it’s an individual shot evaluation and if you reframe you may not get shot to shot continuity.

Anymore, these days I am trying to use cameras with manual shutter speeds.

That's true of course but I don't quite understand your point. If I'm photographing something and reframe and the light's different, I'm going to take another meter reading anyway.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I can't afford to have a camera matrix program guess for me. I need to know the specifics before I pop the shutter. Go out and buy a box of 8X10 color film these days, and a big wide roll of color paper, then compute what you're time is worth, and if you're ever going to able to replicate a particular shot, and most likely not - and then you'll start to think just like me. Then in black and white applications, standing at the edge of a shimmering ice field and needing to know exactly where those high values are going to land on the film curve, and at the other extreme the deepest shadows - and what the heck good is TTL matrix metering in those cases?

Or course, the digi crowd would tell you to just resort to HDR for handling high contrast, and the Zonie darkroom practitioners would advise you to resort to serious minus or pull or compensation development. But not all of us like soggy pancakes, watered-down coffee, or blaaah images with most off the life and sparkle stomped out of them. I'd rather skate right to the edges of the rink of linear film response; and therefore it's important to establish exactly where those boundaries are.

 

[Pieter12]

Bracket.

 

[Craig]

- and what the heck good is TTL matrix metering in those cases?.

In my experience, I can spend a whole bunch of time making spot readings, calculating zone system placements and finally coming up with an approximate exposure ( by which time the light has changed anyway because the sun went behind a cloud while I was futzing about taking a hundred million readings with my hand held meter), or I could just use the matrix meter in the F6 and get the correct value in a fraction of a second. Transfer it to the LF camera and press the shutter. Done. Correct every time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Light is constantly changing, things move, 8x10 color film is over $30 per shot, and there's limit to how much weight and how many holders you can carry anyway - and you say, Bracket ??????? Ha! I learned long ago that a skilled sniper can hit the target way more efficiently with a single shot than a wild machine-gunner with two hundred rounds. I never bracket anything unless it's something like a new film test in small format. That's why meters were invented to begin with! Learn to use em. "Bracketing" is just a fancy synonym for guessing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bracket.

OR use the meter in the camera or external meter, meter without the sky, learn to use the meter, have the meter calibrated, have the camera maintained, ... Then were will be no need to bracket.

 

[DREW WILEY]

And Craig .... If you're really all tangled up trying to figure out this and that Zone Theory variable, it means your protocol is still largely just that - theory. I can do it so spontaneously that it's just as fast as anything you're doing; even faster because I don't need to dig out an accessory F6 ten times heavier than a spot meter. And NO, no f/6 meter reading is the same thing - again, matrix metering is just a tweak of averaging, some kind of program doing something for you, and your blind faith in it. I want to know the actual hard margins, not have some secondary algorithm interpolate it. That kind of TTL system might be the cat's meow for certain shooting tasks - I have a friend who loves it for his commercial color snapshooting, but he has a studio with balanced lighting. And LF work, especially outdoors, is indeed a lot more like the role of a sniper, and the priority is upon precision. Get it right the first time. But I carry that mentality right down to my MF photography too.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

In my experience, I can spend a whole bunch of time making spot readings, calculating zone system placements and finally coming up with an approximate exposure ( by which time the light has changed anyway because the sun went behind a cloud while I was futzing about taking a hundred million readings with my hand held meter), or I could just use the matrix meter in the F6 and get the correct value in a fraction of a second. Transfer it to the LF camera and press the shutter. Done. Correct every time.

Thank you for saying this! Incidentally I had recently asked in a zone system thread if anybody had compared zone system with matrix metering in practice and based on the responses I got an impression that none had.