My information may be out of date. But it's pretty amazing with the progress of digital sensors.Modern sensors have much more dynamic range than film. They capture light values way above 255. Think 16,000 or higher, that's about 14 stops. D850 is rated at almost 15.
Let's discuss what that means. Regardless of the range of the digital camera, whether it's 10 stops or 15 stops, its automatic exposure control puts the scene to 18% gray of whatever it's looking at. So if you're using a center-weighted or viewing the entire view like Nikon's matrix metering, the metering should be in the "center". So how would that be different than looking at a handheld meter doing the same thing?Alan, you're right. A histogram is not just specific to digital, it is also specific to the camera/sensor. I too use my digital camera as a meter sometimes, but I do not trust the histogram at all. Instead, I use it in the spot mode, evaluating shadows & highlights separately before making a decision. It's good having a 18% grey card too, as it helps to better understand how your meters work: you can set up a contrasty scene with a camera on a tripod, then you can take different measurements, watch how histogram behaves, move the grey card around and take spot readings off it, to see how it all works together.
Glad you joined the discussion. You just got me thinking. I don't use the zone system. But I just thought they it works on ten or eleven stops. Does that mean that all film have the same number of stops? If they don't, wouldn't film users of the zone system have the same issue as we are describing: that the range of digital cameras are different and meter readings then have to be taken into consideration of those ranges. Yes? No?Alan, I too use my digital camera (Nikon D750) as a scene metering tool for my film work (Nikon F6 with Kodak Tri-X usually). I am very interested in this histogram thread because, as you, I don’t fully understand the correlation between the digital histogram and the scene light values. I’ve had excellent results taking a digital image and looking at the results in camera to get an idea of where the shadow and highlight details fall. Additionally, the F6 has a great metering system and Tri-X has decent exposure latitude, thus, I’d say my results are generally great and most of the time using the histogram isn’t necessary.
Recently, I shot some snow scenes and this is where the digital and film responses were wider apart. Obviously, in digital we expose for the highlights and film for the shadows. With the limitations in dynamic range and film exposure latitude, this situation drove different camera settings (normally identical settings will give acceptable results). Histogram data may have helped here.
In short, I don’t have any histogram revelations to add to this thread with the exception of this: if you can obtain the film performance curve and (here’s the tricky part) your camera’s histogram/sensor performance data, then a correlation of reasonable values might be obtained. However, I don’t know if any camera manufacturers release that performance data due to proprietary concerns.
Considerably more than that.Does anyone know what Tmax film range would have? (7 stops??)
1. If the range of my digital camera is let's say 10 stops, which is less than BW film, then I don't have anything to worry about if the histogram does not clip at either side. Does that make sense?Considerably more than that.
It is the print range that is the limiting factor. The film is matched to that, and printing maps the much wider film range on to the narrower range print material.
Slide film, which is its own presentation medium, is the one where dynamic range is determined by the film.
That's pretty much what I do. I make sure the histogram fits without clipping and then just back off a little about 1/3 stop from the white side if I'm pushing it. I haven't shot enough though using this method to verify if my procedure works and is consistent. That's why I'm asking others for their experience.You will have to do a test but without that I think you can treat the slides and digital the same. I think the point is about 2.7EV more exposure than the meter indicated.
Don't forget that the Zones in the Zone System mostly refer to tones in prints!
.That's pretty much what I do. I make sure the histogram fits without clipping and then just back off a little about 1/3 stop from the white side if I'm pushing it. I haven't shot enough though using this method to verify if my procedure works and is consistent. That's why I'm asking others for their experience.
b
Could you clarify what you mean by 2.7EV more exposure than the meter?
The Kodak data sheets truncate the characteristic curve, to the portion that is easily transferred to photographic paper with a straight print. There is a lot more dynamic range available, out past the range shown in them.Dynamic range is shown in the characteristic curve in the data sheet. It's about 10EV for T-Max 400 and considerably less for other B&W emulsions that hover around 7-8.
I've used digital cameras as light meters, on and off for several years, I find that I get best results from my old Pentax K 200 with CDC sensor or Sigma SD 10 with Faveon sensor, matrix mode has done a surprisingly good job with roll film. When I shoot 4X5 or 21/4 X 31/4 sheet film I use a hand held.
Why not with 4x5?
Better be careful with that - it can get you in real troublea gray card and indecent reading light meter has been my approach
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?