As I understand it, the reason you are supposed to hold the card at an angle is that it eliminates problems with specular reflection off of the surface of the card.
You can discount any meter reading you get from digital cameras from your experiments because the light meters in digital cameras are calibrated to the particular camera model's sensor not to the sensitivity of film, ie. 100 I.S.O. in a digital S.L.R. can produce a different exposure to the same I.S.O. on film
I trust my Sekonic L758D meter because I work backwards.
Instead of using the meter to set the camera exposure I use a known correct camera exposure to set the meter. Near my house is a standard scene (sky, clouds, trees, road, houses, etc) that never changes and always has the same subject luminances on the predictable and consistent (10am to 2pm typically) sunny days that plague my area of the world. I make a series of bracketed film exposures, run a short distance to the darkroom, process the film and pick the best negative. I run back to the scene before the light changes and follow my standard metering (shadows, highlights, mid-tones, etc) sequence. Then I tweak the ISO setting so that the meter delivers the reading that I already KNOW is correct. If I use a different film or different developer I can go back to the standard scene and do another "backwards" calibration.
That indeed can be the case for that particular model, but not by any means for all D.S.L.R'sOdd, then, that my Minolta Spotmeter F pointed at a grey card gives me the same readings as my Canon 40D pointed at the same grey card?!
That indeed can be the case for that particular model, but not by any means for all D.S.L.R's
Most meters are very accurate and I truly mean that. The only inaccurate meters I've found are the broken ones.
Beyond stuff that's broken, the wild card is us, not the meter; it's in how we set and use our metering systems, the nodifiers we dial in, our understanding of what they are seeing and what they are really telling us.
There is a huge gap in understanding about what meters tell us and what causes them to suggest various readings. That's not the meter's fault.
Part of the problem is makers trying to sell us magic bullets, the rest is us not taking the time to understand.
I wouldn't call it ridiculous at all, like I said in a previous post (with a minor correction now) if you measure unobscured sunlight you will get 2000-3500 FCs w/ an incident meter. Ev 14 2/3 is approx ~3300 fcs. Even if you double this 6600 FCs (say if you're on the ISS or hang out in nuclear reactors), or half-it (say you're in a smoggy city) that's only one stop difference either way. I'd say that's a pretty reliable way to get the close to the determining the right exposure. And, as for perfect exposure, I think none of my negs ever where 'perfectly' exposed, as I exposed for my subject(s). In my opinion the sunny 16 principle combined with bracketing you just can't go wrong. And if your meter doesn't agree with this, wait for a nice sunny day to calibrate it.
Most meters are very accurate and I truly mean that. The only inaccurate meters I've found are the broken ones.
Beyond stuff that's broken, the wild card is us, not the meter; it's in how we set and use our metering systems, the nodifiers we dial in, our understanding of what they are seeing and what they are really telling us.
There is a huge gap in understanding about what meters tell us and what causes them to suggest various readings. That's not the meter's fault.
Part of the problem is makers trying to sell us magic bullets, the rest is us not taking the time to understand.
^ +1.
how do you knoe they are accuratewithout a known point of reference?that said, I can verify that my Gossens are accurate and precise;my reference point for accuracy is the sun and repeated measurements establish precision.
This is what can happen if you trust your light meter in extreme or "difficult" lighting conditions...
View attachment 88451
That is a model on a branch...
When I turned her (and myself) around with the sun at my back, this was the result (sorry don't have the film, but trust it was MUCH denser...)
View attachment 88452
I usually use my light meter, and had it strapped to my belt, but was balancing on a the log and figured the in camera meter couldn't have been TOO bad... Not making that mistake... At least in abnormal light conditions...
EDIT I meant on camera meter vs spot.
how do you knoe they are accuratewithout a known point of reference?that said, I can verify that my Gossens are accurate and precise;my reference point for accuracy is the sun and repeated measurements establish precision.
I have tested my meters to common targets. I verify with sunny 16.
Tone judgement isn't clear cut, it's a bloody mess. I have no idea how many times I've been told or heard somebody say just meter off the face and open up a stop. Problem is that that is a flawed reference; is it the light side, dark side, or do we split the difference? Include the hair or not? ... Someone with lots of experience can do this easily probably because they intuitively do certain things that make it work for them but they may have a tough time really telling their "student" how. It's tough to get people to agree on the reading off a gray card let alone a face. Metering the shadows is even tougher because the human eye is less able to deal with judging shadows than with mid tones...I don't mean to suggest that reflective meters are tough to use, what I'm saying is that as the situation gets trickier the odds of an in camera meter getting fooled goes up a bunch.
Your mistake was not using an incident meter when you were photographing a highly reflective subject.
This is what can happen if you trust your light meter in extreme or "difficult" lighting conditions...
View attachment 88451
That is a model on a branch...
When I turned her (and myself) around with the sun at my back, this was the result (sorry don't have the film, but trust it was MUCH denser...)
View attachment 88452
I usually use my light meter, and had it strapped to my belt, but was balancing on a the log and figured the in camera meter couldn't have been TOO bad... Not making that mistake... At least in abnormal light conditions...
EDIT I meant on camera meter vs spot.
Umm, it was denser because you not only have the Sun to contend with, but there is a fair amount of moonlight in that shot as well.
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?