gotium Posted February 7, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have never used a hand-held light meter, but would like to try one for use with an M9; I find myself exposure-bracketing via chimping quite a bit, and would like to explore other methods. Anyone have recommendations on where to start? I've read through a couple of recent posts, and looked up some meters mentioned - i.e. Gossen Digipro and Digisix, for example. Then they seem to get much more expensive when one adds spot metering. Would that be useful? Thanks for any thoughts. Graham Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Hi gotium, Take a look here Where to start with a hand-held light meter for use with an M9?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted February 7, 2011 Share #2 Posted February 7, 2011 Have you tried auto-bracketing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 7, 2011 Share #3 Posted February 7, 2011 I would start looking in the light meter section of eBay. That's where I got my light meters from (several). The brands to look for are (in no particular order) Gossen, Minolta, and Sekonic. My absolute favourite—unless flash metering is required—is the old Minolta Auto Meter II ... the self-rotating dial is so cool, and quality, accuracy, and metering range are second to none. A very good, versatile, and easy-to-find light meter is the Minolta Auto Meter IVF. The best Gossen meters are Lunasix 3S, Lunasix F, and Profisix. With the Sekonic line I am not familiar enough to recommend a particular model. If you want to buy new then look for Gossen, Kenko, and Sekonic. After Minolta stopped making light meters, Kenko has bought the product line and keeps making them under their own name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted February 7, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 7, 2011 IMHO the most generally useful hand-held meter for digital is an incident-light meter. One-degree spot meters are handy now and than (e.g. when you can't get the incident-light meter into the same light as the subject or if you're photographing a light source such as a stained glass window). They're really useful with black and white film, where the general rule is "expose for the shadows" and the spot lets you make precise measurements; but they're much less important for digital, where it's generally more important to get the highlights - which an incident light meter does automatically in most circumstances. Other reflected-light meters - 5, 20, 30 or more degrees acceptance angle - are pretty much pointless when your camera has a good TTL meter. These days I'd only buy one with a digital display, or perhaps one of the old Gossens where you turn a dial to zero the needle. Meters with a needle that swings across a scale are more fragile and never seem quite as accurate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted February 7, 2011 Share #5 Posted February 7, 2011 I have never used a hand-held light meter, but would like to try one for use with an M9; I find myself exposure-bracketing via chimping quite a bit, and would like to explore other methods. Anyone have recommendations on where to start? I've read through a couple of recent posts, and looked up some meters mentioned - i.e. Gossen Digipro and Digisix, for example. Then they seem to get much more expensive when one adds spot metering. Would that be useful? Thanks for any thoughts. Graham Graham, getting exposure right is a skill which is worth mastering. It is possible with the M9 provided you are prepared to walk the camera into a difficultly illuminated scene and set your camera manually. Choose the areas which are important to get right. Generally use of manual settings is more accurate because you can be selective. I would recommend you persevere without an external meter in the first instance. Regular bracketing is not part of my practice unless faced with a particularly difficult subject and lighting. Second, use Raw capture because that gives you much more flexibility in post-processing. It is amazing what information you can recover which is lost if you rely on recording jpegs only. Learning to use a separate meter is yet another skill; whole books have been written on Exposure. Many swear by their old Weston Master meters, which I still have, which have been proven over time. However selenium cells do age so you need to be careful in what you buy. Use of the Invercone attachment is advisable, but not essential. Buying a separate meter seems to be price-sensitive for you, so try and master metering in camera first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 7, 2011 Share #6 Posted February 7, 2011 These days I'd only buy one with a digital display, or perhaps one of the old Gossens where you turn a dial to zero the needle. Meters with a needle that swings across a scale are more fragile and never seem quite as accurate. I feel the least thing to desire is a light meter with a digital display ... in particular for use with a rangefinder camera. True—they get the job done and tend to be a bit less fragile. But in terms of accuracy and precision, displays with a needle don't leave anything to be desired, and they're much nicer to use. By the way, the Minolta Auto Meter and Auto Meter II aren't digital and still have no needles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted February 7, 2011 Share #7 Posted February 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Graham, If I read your post correctly (and what the others seem to be missing) is that you would like to "learn how to use a light meter". Sekonic has just recently updated their blog and if you take the time to go through it you will find plenty of good videos (although most are about incident and using the meter in a studio). Sekonic Blog | Control Light They have a good Facebook Page as well that is updated regularly. I use the Sekonic L-358 because the size is manageable and it has the module added to activate my Pocket Wizard Plus II" (and thus strobes) in studio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 7, 2011 Share #8 Posted February 7, 2011 I find myself exposure-bracketing via chimping quite a bit See page 139 of your M9 instructions. Auto-bracketing. Many attractive subjects are very rich in contrast, i.e. they have both very light and very dark areas. The effect can be quite different, depending on which sections you base your exposure on. In such cases, the bracketing function on the LEICA M9 – in aperture priority mode – allows you to produce several alternatives with graduated exposure, i.e. using different shutter speeds. You can then select the most appropriate picture for further use, or use image processing software to create a picture with an exceptionally high contrast range (HDR). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted February 8, 2011 Share #9 Posted February 8, 2011 But in terms of accuracy and precision, displays with a needle don't leave anything to be desired, and they're much nicer to use. Yes, they're nicer to use, and the good ones are precise enough. But they are not consistently accurate. I've owned a few (about four Westons and two or three pro-class Sekonics, plus a couple of on-camera reflected light meters). Every single one of them, even when new or newly calibrated, has given inconsistent measurements between the top of the low-light scale and the bottom of the bright-light scale, at least two thirds of a stop out, often more. That's no big deal for B&W or colour neg, but it's a nuisance for reversal or digital. Actually, the nice bit is having a decent sized dial showing the aperture/speed/EV/ISO combinations. That's what I like about the Digisix and miss in my all-digital Kenko incident/spot meter. Maybe I should stick an old Weston calculator dial on the back of the Kenko. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 8, 2011 Share #10 Posted February 8, 2011 Yes, they're nicer to use, and the good ones are precise enough. But they are not consistently accurate. I've owned a few (about four Westons and two or three pro-class Sekonics, plus a couple of on-camera reflected light meters). Every single one of them, even when new or newly calibrated, has given inconsistent measurements between the top of the low-light scale and the bottom of the bright-light scale, at least two thirds of a stop out, often more. That's no big deal for B&W or colour neg, but it's a nuisance for reversal or digital. Actually, the nice bit is having a decent sized dial showing the aperture/speed/EV/ISO combinations. That's what I like about the Digisix and miss in my all-digital Kenko incident/spot meter. Maybe I should stick an old Weston calculator dial on the back of the Kenko. There are three possibilities with your Weston... The later Westons (IV and later) have a different acceptance ngle in high and low, in reflected mode earlier ones should be more consistent If the photocell is on last legs - they only last 20-60 years then there will be a difference as the cell will read low at full scale deflection, they go non linear. The filter for bright light may be damaged. Otherwise the Westons are pretty accrate They allow you to use whatever sub set of the Weston Adams zone system you want to use. You can get them real cheap from web dealers, a refurb is more expensive! Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 8, 2011 Share #11 Posted February 8, 2011 They allow you to use whatever sub set of the Weston Adams zone system you want to use. So does any light meter capable of metering reflected light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 8, 2011 Share #12 Posted February 8, 2011 So does any light meter capable of metering reflected light. Hi 01af Yes true and in fact you can use an incident and the zone system as well, but few meters provide the zone calculator scale that comes with a Weston, you can get a stick on template for zone numbers if you need more complete aide memory. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 8, 2011 Share #13 Posted February 8, 2011 I agree that a hand meter is pretty irrelevant unless it does incident light. Otherwise, it doesn't do anything the meter in your M9 doesn't. Incident nabs the highlights with precision, and that is exactly what a reflected-light meter doesn't – unless it's a true 1° spot meter, and in that case you have bought yourself a meter neurosis. Don't feed the shrinks. I use a Gossen Sixtomat Digital. It's fairly compact, very light, very accurate and consistent, and it runs one one common AA cell (which the meter is just now telling me to change ...) There are later models. Seconic meters are also good. Steer a middle way between the high end models which are for studio use and demand a degree in theoretical physics, and the cute and delightful but pretty nostalgic Studio DeLuxe, a classic from the 1940's – a better choice for the retro people than an old Weston, because it is new, and it does incident. That's what it is built for. Using a hand meter – maybe even without a camera, just to explore light – can be an education. The best meter in a M9 is not the one in the finder, but the histogram. It is after the fact only, but I have used it to get the right dosage of manual bounce flash. The "bulge" of the graph line should be centered (unless your locality is very odd). If it hangs to the left, you have underexposure, if to the right, over. You can learn how much to change the aperture. This does actually work, if you have time and opportunity for a couple of test flashes. I would not have done it with flash bulbs ... But nowadays, nearly all my (few) flash pictures are done TTL. The old man from the Age of Selenium and Magnesium Powder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted February 8, 2011 Share #14 Posted February 8, 2011 .....The best meter in a M9 is not the one in the finder, but the histogram. It is after the fact only, but I have used it to get the right dosage of manual bounce flash. The "bulge" of the graph line should be centered (unless your locality is very odd). If it hangs to the left, you have underexposure, if to the right, over. You can learn how much to change the aperture. This does actually work, if you have time and opportunity for a couple of test flashes. I would not have done it with flash bulbs ... But nowadays, nearly all my (few) flash pictures are done TTL. The old man from the Age of Selenium and Magnesium Powder We can't alter the fact that the histogram relates to the jpeg image, not the Raw. It is the best on offer so long as we remember that more information can be retrieved from the raw file and therefore we need to avoid too much slack at either end of the displayed histogram. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share #15 Posted February 9, 2011 Thank you all for the replies! I will admit that there is a strong element of “wanting to learn” how light works, and learning how to use a light meter may play a little part in that. Thus looks like I am headed for an incident meter. Thank you for the specifics. Didn't know that you could do exposure bracketing automatically, so I I may play around with that also. I do shoot only in RAW, and, yes, it is impressive how much information can be squeezed out of a file that is incorrectly exposed. Nonetheless, I have this nagging sensation that I should be able to anticipate my exposure before I shoot it. I do not use the histogram much, as, to my understanding, you have to press a couple of buttons in order to get to it. If there is a way of having this show up automatically after exposure, somebody please let me know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2011 Share #16 Posted February 9, 2011 We can't alter the fact that the histogram relates to the jpeg image, not the Raw. It is the best on offer so long as we remember that more information can be retrieved from the raw file and therefore we need to avoid too much slack at either end of the displayed histogram. Yes – by drastically altering the reflectance of the rooms and the persons we photograph ... That is not usually possible even in a studio (the customer may want to have a say in the matter). It is definitely not possible in the field. What we CAN adjust in the field (or studio) is average exposure. If the dynamic range of the subject proves to be smaller than the range of the sensor, we go to the histogram in PP and set the highlight limit and the shadow limit accordingly, i.e. we adjust contrast after the fact – again, just as we did in the wet and the dark when we decided what paper grade to use. As to the Zone Religion, I could write a pretty scientific paper to prove that Ansel and Edward were talking through their collective hat. But there is no space for that, here. The old man from the Selenium Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 9, 2011 Share #17 Posted February 9, 2011 We can't alter the fact that the histogram relates to the jpeg image, not the Raw. It is the best on offer so long as we remember that more information can be retrieved from the raw file and therefore we need to avoid too much slack at either end of the displayed histogram. Which is why it is best to select appropriate white balance etc., when shooting if you need to be very critical (and bracketing if this is possible). But the meters will respond differently under different light sources too. A jpeg histogram is a pretty good way of assessing dynamic range and overall exposure and will IMHO (based on experience) lead to pretty accurate exposures for much of the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 9, 2011 Share #18 Posted February 9, 2011 Yes – by drastically altering the reflectance of the rooms and the persons we photograph ... That is not usually possible even in a studio (the customer may want to have a say in the matter). It is definitely not possible in the field. What we CAN adjust in the field (or studio) is average exposure. Any outdoor pro shoot has oodles of reflectors, on standby, have you not attended same, in a studio you use lights reflectors etc...? If the dynamic range of the subject proves to be smaller than the range of the sensor, we go to the histogram in PP and set the highlight limit and the shadow limit accordingly, i.e. we adjust contrast after the fact – again, just as we did in the wet and the dark when we decided what paper grade to use. If the contrast is to high recommend re-shooting with less exposure with a M9, similarly with film you dared not use high contrast film on a sunny day, unless you souped in D23 or POTA to salvage, and film has round toe and shoulders. If the contrast is to low then you would normally need to burn and dodge more than normally to avoid a print that looked to flat As to the Zone Religion, I could write a pretty scientific paper to prove that Ansel and Edward were talking through their collective hat. But there is no space for that, here. Hi Lars you need a wiki entry then, with some nice 20x16 contacts to demonstrate your ponts? Ansel Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Lars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 9, 2011 Share #19 Posted February 9, 2011 As to the Zone Religion, I could write a pretty scientific paper to prove that Ansel and Edward were talking through their collective hat. But there is no space for that, here. Edward? Typo. Fred Archer. You could start a new thread on your views of the Zone System. I for one would appreciate it. My view is that people who think that 'mastering' the Zone System will let them make prints like Adams' do not know how extensively his prints were manipulated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 9, 2011 Share #20 Posted February 9, 2011 Edward? Typo. Fred Archer. You could start a new thread on your views of the Zone System. I for one would appreciate it. My view is that people who think that 'mastering' the Zone System will let them make prints like Adams' do not know how extensively his prints were manipulated. Hi Pico Edward Weston... and some of mine have to be manipulated as well, some? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.