honcho Posted March 10, 2017 Share #101 Posted March 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Eoin, I've just started using the EV function of the L758DR with my Blad and its so so frigging easy to use, Ive also used my SL to get the best reading for the Blad :) No need to buy a Leica SL for basic metering. You can do that with a £1.50 app! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Hi honcho, Take a look here Who still uses a handheld meter?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted March 10, 2017 Share #102 Posted March 10, 2017 No need to buy a Leica SL for basic metering. You can do that with a £1.50 app! Correct , but try taking amazing pictures with your dollar fifty app..................The SL is a perfect meter for the Blad and gives you amazing pictures to go with it :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted March 15, 2017 Share #103 Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) That's the point of the L-758DR! There's far more to hand held metering for digital than simply pointing an L-308 Flashmate in roughly the right direction and hoping for the best. The CCP is invaluable and once you've calibrated your camera, you might find your approach to metering has changed considerably. It's a brilliant bit of kit. I decided to calibrate the L-758DR to my M240, but I have run into a bit of a problem. Since the M240 takes a guess at the aperture, the EXIF data recorded is incorrect (the test images were shot at 1/60 + f8 but the JPEG EXIF shows f9, which is incorrect). The problem is I cannot edit the EXIF values in the DTS software (I'm using Windows 8.1 and the delete, backspace or CTR X commands don't respond, and I cannot over type the values.Anyone know how to correct EXIF data within the Sekonic DTS software, or how to edit the JPEG file? Edited March 15, 2017 by Steve Ricoh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 15, 2017 Share #104 Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) Our brains can be brilliant; capable of visualizing outcomes using methods we cannot verbalize - and it comes from repetitive experience. Some photographers might be fortunate to have found their ability when young, when their minds were plastic. Some others, for reasons we need not worry about, are stuck in elementary arithmetic, fundamental metrics, electronic light meters offering options but no significant outcomes. The later photographers consider a good exposure one that more-or-less meets their expectations, and the hell with the photograph for any other purpose. Such is life. Perfect tonality is as subjective as scientific metrics are irrelevant to aesthetics. Use both as you please to make a visual expression. Metric obsessives are good in a different universe. Who wants his vision to be dictated by a film manufacturer? Answer - a surprising number of people, but do critics, the public; does anyone measure success by that? Continue the discussion. This could be interesting. . Edited March 15, 2017 by pico 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted March 15, 2017 Share #105 Posted March 15, 2017 Yes, some of my favorite photo's have been totally at odds with what a 'correct' exposure setting would have created - actually, many of them have been mistakes. Fortunately, I am accomplished at making mistakes, as those who know me can testify. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted March 15, 2017 Share #106 Posted March 15, 2017 My M240 (M-P) shows one stop less exposure compared to several other light meters I have tested against. But I think that is generally accepted now that digital ISO's are somewhat "fudged" by manufacturers. The ISO is really only used in-camera though, but comparing across systems is certainly misleading. With film it is important to have consistency across the board, from light meters, camera and film to developing chemical and processes. Just an observation... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 15, 2017 Share #107 Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, some of my favorite photo's have been totally at odds with what a 'correct' exposure setting would have created - actually, many of them have been mistakes. Fortunately, I am accomplished at making mistakes, as those who know me can testify. Please do not believe your exposure meter indicates an aesthetically proper exposure. Edited March 15, 2017 by pico 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted March 16, 2017 Share #108 Posted March 16, 2017 My M240 (M-P) shows one stop less exposure compared to several other light meters I have tested against. But I think that is generally accepted now that digital ISO's are somewhat "fudged" by manufacturers. The ISO is really only used in-camera though, but comparing across systems is certainly misleading. With film it is important to have consistency across the board, from light meters, camera and film to developing chemical and processes. Just an observation... Some are good at sunny 16, others are not. A light meter is a good educational tool for those who haven't mastered the ability, or like to expose for a particular 'key tone', compensating for the measured value recorded by the light meter (any light meter including your M light meter) that assumes 18% reflectance. But the light meter is improved IF it's calibrated to the camera. Hence my earlier post (#103) where I'm asking for guidance on how to either edit the JPEG EXIF data within the Sekonic Data Transfer Software (DTS) or to manipulate the EXIF data externally by another means. I'm more or less convinced it can't be done within DTS, but could be mistaken based on being a new user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted March 17, 2017 Share #109 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) No one attempted to calibrate an L-758 to a digital M ?? Most of the replies here say there's no need for a hand held meter, which is not unexpected... Edited March 17, 2017 by Steve Ricoh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted March 17, 2017 Share #110 Posted March 17, 2017 Please do not believe your exposure meter indicates an aesthetically proper exposure. Of course not, Pico. It indicates an interpreted ISO / Shutter Speed / Aperture setting for 18% gray based on light hitting the sensor - Nothing too aesthetic about that. I may be stupid, but I'm not silly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 17, 2017 Share #111 Posted March 17, 2017 Of course not, Pico. It indicates an interpreted ISO / Shutter Speed / Aperture setting for 18% gray based on light hitting the sensor - Nothing too aesthetic about that. I may be stupid, but I'm not silly I may be stupid because I thought meters measured to 12% grey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 17, 2017 Share #112 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Of course not, Pico. It indicates an interpreted ISO / Shutter Speed / Aperture setting for 18% gray based on light hitting the sensor - Nothing too aesthetic about that. I may be stupid, but I'm not silly I may be stupid because I thought meters measured to 12% grey. Looking at an exposure of a tritone exposure target (equal areas white, 18% gray, black) metered with my usual Sekonic L328 in incident mode, it's pretty clear that the middle bump in the histogram aligns perfectly with the 18% gray section of the target and the other two bumps for white and black fall nicely equidistant at the top and bottom of the histogram. A similar exposure of an 18% gray card puts the bump in the same exact position as the middle bump in the tritone chart. That means the meter is calibrated to 18% gray or Zone V as far as I can determine. It also means the meter and my camera's ISO and shutter settings are pretty well aligned. Edited March 17, 2017 by ramarren Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 17, 2017 Share #113 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) I may be stupid because I thought meters measured to 12% grey. Well, Thom Hogan thinks so (not the stupid part). http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm Jeff Edited March 17, 2017 by Jeff S 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted March 17, 2017 Share #114 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Only now I have read original post. After getting of M-E in 2016.... Metering in M-E.. how do I put it in polite way... Oh! I also want to use it with hand-held meter, light is tricky! And not only with interiors. With M-E it is tricky much more often somehow... But this is why I like it. It is same as my M4-2, it was brain revival after Bessa R with TTL which made me clueless operator of shutter and aperture wheels to make it looks like >o< in VF. I really have to measure the light. And by measuring light by myself with handheld meter it makes me thinking. And thinking makes me understand light better. I don't like multiple shots and bracketing. I like to understand light before I'm taking it as exposure. Edited March 17, 2017 by Ko.Fe. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 17, 2017 Share #115 Posted March 17, 2017 Godfrey, at last I understand what is meant by 6° of separation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 17, 2017 Share #116 Posted March 17, 2017 Well ... this thread encouraged me to retrieve and to download my preferred meter's user manual and to read it (bought it used off eBay so it came w/o printed manual). So now I know a few things I didn't know before—including how to use functions like metering for shadows or highlights, how to check brightness differences, how to calculate the average from several readings, or how to adjust for the film's or camera's exposure latitude, for example. By the way, my meter is the Minolta Flash Meter VI, also known as Kenko KFM-2100, which basically is sort of a somewhat stripped-down Sekonic L-758 (i. e. incident-light meter with integrated 1° spot meter which can meter both ambient and flash light). I am using it along with my Leica M-A ... I'm trying to estimate exposure which works surprisingly well in most standard situations but sometimes you just need a meter. And if you do then a hand-held meter works so much better than an in-camera meter. By the way, my favourite meter is the Minolta Auto Meter II, with the self-rotating analog scale which is so cool! And it has an exceptionally wide metering range—down to EV -4 at ISO 100/21°, or EV -7 at ISO 100/21° with the optional Booster accessory. Unfortunately, it doesn't meter flash light (which doesn't bother me as I hardly use flash) and also doesn't meter reflected light (which does bother me a lot). Or actually, it does meter reflected light but only after some cumbersome rigging (replace dome with some other unwieldy attachment). The reason I prefer the Flash Meter VI is the ability to immediately switch between incident-light metering and reflected-light metering with no fuss. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 17, 2017 Share #117 Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) A good light meter indicates the target at 12% or 18% grey. The different percents are insignificant. Now, ask yourself what 12% or 18% grey means. For film it is a measure of B&W film under tungsten light. Does that not kinda mess up color digital fans? It should. Next consider how light meter makers can embed all sorts of opaque algorithms into their instruments, and even offer you options such as capturing your camera's measurements as profiles. It is all about obfuscation, making the measurements obscure when the practice is perfectly simple without their bullshit. You do not need that nonsense which is all about marketing to the auto-magic wishful consumers. Edited March 17, 2017 by pico Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted March 17, 2017 Share #118 Posted March 17, 2017 I'ts not unusual for digital sensors to 'see' light differently, even for cameras having the same model designation coming off the same production line. The calibration procedure is to ensure the hand held light meter and camera (eg M240) see light equivalently. All reflected light meters are calibrated to respond to 18% reflectance when determining 'correct' exposure, no bull sh1t. It's up to the operator to apply his or her own stylistic input by over or under exposing given an accurate knowledge of middle grey (18% due to the logarithmic response of the human vision system). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 18, 2017 Share #119 Posted March 18, 2017 I'ts not unusual for digital sensors to 'see' light differently, even for cameras having the same model designation coming off the same production line. The calibration procedure is to ensure the hand held light meter and camera (eg M240) see light equivalently. All reflected light meters are calibrated to respond to 18% reflectance when determining 'correct' exposure, no bull sh1t. It's up to the operator to apply his or her own stylistic input by over or under exposing given an accurate knowledge of middle grey (18% due to the logarithmic response of the human vision system). See my above link to Thom Hogan. Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 18, 2017 Share #120 Posted March 18, 2017 ... I don't like multiple shots and bracketing. I like to understand light before I'm taking it as exposure. Excellent - someone who wants to know precisely what he is doing, and control the process and produce what he intends. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now