Spot Meters?

[kenneth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am trying to decide about the merits of spot meters as a back up to my M6 camera meters. I hasten to add that the M6 meters are very good but I did wonder about the use of a spot meter for shadow detail and exposure detail in general. A guy on the Film and Darkroom Forum suggested this Kenko meter which replaces the old Minolta one which was always highly rated

 

Kenko KFM-2100 Flashmeter |

[Philippe D.]

I am trying to decide about the merits of spot meters as a back up to my M6 camera meters.

A guy on the Film and Darkroom Forum suggested this Kenko meter which replaces the old Minolta one which was always highly rated

Kenko KFM-2100 Flashmeter |

This looks to me as a very good meter, because you have all-in-one.

 

I still use (some times) a Minolta Flash Meter III and a Spotmeter F since over 20 years.

That's a bit bulky.

[giordano]

I am trying to decide about the merits of spot meters as a back up to my M6 camera meters. I hasten to add that the M6 meters are very good but I did wonder about the use of a spot meter for shadow detail and exposure detail in general. A guy on the Film and Darkroom Forum suggested this Kenko meter which replaces the old Minolta one which was always highly rated

 

Kenko KFM-2100 Flashmeter |

 

If you're using B&W film and the built-in meter isn't giving you the precision you need (e.g. getting the shadow detail just so), a spot meter's the way to go. I took a look at the Kenko instructions (Kenko | Color meter/Flash meter) and it seems quite well thought out and a lot cheaper than the Sekonic or Gossen offerings. For colour work, especially colour reversal, incident light measurements are simpler and usually at least as good - but the Kenko does that too.

[lars_bergquist]

I did use spot meters long ago, but found that they created more problems than they solved. Critical highlights are usually smaller than one degree, and how dark is a critical shadow? Spot meters are way too imprecise for reversal films and of course for digital. Use an incident meter instead. It nails he highlights precisely, because it has one built in, and consequently the mid-tones come out correct. Shadows? Go look at some original prints by Edward Weston, especially those done in the desert. Those prints taught me to do art printing. Black shadows are OK, blown highlights are not.

 

Today one hand meter with incident capability lives in each of my camera bags, and I ise them often in preference to the meter of the M8. Or for that matter, the Leicameter on my M4-P.

 

The old man from the Age of Selenium Meters

[kenneth]

I did use spot meters long ago, but found that they created more problems than they solved. Critical highlights are usually smaller than one degree, and how dark is a critical shadow? Spot meters are way too imprecise for reversal films and of course for digital. Use an incident meter instead. It nails he highlights precisely, because it has one built in, and consequently the mid-tones come out correct. Shadows? Go look at some original prints by Edward Weston, especially those done in the desert. Those prints taught me to do art printing. Black shadows are OK, blown highlights are not.

 

Today one hand meter with incident capability lives in each of my camera bags, and I ise them often in preference to the meter of the M8. Or for that matter, the Leicameter on my M4-P.

 

The old man from the Age of Selenium Meters

 

I think what you say makes sense so I will continue to rely on my M6 meters backed up with my Weston Master V thank you

[lars_bergquist]

The point is that 'subject range' is largely subjective. You can most always find an even blacker shadow if you search diligently for it with a spot meter, and no shadow reading will tell you where the highlights are. The only way to get an exact highlight reading is with an incident light meter.

 

Not even negative film will capture a full subject tonal range except on an overcast and preferably foggy day! With restricted-range media getting the highlights right is necessary, and here the incident meter shines because a diffuse highlight (the brightest part of a picture that holds detail) can by definition not reflect more than 100 percent of the light that falls on it. The actual maximum is around 90 percent; not even the brightest patch of a Kodak Gray Scale reaches 100.

 

Specular highlights are another matter. They are mirror images of a light source, such as the sun, and can be a thousand times brighter than a diffuse highlight. But these are allowed to --- no, must -- print white. Much of the zing in a good print comes from its ability to distinguish between a diffuse highlight and a specular 'Spitzlicht' (to use the graphic German term) which may sit right inside it. Think a snowdrift in sunshine! Shadows? Those Weston prints from the Mojave had intensely black shadows that you could hide a Ford V8 in. And the highlights sang. Good old Eddie!

 

The old man from the Age of the Wet Exhibition Print

[dpattinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the benefit of a spot meter is that you can get an idea of the range of brightness in the scene and then assign your exposure deliberately. It helped me as a learning tool when I was new to B&W photography and trying to get my head around what my final print might look like while shooting.

 

An incident meter requires that you take your reading in the same light as is falling on the subject, and facing back toward your shooting point. This isn't always possible in practice - so a spot meter helps there as well.

 

I have a Minolta Spot-F, which is a great meter and reasonably easy to find second-hand. I almost never use it while shooting with my M cameras though. I occasionally wish I had an incident meter, if I ever see one of those tiny gossen ones second-had I'll probably buy it.

[giordano]

The point is that 'subject range' is largely subjective. You can most always find an even blacker shadow if you search diligently for it with a spot meter,

 

But the point is never to find the blackest shadow, just to identify the darkest shadow in which one wants to see some detail.

 

and no shadow reading will tell you where the highlights are. The only way to get an exact highlight reading is with an incident light meter.

 

Agreed, for situations in which you'll get the best exposure by pegging the highlights and letting the shadows take care of themselves (or using lights and reflectors to lighten them).

 

I think that's the case in most colour and most digital photography, but in silver-based negative/positive monochrome the tradition was the reverse: peg the darkest area where detail is needed near the foot of the film's characteristic curve and let the highllights take care of themselves. This works fine except with subjects that have a very long tonal range and where highlight detail is more important than shadow detail.

 

All in all, it looks as if these modern computerised meters that can take both 1 degree spot and incident readings should be more effective than either mode alone. I'd better start saving up for one:)

[ho_co]

The old man from the Age of the Wet Exhibition Print

Lars--

Is that where the Wet T-Shirt Contest originated?

[lars_bergquist]

I never wore them. I just made them.

 

The old man from the Age of the Wet Exhibition Print.

[waileong]

I am trying to decide about the merits of spot meters as a back up to my M6 camera meters. I hasten to add that the M6 meters are very good but I did wonder about the use of a spot meter for shadow detail and exposure detail in general. A guy on the Film and Darkroom Forum suggested this Kenko meter which replaces the old Minolta one which was always highly rated

 

Kenko KFM-2100 Flashmeter |

 

Spot meters are expensive and bulky.

 

Negative films are cheap and tolerant of overexposure.

 

Hence, if you have time to spot meter, you'll have time to bracket, possibly only bracketing upwards if you're shooting negs.

 

Ergo, is a spot meter really necessary?

 

For slides, one can bracket, probably in both directions, or get by with a simple and cheap incident meter.

[guywalder]

Hence, if you have time to spot meter, you'll have time to bracket, possibly only bracketing upwards if you're shooting negs.

 

thats too much of a generalisation for me. If you want to capture people's expressions, or compositions of people/things that are moving, then you dont have time to bracket, but you may well have the opportunity to meter the situation in advance.

Of course if you are trying to do that in fast changing light, then all bets are off....

 

As for meters being expensive, in comparison to Leicas they aren't!

[Overgaard]

Take a look at Sekonic L-758DR DIGITALMASTER which I got as a replacement for my Minolta IVF. I measure incident light whenever possible and that works very well.

 

I decided to get this one with spot meter and possibility to measure out each camera and/or lens - just to check it out. And because the pocket in which the meter lies is big enought for it. Somehow I don't like those compact lightmeters. The Minolta IVF size was just perfect and this is a little bigger.

 

It gives the possibility to use spotmeter when applicable; and shows the readings both on the display outside and in the viewer.

[JBA]

I have the Minolta Auto Meter II and the spot metering attachment, which will fit the Kenko meter. The only thing I use it for is nightscapes, where it will measure beyond the capabilities of build-in meters. I average out readings in order to get sufficient detail over the entire range. Under these circumstances, where exposures are often several minutes at small apertures, bracketing is not always practical.

 

For daylight shooting I just rely on the built-in meter, and have never had any problem.

 

Here's an example of a night photo measured with the spot metering attachment. I exposed for the wall with the clocks on it. Leicaflex SL2, 35 Schneider Curtagon, Kodak Ektar 100, approx. f8 @ 45 sec.-1 min.

 

[waileong]

thats too much of a generalisation for me. If you want to capture people's expressions, or compositions of people/things that are moving, then you dont have time to bracket, but you may well have the opportunity to meter the situation in advance.

Of course if you are trying to do that in fast changing light, then all bets are off....

 

As for meters being expensive, in comparison to Leicas they aren't!

 

If you have time to meter in advance, you have time to figure out the exposure using your camera meter. No need for a spot meter.

 

If you don't have time to meter in advance, or in fast changing light, just set exposure comp to +1 or +2 if you shoot negs. No big deal, no need to bracket.

 

You need to understand the use of a spot meter. It's for people like Ansel Adams who shot large format and need to know the contrast range of a scene and are able to control the development of individual sheets of film.

 

In other words, they are designed for slow, contemplative shooting, as evidenced by their bulk.

 

With 35 mm, spot meters are far less useful. One shoots a lot faster and a lot more than large format, and one cannot do individual development of frames.

 

If you have time, eg shooting landscapes, then spot metering is fine. If you have no time to meter individual spots, or if you can't control the development of individual frames to give you exactly the effect that you want, then a spot meter is far less useful.

[waileong]

It is accepted that the dynamic range of a scene can esaily exceed that of film or paper, thus the use of a spot meter is to check the difference between the darkest shadow where you want detail and the highest highlight where you want detail. Which may not necessarily be the absolute darkest part of a scene, nor the brightest.

 

The differnce tells you how many stops and thus which zone you can place them in and what exposure and what type of development you need.

 

The point is that 'subject range' is largely subjective. You can most always find an even blacker shadow if you search diligently for it with a spot meter, and no shadow reading will tell you where the highlights are. The only way to get an exact highlight reading is with an incident light meter.

 

Not even negative film will capture a full subject tonal range except on an overcast and preferably foggy day! With restricted-range media getting the highlights right is necessary, and here the incident meter shines because a diffuse highlight (the brightest part of a picture that holds detail) can by definition not reflect more than 100 percent of the light that falls on it. The actual maximum is around 90 percent; not even the brightest patch of a Kodak Gray Scale reaches 100.

 

Specular highlights are another matter. They are mirror images of a light source, such as the sun, and can be a thousand times brighter than a diffuse highlight. But these are allowed to --- no, must -- print white. Much of the zing in a good print comes from its ability to distinguish between a diffuse highlight and a specular 'Spitzlicht' (to use the graphic German term) which may sit right inside it. Think a snowdrift in sunshine! Shadows? Those Weston prints from the Mojave had intensely black shadows that you could hide a Ford V8 in. And the highlights sang. Good old Eddie!

 

The old man from the Age of the Wet Exhibition Print

[David L. Nance]

I use a Sekonic 508. it lets you take three reading and average them - exposures are always right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am trying to decide about the merits of spot meters as a back up to my M6 camera meters. I hasten to add that the M6 meters are very good but I did wonder about the use of a spot meter for shadow detail and exposure detail in general. A guy on the Film and Darkroom Forum suggested this Kenko meter which replaces the old Minolta one which was always highly rated

 

Kenko KFM-2100 Flashmeter |

[KM-25]

Love all of the erroneous info here, LOL!

 

I shoot all of my M bodies but one using Kodachrome. I use the meter in camera sometimes, but use a Gossen Digisix 90% of the time. I also use a Minolta spot meter some times too, find it invaluable for specific scenes.

 

I rarely bracket, have a 85%-90% hit ratio on exposures and again, this is all on Kodachrome.

 

A spot meter is a professional tool that is well proven.