Use a Sekonic L-398 for reflective light? Will it work with a Lumigrid?

Hi All!

 

I own an older Sekonic L-398 (L398) light meter which is designed primarily for incident light readings however, I want to use it for Reflective light measurements.

I know the newer Sekonic L398M & L398A meters can be used for reflective light measurements by using their Lumigrid accessory that replaces their LumiSphere.

 

Has anyone tried to use the Lumigrid with the older L398 meter?

 

Has anyone used the older L398 for reflective light measurements?

 

Alternatively if I can't use the L398 for reflective readings any recommendations on an inexpensive meter (under $100/used is fine) that can be used?

 

TIA!

I don't know your situation but perhaps you can use a camera as light meter?

Your meter will make reflected readings with the lumigrid in place of the lumisphere, but it wouldn't be my first choice for a reflected light meter since it isn't all that sensitive in low light levels and has a wide angle of acceptance. There are lots of reflected meters that will be better than your Sekonic L 398 for reflected readings--I would look for something with a silicon cell and a currently available battery.

+1 to AJG's reply.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no substantial change in the design of the Sekonic 'studio' L398 meter of any flavour since its inception and takeover of the original Norwood Director design.

 

They all use the 'Lumisphere' for incident reading, and 'Lumigrid' for reflective readings. There's also a flat luxmeter adapter available. The range is changed by use of a so-called 'multiplier' slide, which actually divides the amount of light reaching the Selenium sensor disc.

 

In reflected mode, the maximum sensitivity of all these meters is EV 4 @ 100 ISO, which together with their wide acceptance angle makes them of fairly limited use in dim light.

 

The latest (L398A) version apparently uses a silicon disc instead of selenium, but they both drive a mechanical moving-coil meter directly from the photocurrent generated and have a consequent low sensitivity.

 

If you want a decent reflected light meter, then almost any meter using a CdS or Silicon sensor and taking a readily available battery is a better bet. However, the design of the 398 makes it very handy for incident readings, which is what the original 'Director' meter was primarily designed to do.

 

Unless you know the reflectivity of whatever you're pointing a reflected light meter at, then an incident reading is generally far more reliable and useful. Spot-metering is a different matter entirely, but of limited use in this digital age IME.

If you have a typical digital camera then the camera already has good reflective meter both with full frame average and spot (you have to change the center weighted meter to make it read full screen average which would be similar to that of a wide angle hand held meter). I doubt your old meter would beat the accuracy of a typical DSLR. The camera lacks incident meter so your meter is a good complement to that.

Thanks for the responses.

 

This will be used with non-metered film cameras (Bronica S2 to start) & I didn't want to buy another meter if I didn't have too. Will try it using the Lumigrid & see if it works (compared to my dslr & iphone w/ metering app).

I think the supplied Lumigrid has only been fitted to my L398 once, just to try it. Other than that the Lumisphere stays firmly in place and is far more generally useful than a wide angle reflected reading.

 

Quite honestly you might as well stick a wet finger in the air and guesstimate the exposure as use a reflected reading IMO. If the subject is too far away for an accurate incident reading, then it's also too far away for a wide-acceptance reflected reading as well.

I think the supplied Lumigrid has only been fitted to my L398 once, just to try it. Other than that the Lumisphere stays firmly in place and is far more generally useful than a wide angle reflected reading.

 

Quite honestly you might as well stick a wet finger in the air and guesstimate the exposure as use a reflected reading IMO. If the subject is too far away for an accurate incident reading, then it's also too far away for a wide-acceptance reflected reading as well.

 

I agree with you the wide angle average reflective meter is the least useful meter among all types. Far less useful than the center weighted built in meter of most cameras.

Smart phone apps are good for reflected. I use Pocket Light Meter and it is surprisingly good.

If the subject is in the same light 100 feet away, the incident reading will be the same at arms length as walking over there. My sekonic 758 has a 1 degree spot and keep in mind, change lenses and the size of the spot in a camera changes, tightest with long lens, largest with wide angle. I agree using a reflective meter is hopefully making an educated guess if you are trying to take a reading off something not middle gray in the image and at worse, a wag, wild ass guess. But another way to use it t is to meter the brightest area that you want to hold detail, that puts it at zone 5 then adjust the exposure to make it zone 7. Now you have detail in the highlights with no clipping and the shadows pushed as far to the right as possible minimizing noise and muddy blacks. My prior camera sensor is calibrated to the meter and will show the exact highlight and shadow clipping points and you can move them to precisely place the highlight just inside the clipping point, maximizing shadow quality at the other end of the histogram. Remember, a camera reflective light meter won't take strobe readings. My meter allows me to precisely place background tone and quickly change from pure white, light gray, dark gray to pure black all from my stool.

Isn't about time 'Zones' were parked in the scrapyard and we simply stuck to EVs or stops?

 

It seems that Saint Ansel's maths wasn't too hot; since he insisted that Zone V had a reflectance of 18%. Making Zone VIII (white with texture) have an impossible reflectance of 144%, but still telling us that each zone was separated by one stop of exposure.

 

Sorry Ansel, but if half a stop of non-linearity passed you by unnoticed, then maybe getting the right exposure just wasn't the arcane black art you made it out to be!

Isn't about time 'Zones' were parked in the scrapyard and we simply stuck to EVs or stops?

 

It seems that Saint Ansel's maths wasn't too hot; since he insisted that Zone V had a reflectance of 18%. Making Zone VIII (white with texture) have an impossible reflectance of 144%, but still telling us that each zone was separated by one stop of exposure.

 

Sorry Ansel, but if half a stop of non-linearity passed you by unnoticed, then maybe getting the right exposure just wasn't the arcane black art you made it out to be!

 

There are two things to this.

1. Saint Adams didn't have that much schooling.I guessed he picked Zone 1 to 10 then realized that Zone 5 isn't the middle.

2. Saint Adams never liked the incident meter where everything is supposed to be a diffused reflection. St. Adams worked on light intensity (luminance) and in a scene there may be some subject generate its own light that is much brighter.

"Saint Adams didn't have that much schooling."

 

- Enough schooling to be a concert pianist as a job option. So I see the Zone system as an attempt to apply the twisted logic of music notation, the chromatic scale, octaves etc. to photographic exposure.

 

We definitely don't need no crotchety old complicated system when stops and EVs are perfectly good enough. And in what way is an 18% reflectivity in 'the middle' to or from anywhere? In the same way that 'middle C' is neither in the middle of the tonic scale, nor midway between A and G#?

"Saint Adams didn't have that much schooling."

 

- Enough schooling to be a concert pianist as a job option. So I see the Zone system as an attempt to apply the twisted logic of music notation, the chromatic scale, octaves etc. to photographic exposure.

 

We definitely don't need no crotchety old complicated system when stops and EVs are perfectly good enough. And in what way is an 18% reflectivity in 'the middle' to or from anywhere? In the same way that 'middle C' is neither in the middle of the tonic scale, nor midway between A and G#?

 

Yeah he has serious trainning in music but that's all. He didn't finish even middle school I think. So math I don't think was his strength.

Edited February 25, 2018 by BeBu Lamar

By the time his Zone System was in popular use and during the writing of his seminal trilogy of books, Adams had someone collaborating with him and doing all of his sensitometry testing, graph drawing, etc.

 

You'd have thought that guy would have noticed that the Zone definitions don't actually align with whole EV steps.

 

Of course, if you lower the reflectivity of Zone V to 12.5 or 13%, then it makes a bit more sense. Except that you can't show texture without a change in reflectivity/density. So 'white with texture' can't really be fully white. Nor 'black with detail' be properly black.

Edited February 26, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

Thanks for all the responses, even the Ansel Zone System detour. :)

 

FWIW I purchased both their Lumigrid & their Flat Defuser for my meter. It was just $20 on ebay so not a huge issue.

 

Usually I just use the myLightMeter app on my phone but the Lumigrid & Defuser to try on my Sekonic L398.