Did Nikon change their lightmeter calibration in the 70's?

It may depend on how you're measuring, but don't forget that, first of all, the old CDs cells are not as panchromatic as later ones, and may read reds differenty, and second, remember that the F3 center-weighting spot is smaller than that of the previous models, and thus unless you're measuring something like a gray card, the readings may differ.

 

That is why I need a fairly large evenly bright surface to fill the frame so that it would negate any type of center weighted.

It may depend on how you're measuring, but don't forget that, first of all, the old CDs cells are not as panchromatic as later ones, and may read reds differenty, and second, remember that the F3 center-weighting spot is smaller than that of the previous models, and thus unless you're measuring something like a gray card, the readings may differ.

Thanks Matthew.

Just for the record; I did use a Kodak gray card, a continuous light source (albeit not intended for photography), the same 50mm lens and a tripod, all in fixed positions. The gray card filled the frame, and the Sekonic reading was done both as incident and reflected off the card (and the readings agreed).

The ASA - now ISO - methodology for establishing B&W film speed was only finalised in 1963. Any meter before that will use some proprietary film speed system which may well vary from ISO by a considerable amount. And may incorporate a 'safety' margin ensuring a generous exposure.

 

This should be irrelevant to any of the OP's cameras, but just illustrates how far sensitometry has moved on.... or not! Since Nikon still insist on placing their meter sensors in the prism housing and above the viewing screen. Where the reading is influenced by the type of screen fitted, leakage of light into the viewfinder via the eyepiece, and by angular restriction in the reflex viewing path.

 

Do any of those cameras have a non-standard screen fitted by any chance? I.e. other than a 'K' type screen. This could easily account for a 1/2 stop variation in metering. Or simply not having your eye close to the viewfinder in bright light.

Do any of those cameras have a non-standard screen fitted by any chance? I.e. other than a 'K' type screen. This could easily account for a 1/2 stop variation in metering. Or simply not having your eye close to the viewfinder in bright light.

You are right. There are an endless number of possible flaws in my approach.

The Screens are all "standard" - as in what was delivered out of the box.

Early F2 came standard with an A type screen.

It is my understanding that the EL (which has a fixed screen) was available as K or with a with a center micro prism focusing spot without the split (is it called J or F?). Mine is the latter.

So; no K screens in the two CdS cameras, but standard for their time.

The FE2s and F3 all have the standard K screens.

Edited September 29, 2020 by NHSN

Not really. It was why getting to know your meter was recommended, and practiced esp. by people who used slide film.

So, everyone who ever bracketed on slide film, 'didn't know their meter'?

 

Really?

 

Now, using a spot meter and assigning tones to zones to determine the best single exposure, maybe, but were not talking about those.

Bracketing is a waste of film and memory card space. It can be useful when contrast ranges are too big and you can combine the best exposed bits from different frames. But it is called HDR then.

Not necessarily. What you describe is actually "exposure fusion".

 

Prior to digital, I shot mostly slide film and found that under some circumstances, bracketing was necessary to get an "optimum" exposure. Because of the narrow dynamic range of slide film, "optimum" often still was a compromise - usually resulting in featureless shadows. Unless on was willing to cut up slides and combine them to a new one - which I was not.

 

With early digital, I found bracketing quite often essential - at least I got around the shortcomings of slide film in that regard. With the latest digital cameras, I find myself needing bracketing less and less - and have almost completely abandoned doing HDR.

So, everyone who ever bracketed on slide film, 'didn't know their meter'?

 

Really?

 

Now, using a spot meter and assigning tones to zones to determine the best single exposure, maybe, but were not talking about those.

Yes, really.

Nor, perhaps, what they wanted as a result.

 

You can only get one, single frame out of all those bracketing the exposure suggested by the meter as "the best single exposure". The rest is a waste of film. Decide and get it right before you press the shutter. Not difficult. If you can afterwards, you can do so before. If you know what your meter is telling you.

 

We're talking about meters here. Instead of bracketing every exposure because you do not know what you get following the meter, common sense dictates that you do learn what to expect following that meter.

 

Zones are an empty, or rather superfluous concept when you're not able, or not planning, to alter contrast during film processing. We're not talking about that. What you are saying has nothing to do with zones.

You can indeed use a spot meter to determine how many stops under or overexposed parts of your scene will be and decide what to do with that knowledge. Bracketing equals the decision not to do anything with it, but rather say "i don't know. We'll see later".

 

So yes: bracketing was invented for (and by) people who do not know their meter, and/or do not know what to do with what their meter is telling them (which also is not knowing your meter).

Exposure fusion, Dieter, is the technique underlying HDR imaging. It is known as that: HDR.

Exposure fusion, Dieter, is the technique underlying HDR imaging. It is known as that: HDR.

Nope. The main difference is that HDR involves the creation of an intermediate image followed by tone-mapping - exposure fusion by contrast is just a merging of differently exposed images into one using appropriate masking techniques - no fancy math involved at all. Some programs now do this automatically - as an alternative to do the full HDR treatment.

When the Mercury batteries finally ran out, there were various independent repair services that recalibrated meters for available substitutes. I had a couple of Nikons done and used them successfully afterward. With the flexibility of many modern films, unless you have a specific situation that requires high accuracy, I can't imagine it would influence outcomes very much.

Nope. The main difference is that HDR involves the creation of an intermediate image followed by tone-mapping - exposure fusion by contrast is just a merging of differently exposed images into one using appropriate masking techniques - no fancy math involved at all. Some programs now do this automatically - as an alternative to do the full HDR treatment.

Yes, you're right. Skipping the creation of a higher bit depth intermediate file has claimed the name "fusion".

The idea and result is just about the same though: an image with more highlight and shadow detail than possible in one single exposure, created by combining the appropriate parts from multiple, different exposures.

We're splitting hairs here. But you are correct.

So yes: bracketing was invented for (and by) people who do not know their meter, and/or do not know what to do with what their meter is telling them (which also is not knowing your meter).

So, all the advances in camera metering since the 70s/80s are pointless and un-necessary if one only gets to know your meter from 40+ years ago?

 

Gosh, well I never.

 

All that effort by every camera maker on Earth, wasted. Who'd have thought it? What a crying shame.

 

 

Instead of bracketing every exposure because you do not know what you get following the meter

I never said anything about EVERY exposure, just those very important ones where trying to get the required detail from shadows and highlights, simultaneously, in a single frame of slide film is difficult due to unusually high contrast lighting.

 

---------

 

Oh, I get it. It's a cunning plot between camera makers and film makers to get clueless photographers to buy and use way more film than they actually need. Ah, it all makes sense now.....:rolleyes:

Well no, Mike. Your apparent rage carries you away.

Noone suggested that advances in metering are pointless.

Yet. There is very little that has advanced (transition to digital electronics, mainly). What we have seen, though, are more 'modes' that take away the burden of having to interpret a scene from the photographer. Perhaps in recognition of the fact that many do not want to or cannot do that themself? What would you say?

I'd say that it is indeed a crying shame, as you put it, that here too automation does (has to?) step in where a person's skill would be the better tool to use.

 

Every or occasional exposures makes no difference. The point is that bracketing is not good practice, nor a replacement for knowing what a (yet unknown) meter does.

 

A plot... What are people thinking nowadays...

Mike, filmmakers do not have to come up with things like bracketing. Photographers unsure about their meters and how to use them have done that all by themselves.

I still like the very simple experiment of filling the frame with a sheet of white printer paper, then a photographic grey card and finally a sheet of black velour paper.

 

Pop the camera, any camera, on AUTO exposure and all 3 frames come out mid grey.... atleast all the film and digital cameras I've ever owned.

 

I never noticed any variation in the actual tone of grey between manufacturers and/or changes over time. I only ever used diffused northern daylight, so don't know if colour temperature has much effect.

filmmakers do not have to come up with things like bracketing

Have you never seen that the exposure, usually in the shadows, of quite a few recent blockbusters has had to be raised in post? You can clearly see the effect, like clumsy dodging when printing B/W in the darkroom.

 

Film-makers also have the luxury of massive lighting budgets to ensure a suitable contrast range for their chosen methods of recording. Indy films are noted for their 'look', not because they can't use a lightmeter, but because they have much less control of the light.

 

Now, if you're a landscape photographer with plenty of time to 'wait for the right light' and can spend a while with your spot meter, sure, bracketing with film, is probably not required. Not everyone has that luxury.

 

I remember printing Cibachrome back in the 80/90s. There was still a surprising amount of latitude in localised exposure differences when printing from Fuji 100, then from Velvia/Provia slides.

 

If I need to shoot film now (very rarely now!), I use my D850 to fine tune the exposure using the Histogram (and yes i know it's a JPEG). I simply transfer the settings over. ETTR via the 'blinkies' is very handy for not blowing out highlights in slide film.... and to get this choice of exposures?, yup, I fire off a bracket set @ 1/3 EV steps and simply thumb through until I see a small blinky and use those settings. Results in a non-bracketed single frame. Result!

 

Rage...?

 

:D

The result of bracketing always is a non-bracketed single frame. That's the point.

 

You examine exposed frames to find out what to do. Difficult when you first have to develop the film they are on. (Remember: "... and this, my film loving friends, [etc.]"?)

Other people, like me, examine meter readings.

The difference: fewer exposed frames, of which only one will be the one you want. Less waste.

Bracketing is just that: avoidable waste.

 

See?

Other people, like me, examine meter readings.

I prefer to take pictures with as much automation as I need.

 

Mind you, these days I prefer HDR, so I can choose later exactly what I want and not be constrained by the original exposures...

Edited September 30, 2020 by mike_halliwell

I prefer to take pictures with as much automation as I need.

So do i, Mike. So do i.

I always thought it was interesting that Nikon decided to include the options of 'fine tuning' the exposure metering in most (all?) DSLRs

 

Did it come from the F5 or F6 era? I've never looked!

 

It's usually around b6 or b7. It's kinda like a permanent Exp.Comp.. and it can be different for Spot, CW or Evaluative.

 

NB. it doesn't show in Basic Exif, ie the stuff shown on the back screen .... and a Hard Reset doesn't (or didn't!) remove it.

It perhaps is part of the "get to know your meter" thing. It is not just the way one meter may differ from another, but also includes personal habits and idiosyncrasies of the human using the meter. I know that i, for instance, tend to interpret readings a bit too optimistic, and could counter that by setting an opposite bias in the meter. That sort of thing.

Funny thing...I know of one phenomenal photographer local to me who has reprinted a lot of 30+ year old slides as HDR images and was able to do that because he bracketed when shot. No, he didn't know at the time he would be able to one day do that, but it's sure handy now.

 

I don't usually bracket, but at the same time when I'm in a situation with a lot of dynamic range, I'm not really even sure where my ~4 stops of exposure with slide film are going to fall. Actually, I should say I have a good idea of where different parts of the image are going to be(sort of a primitive, simplified zone system) but don't know which I'm going to like emphasizing in the final result. Bracketing serves a useful function at least sometimes, despite what our resident never-mad-a-mistake "expert" claims.

 

With all of that said, I don't think I've ever bracketed color negative film or a modern digital camera. They both just have so much dynamic range that as long as I don't blow the highlights too badly(digital) or thin out the shadows too much(print film) the end result is going to be more than salvageable.

My experience with old F's is similar to Sandy's, I think. I have (somehow, don't quite know why) three FTn's, and using instructions off the internet, recalibrated them all for silver-oxide batteries, including the battery indicator. According to what I've read in various places, the original calibration of these meters was not much better than a stop to start with. I set them up on a tripod with a 50 mm. F2 lens, and aimed them at an even surface to fill the frame, and compared them to a surprisingly reliable Minolta X350, which never erred. There's some question about linearity in these meters, so I set them to a middle aperture and a middle ISO, and ended up reliably within a third of a stop of each other and the Minolta. To adjust them requires that you alternately adjust both the meter sensitivity and the battery indicator, but it's really pretty easy. Given that the center weighted meter pattern is fairly easy to fool in difficult light, I still had to compensate from time to time, but found the meters quite decently reliable and consistent with ASA 100 slide film and various print films.

 

For most applications, when I switched to the more modern F3 for some of my shooting, I found no problem making the change, except for needing sometimes a little less exposure comp due to the smaller center area. However, I did occasionally find in difficult color situations, and especially using red filter on B&W, that there was a difference in response. Memory fails a bit, so I don't quite recall which way the difference went, but as I recall, the meter was about a stop off when shooting through a red 25 filter. I think it read two stops down but needed 3.