HELP!!!! with spot meter.....

First, I must say that since I dived into photography about 2 years

ago, this site and people like yourselves have been a GREAT help to

me as a beginner. Thank you.

 

I am looking to get into LF, but due to good 'ole money situations,

I'm constrained in how much I can buy at a time. I've been using

the TTL meters in my Canon EOS Elan 7 and Rebel to meter all my

pictures and have had good results. I knew that I would want Spot

metering for LF so I looked into getting one. I got a Gossen Ultra-

Spot off of Ebay (unfortunatly after I read some negative responses

to the meters ability to determine correct readings for saturated

colors). This is my question. Because of these responses, I tried

metering my car (which is bright red) and my Elan and the Spot meter

are several stops different. Won't the meter in my camera depend on

the lens that it has attached (i.e. a faster lens won't need as much

light and therefore have a different reading?) How do I convert to

an equivalent reading in my camera??? Or am I screwed with this

meter. (If so, I have a 30 warranty.) Thanks a ton. - Steve

Hate to state the obvious, but make sure they are both set to the same ISO and make sure the Elan is metering only the car.

 

Try metering a gray card instead. It is probably more uniform in tone, and you can fill the frame of your Elan with it, so you know it is metering only the card.

The field of view of your in-camera meter will, of course, be affected by the focal length of the lens attached. It's reading, however, should be unaffected by the maximum aperture of the lens (internal adjustments should compensate for the f-stop the lens is set to).

 

Although I'm unfamiliar with both that specific Gossen model and the saturated-color problem to which you refer, I'd be surprised if Gossen really "blew it" with the meter, considering how long they've been making meters. If you can't resolve the concern through comparison meterings with your Canon, and remain concerned, I'd suggest taking advantage of your 30-day warranty if you can. Get a spot meter you have confidence in. (I currently use a Sekonic L-508, but have several older Gossen meters that have served well over the years.)

I'm not familiar with the meter you have, but if you might might verify that the battery is fresh and that it's the correct one for the meter. I had a problem with a Luna Pro until I corrected the battery issue I had with it.

The key is to ensure measurement of comparable scene. A gray card is indeed a fine choice. However, your Elan does not have a true spot option. So to ensure results you must measure an area large enough and monotone. If you can find any wall or larger area of uniform single value/texture it would be best. Get close enough to it with your camera, and it's best if you measure something in a shadow (or actually overcast day). Measure from further away with your Gossen spot meter so as at ensure that it will not focus on some intricate detail within the generally uniform area (1 degree spot is small and you can easily measure from 10 to 15 feet away).

 

As long as your settings are the same (ISO, battery in good condition etc.) then you should be getting very close results. Your meter is a very fine instrument, so unless it was dropped or suffered in some other way, it will give you years of reliable service. Most complaints about this meter come from its large size and resulting imperfect enrgonomics.

Stephen

 

May I make a suggestion by suggesting that you locate a used copy of Fred Picker's little book entitled Zone VI Workshop and read the section contained therein on meters. You will be glad that you did.

 

Kevin

Indeed the reason your two (or three) meters differ so much is the fact that they don't "see" the same area. At best your "spot" meter on your SLR cameras are 5 degree area meters even if they say spot meter program. The spot meter you purchased is most likely a 1 degree metered area. So when you mnetered the area in question, the camera meter averaged the brightness while the spot meter gave you just the area that the meter was designed to meter. Big difference. And additionally the SLR 5 degree spot meters allow a lot of flare into the scene. You can calibrate the two meters by metering a grey card. That will give you a starting point to set your low tones (or high if you are using that parameter) but I would stop using the in camera meters and learn to use the spot meter as it is the better method of finding out the tonal values in the scene. If you don't print your own work then this may not matter.

Never meter gray cards. No film speed is based on mid-tones. Meter the darkest shadow in which you want texture (for negatives) or the brightest highlight in which you want texture (chromes).

 

Use the ISO speed and give 2 to 3 stops LESS exposure (or use the IRE 1 mark, 2-2/3 stops less) for negs and 2-1/3 stop MORE exposure IRE 10) for slides.

 

Any technique based on gray cards is a fudge and should be ignored. Unfortunately most Zonies don't understand this.

 

This is really all you need to know about spot metering but if you want more, look for Perfect Exposure (Amphoto in the USA, David & Charles in the UK) which I co-wrote with my wife Frances Schultz.

Yeah, right. I'm not going to even start this gray card "fudge". Gray card approach is still the most useful technique of all, and the most universal. The deal is that you know what you measuring, that it matches Zone V, whether you like it or not. It is appaling to even suggest that something that has worked for ages for so many is being tried again here. It's all in the proper interpretation of what's out there.

 

If someone has trouble understanding the gray card that's one thing, trying to discredit an established and well regarded technique yet another. Any monotone surface can be used for proper interpretation of meter readings, as long as you understand what it is.

 

If on the other hand, one refuses to understand basic concepts, then he starts to look to reason his failure.

 

I've never heard the derogative "Zonie" before. But let's look at the bright side - you're not one of us. Good luck looking for the perfect exposure. We've been there long time ago.

I hate to say it, but I think the folks have missed the problem...

 

The Gossen, to my knowledge, does not have any sort of "saturated color" problem. The only 'problem' associated with the Ultra Spot is it's sensitivity to infrared! And you metered a red car and I'll bet in sunlight? Try the same thing with the grey card, a tree trunk (not the leaves!), or on an overcast day. You might be surprised at the difference.

There is also the possibility that the Gossen is just off, but I've never heard of one? But from ebay, who knows?

The other suggestions about the coverage of your Elan with lens are appropriate. You can't compare apple & oranges!

When I first bought spot meters, I was very surprised at how difficult it was to verify the spot was accurate. It always seems to give different readings from known good meters. Only after hours of comparisons did I find ways to do fair comparisons between meters. And a grey card helps a lot as a standard reference not matter what people say it's good (or not) for...

Another option is to use the averaging feature of the Gossen (which I believe it has). Meter several scenes on the highs & lows, then average. That should produce about the same reading as the 35mm. But you'll have to do some judgment as to how much there are highs & lows in the scene... Spot meters take getting used to even if they are accurate!

The only reason that metering gray cards works is the latitude of the system. The ONLY way to be SURE of adequate shadow exposure is to meter the shadows. How much darker than a gray card are the shadows? It can vary enormously. If they're 2-3 stops darker, no problem. If they're 1-2 stops darker (foggy day) you'll be giving more exposure than you need and if they're 3-4 stops darker (inside a cave? Or a wheel arch?) you'll not get details in the shadows. This is not rocket science.

 

Incidentally, in the book 'Perfect Exposure' I make the point at the very beginning that there is no such thing as a 'correct' exposure -- but that a 'perfect' exposure is one that gives the effect you want.

I'm puzzled here Roger. If we meter a grey card, and then meter a dark tree trunk in the same light, it wouldn't matter what the tonality of the trunk would be but it would expose correctly relative to the grey card. In other words, if the trunk was actually zone 3 relative to a grey card, it should expose as a zone three whether you metered a grey card or the tree trunk. If the tree trunk was a zone 2 1/2 and you "wanted" it to be a zone 2 1/2, you could take a meter reading off the grey card and just stop down 2 1/2 stops and the tree trunk would expose as a zone 2 1/2. It matters only that you place the tonality of the tree trunk where you want it whether a grey card or a tree trunk. I always meter what I want as the darkest object in the scene and place that tonality where I want it but I can do the same thing with a grey card. The beauty of a grey card is that the tonality of the scene will be rendered correctly if you meter the grey card or take an incident meter reading. If the grey card says shoot f16 at 1/8th to expose as normal, all the objects in the scene will be the appropriate tonality relative to the grey card or incident reading. The scene contrast spread may be more than the film (actually the paper used in printing the scene)can handle thereby rendering a dark area as too far down on the toe and therefore black, or the brightest area too bright and way up on the shoulder, but that can be compensated for by taking a meter reading (incident or grey card)in the deep shade "and" a reading in the bright light thereby finding out the scenes contrast range. But I would use the spot meter as it was meant to be used and learn to meter correctly for the contrast spread of the scene and adjust developement accordingly. But I have for years used a grey card to great advantage and seldom can't get a good neg to print.

Well, this could go on forever.

 

1. Please don't mention that book again in here. I've not seen it, and having heard from you what it is - I'll never see it. And somehow, since you co-wrote it, isn't it a FS ad that's not suppose to be done on this forum?

 

2. Grasping the Zone System takes a little practice, and for sure testing.

 

3. As others have already pointed out, your "understanding" of gray card measurment needs more work, perhaps a lot more.

 

4. Yes, there is such thing as CORRECT exposure. It is the one that gives you the desired result. In other words, if what you envisioned prior to it came out that way, you were CORRECT in your approach.

 

5. I'm not saying that Zone System is the ONLY way to get things right. As I said earlier, everything regarding exposure comes from proper INTERPRETATION of the scene.

 

6. Proper interpretation requires a few steps though in our learning process. Not the least of which is equipment / materials / processing testing. This is the MOST critical part of UNDERSTANDING what you own, how it works, and what it needs. it takes time and is often done improperly. Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop is an excellent starter as it spells out testing in simple terms.

 

7. The MOST value from Gray Card testing is based on the fact that it is a uniform STANDARD regardless of manufacturer. If you loose one, get another and you know you're dealing with the same shade of gray, a very important point especially in testing.

 

8. There is nothing that keeps one from reinterpreting Gray Card as a different zone. If for some reason you disagree with it as Zone V (I'm not saying you do), then adjust its placement to your liking. As pointed earlier, it's all in the interpretation.

 

9. Gray Card has been in use for ages. It's worked wonders for absolute majority. It helped many get things right. It's been endorsed by the most known names in photography. It is thus nothing but pure ignorance to suggest, especially on an international forum, that it's bogus and should NEVER be used.

 

10. Having said (9), there is other ways to get a proper exposure. While Gray Card makes it easier, especially for starters, it is not in ANY way a requirement. At the end of the day, and most certainly in the Zone System, one must learn the real life tone values and where to place them.

"Use the ISO speed and give 2 to 3 stops LESS exposure (or use the IRE 1 mark, 2-2/3 stops less) for negs and 2-1/3 stop MORE exposure IRE 10) for slides."

 

Could you explain how using the ISO will get the correct exposure all the time? Could you name one film manufacturer that suggests such a thing?

ISO speeds are determined according to a speed point. For negative films this is the exposure required to get a given minimum density at a given contrast.

 

If you meter the darkest area in which you want shadow and detail, then (without taking account of color, which is a separate issue) you should get the density you need in that area.

 

If you meter a gray card, you do not know how much darker the shadow is than that gray card. This is why you meter the shadow itself.

 

Subject brightness, negative density and print density are somewhat elastically related. Sure, you can 'assign' that gray card wherever you like -- based on a combination of experience and guesswork. But why do it at second hand? Why not measure the shadow directly?

 

To be sure, you may be happier with another speed than the ISO for any number of reasons. You may have an unusually flary taking or enlarging lens; you may prefer a different tonality; you may be using a different paper or developer. That's fine. Adjust accordingly. But there is no better starting point than the ISO speed and a spot meter reading of the shadows.

 

The first commercially available spot meter (SEI) did not even bother with a 'mid-tone' index, because the designers knew there was no point: it has indices only for shadows (negatives) and highlights(transparency). Only later, I suspect at the insistence of Zone System believers, was a worthless mid-tone index added to later meters.

 

As for those who believe that someone has a less than perfect grasp of exposure theory and the use of gray cards, I concur fully. Our difference of opinion concerns only which of us this may be.

 

If I am not allowed to mention my books on the forum, I apologize. I thought that if I answered a question honestly and factually, and then added that additional information is available in one or more of my books, this was not unreasonable. Perhaps the Moderator of the forum would care to give an opinion on this.

 

I'll explain why I am so anti-Zone. I wasted a lot of time on it when I was younger, and I would like to save others from wasting the same amount of time. It is no more than a simplification of basic exposure theory, adorned with needless complications in its execution. I firmly believe that by the time you know enough basic theory to use the Zone System fully, you no longer need it; until then, it won't do you any good.

 

I should have expected the hate mail. Nothing, except some remarks I once made about accountants in an English column, ever raises so many hackles. Some of my best friends are Zonies. One or two of them are very good photographers. But I know at least as many excellent photographers who care not a fig for the Zone System, which cannot, therefore, be essential. My own view is that the disadvantages -- the endless 'testing', the doctrinal disputes with fellow Believers -- grossly outweigh the advantages. If you have found true happiness in Zone doctrine, then the best of luck to you. But a lot of people who have not tried it need to be told that it is the One True Path.

 

Finally, I was gratified but surprised when I received twice as many letters in support of an article in same British magazine, describing the Zone System as "an idea whose time has gone", as I had attacking me. In all fairness, the attacks were pretty vicious.

First, thanks for all the help. Ok, for the example I stated above I forgot to mention that, in order to counter-act the partial metering problem I used my Tamron 70-300 1:4-5.6 to fill the frame with the subject. I set up the gray card in my room (which is pretty dim, but evenly lighted). In order to have a middle tone reading on my Elan, the setting is 30 secs and f/22. I used apeture priority on the spot meter to keep the f-stop at f/22 and the reading is 8 secs. Is there some sort of conversion I need to do here? If I use the 8secs and f/22 the picture would be very under exposed. I really feel like I'm missing something simple here. Sorry if this seems dense. Thanks......

What? Since you don't know how much darker the shadow is

than the gray card, that's why you meter the shadow itself? And

do what with it Roger? Stop down how much to make it a

shadow? So you must know how much darker it is than the gray

card. Keep in mind, Stephen is using 35mm in his example and

not subjecting his film to the full 'Zonie' treatment. Therefore the

development control is left out. So, the best one can hope for is

to correctly expose for an average scene. The best way I explain

this to my students is to say that since the meter is built with a

bias in it, and tries to 'see' everything as 18% gray, if you read a

gray card and make the exposure that will render a gray card

gray, that's a 'correct' exposure. Metering anythig else introduces

the built-in bias and will not result in a properly exposed negative

unless development controls are introduced.

Mr. Mosely, it appears that you now see a 2-stop (4x) difference in meter readings from the gray card. Mr. Kennedy was first to ask if you have made absolutely certain that the ASA/ISO speeds of your two meters are the same. Have you? If one is set to ASA 100 and one is set for ASA 400, you would see a 2-stop difference in readings. In order to compare the readings, it is critical that the ASA/ISO speed settings are the same for each meter.

"ISO speeds are determined according to a speed point. For negative films this is the exposure required to get a given minimum density at a given contrast."

 

Which is great if you run an ISO testing lab. Lousy if you take photographs.

"If you meter the darkest area in which you want shadow and detail, then (without taking account of color, which is a separate issue) you should get the density you need in that area."

 

And place it in Zone III?

There is nothing inherently good or bad about the zone system and it certainly is not the only valid approach to photography. There are informed advocates for using the zone system and informed advocates for alternatives. Proclaiming any approach as the "best" is like proclaiming a particular religion is best -- it is a matter of personal choice.

 

There are some people who enjoy the technical element of photography and, though they would call themselves photographers, might admit in the long run that the primary source of enjoyment is simply the technical aspect. It serves no good purpose to deride their brand of enjoyment as much as it serves no purpose for them to insist that other must do as they do.

 

There are many approaches to getting a good exposure. This can range from a quess to automatic to a series of carefully constructed steps that follow the film from shutter click to print. Which approach is best? It is important to know that many approaches are available and that good results can be achieved with each. With that knowledge, individuals can choose the methods that best suit them.

 

Those of us who like the technical methods must respect those who choose a different path and acknowledge the powerful results of those who choose it. Likewise, those who use non-"zone system" methods would do well to remember that sensitometric science in the hands of an artist can create magic.

Rather than try to explain basic sensitometry, I'll ask a simple question -- or rather, two simple questions. How do you know the brightness of the darkest shadow in your image if you don't measure it? And if you don't measure it, how do you know what exposure to give in order to get texture and detail in that shadow?

Gary: You can do one of three things with your shadow reading:

 

First, use the IRE 1 index (found on many meters but not the Gossen), which gives 2-2/3 stops less than the mid-point. This is an excellent starting point.

 

OR

 

Second, give 2 to 3 stops less exposure than the mid-point index indicates. The exact correction factor can be established by a simple iterative procedure and will remain constant as long as you use the same film and developer.

 

OR

 

Set the ISO speed in the meter 2 to 3 stops higher than the ISO speed of the film. This will give a direct read-out from the mid-point index.

 

If on the other hand you read a gray card you will have correctly exposed shadows ONLY if the shadows are Zone 3 relative to the gray card -- which they may or may not be.If they are Zone 2 relative to the gray card, i.e. very dark shadows, you will not have adequate texture and detail in them; if they are Zone 4 relative to the gray card, i.e. only one stop darker (easy on an overcast day) you will be giving more exposure than you need.

Witold: Yes, the Zone system is hard to understand. Basic sensitometry is a good deal easier to understand. The Zone system is a sub-set of basic sensitometry. Now, if the part is harder to understand than the whole, this suggests to me that there is little point in wasting time on the part. I believe that I do understand the Zone System, but I am 100 per cent confident that I do understand sensitometric theory -- as you would find out if you could bring yourself to read my book.

 

Sure, you've never heard of it. Well, with all due respect, I've never heard of you either. That cannot affect the validity of our respective arguments. If I point out that I have written numerous books on photography, and am published regularly in American, British and Russian magazines, this might be taken as an indication that I am not completely ignorant on the subject; I have assumed that you are not completely ignorant on it either. I might add that the exposure book was checked in MS by one of Ilford's leading experts, and that he agrees 100 per cent with metering SHADOWS, not gray cards.

 

The naming of Zones was a work of genius. Everything else in the Zone System is a waste of time -- in the strictest sense. Film speeds and exposure indices can be established via a simple iterative process, thus:

 

Do your negs have adequate shadow detail? If not, drop the EI until they do. (This explains my insistence on metering shadow detail, not gray cards).

 

Do they print (on average) on grade 2 or 3? If not, change the development time until they do.

 

What does the Zone System offer that this does not? And note that the system above involves taking real pictures, not wasting time on shooting grey cards.

Well, trying to get back to point, Stephen, the differences could be that your

lens your using from you 35mm isn't the same calibration as your meter. If you

want to know exactly the difference, have your lens AND your meter "bench

tested" (you can have this done for free when a large camera store is having

"Nikon Days" because a tech will be at the store with the equipment... or pay

about $50-75 USD to have it doen). You might find that your zoom is a bit

different and that is to be expected from manufacturer and from lens to lens in

fact! Your spot meter is making what it is looking at 18% and in order to make

your image, you need to know how to extrapolate the info. This needs film

testing and or calibration of your meter to make everything talk to you. 18%

grey was derived from metering grass in the spring when the grass was a rich

green color. Do a search for photographic color differences and you will find

that red is very much a different "density" than green and thereby making your

readings not what you'd expect.