Gossen Pilot Service

[kmac]

The meter in the Retina seems ok for the age it is. Here's two shots that only required the tiniest amount of post processing just to increase the contrast a bit. These were taken before I bought the Sekonic L208.

 

 

 

 

With this third shot, still on the same film, I metered my hand with the Sekonic L208, keeping it down away from the sky, and hoped the reading would be slow enough to give a good exposure of the friendly parrot that drops in occasionally for a feed of sunflower seeds. I was figuring that my hand in shadow would be much the same shade as the red body of the parrot. The L208 reading was still is too fast for my liking. Perhaps the red on the bird needed a filter to brighten it up ... I'd need advise on that.

 

Color shot of the parrot that's shows the bright red.

Say "Hello"

[rodeo_joe1]

Perhaps the red on the bird needed a filter to brighten it up ... I'd need advise on that.

Red and green are going to appear very similar on panchromatic film. A red filter will darken the green leaves and blue(?) sky, it won't brighten the red parrot. Filters remove light, they don't add it or brighten their own colour, although applying the filter factor gives that illusion.

 

As for exposures being 'correct'; that can only be confirmed by sensitometry/densitometry of the processed film. Scanners and film latitude can cover up quite a few stops in error.

Edited December 9, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

[q.g._de_bakker]

Correct exposure cannot be determined by densitometry, because such procedures know nothing about what you want. Maybe you want to compress the dark parts. Maybe you want an even, straight curve distribution of tones. Maybe you want less ... etc.

 

It's rather nonsensical to point out that filters decrease exposure (in whatever selective way) and that an increase of exposure requires an increase of exposure.

What filters do is change the relative exposure, selectively. So yes, whether you apply a filter factor or not, a red filter will change the relative brightness, make red things appear brighter relative to blue things.

[kmac]

a red filter will change the relative brightness, make red things appear brighter relative to blue things.

 

Thanks for that information.

 

I've brightened this image to what I reckon the correct exposure should have been. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the corrected one and the previous one.

 

The new Sekonic Twinmate may be going back. Some readings are just too far on the under-exposure side, and it can be a little erratic as well I found out yesterday, two readings of the same object, withing seconds of each other, were different, 800sec and 500sec @ f8 - I'll give it one last chance, I'll trial it for one more day and send it back if it doesn't come up to scratch.

[q.g._de_bakker]

To test a handheld meter, you need to know at least that the way you handle it is not a confounder. And especially when using reflected light metering, a small variation in how you point the thing may have a great effect. So begin testing using incident light metering only. Compare that to incident metering using another, known and trusted meter. Or to reflected, ttl metering using a camera pointed at a good grey card.

 

I have and use quite a few handheld meters, and they all work great. Though it is rather hard to find two that agree to within 1/3 of a stop. You will have to get to know a meter, learn how it behaves in your hands (!). Incident metering is, for several reasons, almost fool proof and to be preferred over reflected light metering.

 

Remember too that the way you interpret the results and translate those to speed and aperture settings will have an effect too. Using built-in meters on auto settings, you have no say over, hence no influence on that. So an extra thing to keep in mind when testing and using handheld meters. My personal bias, possibly in common with many others, is to be too optimistic when transferring. We all, i suppose, rather use, say, 1/30 than 1/15, so when a reading falls in between...

 

Built-in meters only offer ttl reflected light metering, which may install a general believe that that is the best way of doing things. And though it works well enough, if you know and understand what the meter is doing and what to point it at, incident light metering is less complicated and faster. But ttl metering offers the advantage over reflected light metering using a handheld thingy of seeing what you point the meter at.

 

So if you want a handheld meter, and do own a camera with built-in mdtering, use the handheld meter for incident, the camera for ttl reflected light metering.

Edited December 10, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[rodeo_joe1]

Correct exposure cannot be determined by densitometry, because such procedures know nothing about what you want. Maybe you want to compress the dark parts. Maybe you want an even, straight curve distribution of tones. Maybe you want less ... etc.

Feel free to chime in with some useful information then Q. G. instead of just creating confusion and an argument.

 

Do you even own a camera? Because you're quite critical for someone that's never posted a single picture on Photo.net.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Feel free to chime in with some useful information then Q. G. instead of just creating confusion and an argument.

 

Do you even own a camera? Because you're quite critical for someone that's never posted a single picture on Photo.net.

Sure... You don't like it when people point out that you post nonsense in you quest to impress your greatness upon us all.

Why not address the matter of fact points made in replies, Rodeo Clown? Well, that's why.

 

And to help you understand: pointing out that you post useless nonsense is indeed very useful information. A forum like this is not for posing purposes.

Edited December 10, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[kmac]

So begin testing using incident light metering only.

 

I'll do some incident metering tomorrow.

 

I was out testing again today with reflective readings and I've concluded that the Twinmate is one stop under-exposing and that it appears to be calibrated for highlights. Every bright object in the photos from the digital cameras (I used two digital cameras on manual mode this time) was well exposed, just how I like them, but unfortunately the low light areas were too dark. Photos with no bright objects, simply came out one stop under-exposed all over. Today was overcast with no shadows and the Twinmate's needle hardly moved at all when I swung it around from one spot to the next, so I guess that lighting condition was good for testing the meter, no wild fluctuations to confuse things.

 

This particular Twinmate I have is calibrated wrong, I'm sure of it. My Canon 980 digital has a light meter scale that I can manually set to ± "0", and every time, up close to an object, the shutter speed @ f8 differed from the Twinmate, which was always one shutter speed faster @ f8. I want an explanation from Sekonic, that's how things are traveling at the moment.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Your digital cameras will be using a weighted matrix metering, i.e. not 'straight' reflected light metering, but an appraissal and adjustment of what the meter does, based on many readings taken in many parts of the field of view.

Using a simple reflected light meter, you get nothing of that. It's all up to you, to take note of what you are metering, ie what is visible to the meter. How that determines what the reading will be. And what you have to do to turn that into the camera setting that will produce the desired result.

It is not easy. You have to keep your wits... etc. So don't blame the (simple) meter too quickly.

[kmac]

Your digital cameras will be using a weighted matrix metering,

 

Yes, good point. One of my digitals' was set to "Pattern", the other set to "Center-weighted". I'll try the other modes and see what difference they make.

 

I haven't had this trouble in the past with hand-held meters, generally they've performed well without having to do anything drastic to correct the exposures in post processing, the negatives have always looked good, bar a few films that were expired, or the chemicals were a bit off. I usually know what the problems are as they arise.

[kmac]

Scanners and film latitude can cover up quite a few stops in error.

 

The scanner was set the same for all frames on the film regardless of the metering, the Retina's meter, and the Twinmate's. The scanner didn't correct the exposures such that they all looked the same, some were darker and some were lighter. The Twinmate's exposures were all darker, and from what I know now about that meter, they were all one stop darker.

[kmac]

I did a simple test using the Sekonic L208 to show the difference between three ways of metering. From left to right: 1) Reflective reading pointing the meter straight at the tree. 2) Reflective reading pointing the meter at the very base of the tree. 3) Incident reading by turning around and pointing the meter at the sky, angling the meter up just enough to clear a building in shadow (This incident reading matched the digital camera's meter reading, I'm happy about that, I might be saved, but what about the reflective readings, what am I supposed to do with this meter, use it only for incident readings?)

 

123

[AJG]

It looks as though you have a useful incident meter, which is not a bad thing. All of the selenium cell meters that I have used have similar issues with a very wide acceptance angle which makes precise metering difficult. For this image with this meter I would have walked up to the tree and taken a reading then stepped back to take the picture. Another option would be a spot meter, but this will be many times larger and heavier than your Sekonic L208.

[kmac]

It looks as though you have a useful incident meter, which is not a bad thing. All of the selenium cell meters that I have used have similar issues with a very wide acceptance angle which makes precise metering difficult. For this image with this meter I would have walked up to the tree and taken a reading then stepped back to take the picture. Another option would be a spot meter, but this will be many times larger and heavier than your Sekonic L208.

 

I did actually walk up closer to the tree for the two reflective shots, 1 and 2, for the reason you mentioned, the wide angle of acceptance. So what you see there in those two pics is how the tree itself metered. The under-exposure is very consistent with reflective metering using this L208. If I was to continue using it, I'd just have to adjust the camera to two stops slower speed every time. There's two stops difference between pic 1 and pic 3, they went 400sec, 200sec, 100sec, @f8 100ASA.

 

The incident metering was pretty good each time. I took quite a few shots and they were matching the Canon digital's readings to 1/3 of a stop. Pic no3 is how my eyes saw the tree, highlighted leaves on the top half but still light green in color. However, I need to learn more about incident metering because I was not sure where to point the meter. So far I've been pointing it just up at the sky behind me. It seemed to work, but what if there was a wall or a building right behind me? I'll need to find out.

[rodeo_joe1]

Correct exposure cannot be determined by densitometry

That's the nonsense right there.

Film speed - and hence exposure - is determined purely by densitometry. As seen in this graphic.

But maybe you can't understand that?

 

And did you not notice that I put 'correct' exposure in parentheses?

The true correct exposure is, of course, that which gives the desired result, but calibrating or checking a light meter requires working to a standard exposure and development. Such as is set out in the ISO 1993 standard, and which can be read on Wikipedia.

 

Kmac. You can check the meter reasonably easily without a densitometer or complicated procedure. You just need to find an evenly-lit white or grey surface.

 

1. Load your film camera with the B&W film of your choice, fill the frame with the blank surface and set the exposure to the reading that you get from metering that surface.

2. Give the film your normal processing.

 

This should result in a frame with a standard exposure equivalent to a grey card exposed according to an incident reading.

 

3. Compare the resultant negative density with this chart.

You can just hold the frame up against the white areas of the (sRGB calibrated) screen and compare the density of the film against the squares.

 

Your mid-density (Zone V if you must!) should be 0.6D above base+fog - according to Ansel Adams. For myself, (together with most film manufacturers) I'd prefer to see a mid density of 0.7D to within +/- 0.1D.

 

The above density chart should allow you to gauge the base density using steps 0.1 to 0.4D. (If it's much more than 0.4D then either your film is stale or fogged, or you're overdeveloping the film.)

 

Your mid-density + base + fog should fall somewhere between the two limits of 0.9D and 1.1D. If not, then something's amiss with the meter, your developing or the camera shutter. But just going by the look of scans or guesswork won't get to the root of any problem.

Edited December 11, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

[AJG]

As long as you are in the same light as your subject, you can point the dome of the incident meter at the camera position and get an accurate reading. If you're in the shade and your subject is in the sun then you have a problem and would need to move into the sun to take a reading. I used a Sekonic L28 C incident meter for quite a while for shooting reversal 16 mm movie film, which is both expensive and unforgiving if your exposure isn't right.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Rodeo Person, you do not understand that whether 17 is the correct answer or not does not depend on the fact that it is, among other things, the correct result of 7 + 10, but on what the question is.

No surprise, though.

[q.g._de_bakker]

I did actually walk up closer to the tree for the two reflective shots, 1 and 2, for the reason you mentioned, the wide angle of acceptance. So what you see there in those two pics is how the tree itself metered. The under-exposure is very consistent with reflective metering using this L208. If I was to continue using it, I'd just have to adjust the camera to two stops slower speed every time. There's two stops difference between pic 1 and pic 3, they went 400sec, 200sec, 100sec, @f8 100ASA.

 

The incident metering was pretty good each time. I took quite a few shots and they were matching the Canon digital's readings to 1/3 of a stop. Pic no3 is how my eyes saw the tree, highlighted leaves on the top half but still light green in color. However, I need to learn more about incident metering because I was not sure where to point the meter. So far I've been pointing it just up at the sky behind me. It seemed to work, but what if there was a wall or a building right behind me? I'll need to find out.

What is noticeable, is that in 1. the sky shows more detail than in 2 and 3. So it´s not wrong in itself, just not what you wanted perhaps. Coming in closer to the tree, excluding more (all?) of the sky produces a result more tuned to the tree. As should be expected. So not a sign that the meter is wrong. The incident light reading is different again, closer to what you like. But to my eyes, that doesn´t mean that 2 is incorrect.

I wonder, though, about the two stops. That´s a lot. But two stops difference between what? A reading that includes the sky and one that doesn´t. Not something you would want to apply a constant correction of two stops for. It´s due to what the meter sees. Not to a malfunction or misscallibration.

 

In incident metering, you point the dome towards the camera or in the direction of the camera. If there is a mucht stronger light from the side or above, not directly illuminating the main part of your subject, you might consider turning the meter such that it catches a bit of that as well. If you want to mainly catch that strong light illuminating the side/contour of your subject, you hold the meter such that that strong side light is metered. You get the drift: it is up to you to decide what to go for. But the general rule is that you want your meterdome to be illuminated by the same light that is illuminating the most important part of your subject.

I do not quite get why the incident reading, pointing the dome up, produces an exposure that is even lighter than the reflected one taken from the tree base, with skies washed out more. But i don't know the situation.

Edited December 11, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[kmac]

Kmac. You can check the meter reasonably easily without a densitometer or complicated procedure. You just need to find an evenly-lit white or grey surface.

 

1. Load your film camera with the B&W film of your choice, fill the frame with the blank surface and set the exposure to the reading that you get from metering that surface.

2. Give the film your normal processing.

 

This should result in a frame with a standard exposure equivalent to a grey card exposed according to an incident reading.

 

3. Compare the resultant negative density with this chart.

 

Very good. I'll be loading another FP4 (120) in a folder that has a Synchro Compur shutter that I recently CLA'd and I checked the 1sec speed numerous times by watching the seconds hand on a large battery powered wall clock I have here in the house. The 1sec speed is pretty good, not longer nor shorter, so that shutter should be good for the test. I'll follow Ilford's specs for the developing.

[kmac]

As long as you are in the same light as your subject, you can point the dome of the incident meter at the camera position and get an accurate reading. If you're in the shade and your subject is in the sun then you have a problem and would need to move into the sun to take a reading.

 

That's what I was trying to determine when I was doing the incident testing. But when I pointed the dome back to where the camera would be (it wasn't on a tripod), I was only metering shadows and tall trees some yards behind the camera ... so I angled the meter up towards the sky thinking that was the same light that was falling on the subject. It seemed to work, the test pics were looking good and the readings were matching the readings from the Canon digital compact which of course was pointed straight at the subject getting reflective readings. I'll now use incident metering often, now that I know what it can do, it may just solve a lot of my exposure problems, especially for landscapes, which I never get right for film using reflective metering.

[kmac]

I wonder, though, about the two stops. That´s a lot. But two stops difference between what? A reading that includes the sky and one that doesn´t. Not something you would want to apply a constant correction of two stops for. It´s due to what the meter sees. Not to a malfunction or misscallibration

 

Yes I'll back-pedal there a bit and just say that the L208 is under-exposing only one stop with all the reflective readings I've observed so far. The incident readings from the L208 have been quite different and appear to be the more correct exposures, so I'm taking your earlier advise on board to use incident metering in preference to reflective metering. I want to get it right for my expensive 4x5 sheets, I've hesitated exposing them not only because I don't want to waste them, but also I want to get the exposures as good as I can get them without blown-out highlights, which can't be fixed.

 

I do not quite get why the incident reading, pointing the dome up, produces an exposure that is even lighter than the reflected one taken from the tree base, with skies washed out more. But i don't know the situation.

 

I don't get it either, but it worked, and on more than one occasion. Perhaps it was just that the sky was overcast and the lighting was relative even everywhere. I've yet to try incident readings in bright sunlight, that could make a difference, and if it does, I'll soon know about it. It's been overcast here for the last week, but today is sunny so I'll go out and see what I get.

[AJG]

That's what I was trying to determine when I was doing the incident testing. But when I pointed the dome back to where the camera would be (it wasn't on a tripod), I was only metering shadows and tall trees some yards behind the camera ... so I angled the meter up towards the sky thinking that was the same light that was falling on the subject. It seemed to work, the test pics were looking good and the readings were matching the readings from the Canon digital compact which of course was pointed straight at the subject getting reflective readings. I'll now use incident metering often, now that I know what it can do, it may just solve a lot of my exposure problems, especially for landscapes, which I never get right for film using reflective metering.

Just to be clear, you were metering the amount of light falling on the meter in a particular location, not the trees behind you. The beauty of incident metering is that it isn't fooled by very light or very dark subjects in the way that reflected metering can be if the photographer is oblivious to what the meter is pointed at. The difficulty is the the meter needs to be in the same light as the subject, something that isn't always easy to accomplish.

[kmac]

Just to be clear, you were metering the amount of light falling on the meter in a particular location, not the trees behind you. The beauty of incident metering is that it isn't fooled by very light or very dark subjects in the way that reflected metering can be if the photographer is oblivious to what the meter is pointed at. The difficulty is the the meter needs to be in the same light as the subject, something that isn't always easy to accomplish.

 

I tried incident metering again today in bright sunlight. I tried two ways, straight back at the camera's position, and the other way was angled slightly up at the sky, the same as I did yesterday but under bright sun this time instead of the yesterday's bleak overcast light.

 

I get your point about the meter needing to be in the same light as the subject, and I made sure of that today, so here are three more pics that show the results of today's test.

 

No 1 Dome pointed back at the camera's position

No 2 Dome pointed back as in No1 but slightly angled towards the sky

No 3 Reflective reading with meter pointed at the tree but angled slightly down

 

The tree has changed in the last 24 hours, it's now got near white flowery things all over the top half of it. No1 is probably the correct exposure, but I like No 2 best using this L208. If it's under-exposed, then that's about the right amount of under-exposure I'd like to work with. No 3 is even more under-exposed and I'm not real sure what to think of it, It's dark and I just can't get the reflective metering to come out any other way.

 

1 2 3

[q.g._de_bakker]

Could be the way they are presented, and how i view these, but all three of them appear correct to me. A bit different, yes. But as you said, you like 2 best, and that is what is key: what do you like to get.

It's a matter of learning your meter and how you handle it, so you will know what to do to always get what you like best. And then you're set.

 

What were your speed and aperture setting for 1, 2 and 3?

Edited December 12, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[kmac]

What were your speed and aperture setting for 1, 2 and 3?

 

The speeds were: No1, 1/200 sec .... No2, 1/249 sec .... No3, 1/320 sec .... all at f8

 

All three are straight out of the camera, I did nothing more to them than the tiniest sharpening and cropping the ends of each image. With reflective metering, this new L208 (just the one I have) seems to perform better in bright sunlight than overcast light. The duller the light, the more the meter under-exposes, exponentially probably.

 

Incident readings are good in both condition of light. What this means for me, is that in overcast or dull light, I'll only use incident light measurements. For reflective readings, they might be ok in bright sunlight, but only if I meter a dark part of the subject, or even the shadow cast by the subject.

 

Many thanks guys, you've been a great help with this exposure anomaly.