Advice needed on Hasselblad and Mamiya exposure meters

[ghoonk]

wentbackward - you're right to a point about the AFD meter (not sure about the DF). For some reason, I find that it has a tendency to underexpose on the Leaf Aptus 65S, which is annoying since it tends to bring noise into the picture when I bump up exposure in post, and yes, I do find the it can get random, though I rarely find it going over.

I like what you suggested about the grey card, and will try that out this weekend to see what the tendency is. Smart use of the rule of sunny 16

Not even sure if the AFD has matrix mode metering (my D3s does, but I usually stick with spot or average meter)

 

[ghoonk]

It just occurred to me that 'exposing for the highlights' doesn't mean metering the highlights. It means trying to get a histogram that is biased to the right, but avoiding blowing the highlights.

If that's the case, then it's a matter of metering a highlight, 'calling' it a Zone 8 (or 9) and if I get a reading of 1/500 at f8, ISO100 from the meter - which the meter 'thinks' it's a Zone 5, then I can 'safely' expose for 2 more f-stops, essentially bringing me into the 1/125, f8 at ISO100 range (since the Zones are 'like' f-stops)

Is that the general idea?

If so, that means if i have a contrasty scene - highlights are reading 1/500, f8, shadows are reading 1/30, f8, then my meter thinks that 1/500 f8 is Zone 5 (for highlights), 1/30 f8 is Zone 5 (for shadows) - the highlights are looking more like Zone 8, while the shadows are somewhere in Zone 3.

Which means - going 1/125 f8 ISO100 would means that the highlights would come out okay, and my shadows would come out a bit dark, but detail should still be retained in the shadows?

 

[Cindy Flood]

Yes, you are getting the idea. There is a lot more to the zone system because it also takes into account the printing...but that is another story and I have not gone there. I hope that you check out Brian Lav, Fred Picker or Ansel Adam's books.
Just remember that print film is a lot more forgiving in the highlights, so meter for the darkest area that you want detail and put that in zone III (read it with spot and stop down 2 stops). Transparency has to be metered for the highlights, like digital....once it is blown to pure white, it is gone.

It just occurred to me that 'exposing for the highlights' doesn't mean metering the highlights. It means trying to get a histogram that is biased to the right, but avoiding blowing the highlights.

If that's the case, then it's a matter of metering a highlight, 'calling' it a Zone 8 (or 9) and if I get a reading of 1/500 at f8, ISO100 from the meter - which the meter 'thinks' it's a Zone 5, then I can 'safely' expose for 2 more f-stops, essentially bringing me into the 1/125, f8 at ISO100 range (since the Zones are 'like' f-stops)

Is that the general idea?

If so, that means if i have a contrasty scene - highlights are reading 1/500, f8, shadows are reading 1/30, f8, then my meter thinks that 1/500 f8 is Zone 5 (for highlights), 1/30 f8 is Zone 5 (for shadows) - the highlights are looking more like Zone 8, while the shadows are somewhere in Zone 3.

Which means - going 1/125 f8 ISO100 would means that the highlights would come out okay, and my shadows would come out a bit dark, but detail should still be retained in the shadows?

 

[jlm]

my current meter crop; note the Zone VI sticker on the Soligor spot meter; sent that meter in to Fred back in '76 for calibrating. The sticker alone is very useful: meter what you want to be zone VII, for example, place the exposure value on the VII on the sticker, the f/stops and shutter will be set for proper exposure for zone V.

nice old Weston and a new fangled Sekonic with the incident dome (my old Luna pro gave up the ghost)

 

[ghoonk]

Yes, you are getting the idea. There is a lot more to the zone system because it also takes into account the printing...but that is another story and I have not gone there. I hope that you check out Brian Lav, Fred Picker or Ansel Adam's books.
Just remember that print film is a lot more forgiving in the highlights, so meter for the darkest area that you want detail and put that in zone III (read it with spot and stop down 2 stops). Transparency has to be metered for the highlights, like digital....once it is blown to pure white, it is gone.

Ah-ha! There's the key - the rule of thumb that I've been looking for

Meter for the darkest area and drop it by 2 stops, i.e. meter throws back 1/125, f8, ISO100, which means that I can shoot at 1/500, f8, ISO100 and get shadow detail while preserving the highlights

Okay, I'm guessing the same would not necessarily go for slide film since the highlights tend to be easily blown (as you mentioned above), so what if I meter for the highlights (e.g. 1/500, f8, ISO100) and add two stops, i.e. 1/2000, f8, ISO100) - I'm guessing that would preserve the highlight while allowing me to capture shadow detail.

Also, going back to the original question - if the Voigt/Zeiss meters are 'calibrated' for slide film, and keeping in mind what I think needs to be done with slide film, I would venture a guess that if I metered a specific scene with the Voigt/Zeiss and a Nikon, the Voigt/Zeiss would return a metered value that would result in slight underexposure. If so, then what I could do is to set ISO80 or ISO50 on the camera if I shoot with ISO100 film on the Voigt/Zeiss, which should make up for the slide film metering bias. And develop the ISO100 film as ISO80/50. Right?

Part 2 of the original questions was whether the meters on other cameras were calibrated in a similar fashion out of the factory, but I guess that's something I will figure out along the way if my shots have a tendency towards over/under exposure with negative vs slide film.

 

[ghoonk]

jlm, the soligor looks good. I was gravitating towards a Sekonic 358 or 756 because i wanted to use it with my pocket wizard for flash photography - what are your recommendations for incident and spot meters?

 

[Cindy Flood]

I have a Sekonic L508. It is discontinued, but you might find a used one on ebay. It is a spot meter, an incident meter and a flash (wired and wireless) meter all rolled up into one. The top of the line Sekonic (758DR) does all of that too, but at about double the price. The 358 is a nice meter, but will not do spot and if you want to follow the zone system, you will probably want a spot meter.

 

[ghoonk]

$255 for a 508 doesn't sound like a bad deal

 

[Stuart Richardson]

As someone who runs a lab, I would say the best results are almost always obtained by rating the film at its box ISO or 1/3 to 1/2 stop lower, and using an incident meter. Reflective meters still work perfectly well in the right hands, but are generally less consistent. Spot meters usually lead to disaster for most people...very few people who use them use them correctly.

If you want to get properly exposed negatives, I would suggest sticking with one lab, shoot a test roll and see how it comes back. Or better yet, ask them what they recommend. Hopefully they are consistent, and once you shoot your test roll you can see if your photos need more or less exposure.
Most labs have to standardize and therefore generally develop film for the box-rated speeds, so I would not worry so much about overexposing and underdeveloping. Just shoot your film at the listed ISO and the lab should take it from there. If those results are not satisfying, then you either need to adjust your meter a little bit to compensate for their process, or you need to start doing it for yourself.

 

[ghoonk]

Stuart - if i rate the film 1/3 to 1/2 stop lower, do I tell my lab to develop it at the box ISO or at the rated ISO?

 

[Stuart Richardson]

The box ISO. But as I said, just shoot it at the box ISO first and see how it comes back. The reason I said shooting 1/3rd to 1/2 sop lower is because negative film tolerates overexposure better than underexposure, so when in doubt, overexpose. But still, it is best to shoot the film at the box rating if you are sending it to a lab, because they are developing based on that speed (and they go through a lot of trouble to figure all that out in testing!...or at least they should!).

 

[ghoonk]

Well, only one way to find out Shoot, develop, print, compensate!

 

[ken_vs_ryu]

with respect to metering, the in-camera meters are problematic as they evaluate various parts of the total scene with more or less influence. I liked my Blad TCC 205 because it was a spot meter, not usually found, but the blad prisms are center weighted. Averaging, center weighted, matrix, all are practically useless with a zone system approach, where the basic concept is to evaluate the amount of reflected light from specific parts of the image.
If you are serious about zone work, you need a spot meter to examine specific areas.
overall exposure is usually done by measuring off a middle gray part of the scene, for that you need to use experience to select the right area, OR, Picker's insight was to meter off of your hand (assuming you are caucasion, and your hand is in the same light as the subject, which should be in Zone VI, hence his workshop title, and then overrexpose one stop, so you are exposing as if you had measured zone V.

another approach is to use an incident meter at the same position as the subject which will set exposure for zone V as well.

ghoonk - why not meter of a gray card and see where your camera is biased towards?

 

[ghoonk]

DOH.

I didn't think of that.

*facepalm*

 

[Cindy Flood]

That is basically what you would be doing if you followed what wentbackward suggested below:

"With regards to the original question, I think Ansel Adams called these differences, the K factor or something like that, where the meter was biased. If you have a grey card and direct sunlight. Just cover the metered area with the grey card (doesn't matter if it's close to the camera, but just ensure direct light is hitting the card) and set f16. The meter should measure the same as the ISO setting, if it is biased in favour of shadows, it will register a higher shutter speed to under expose slightly."

 

[mathomas]

ghoonk:

Here is my simplified method, based on reading here and there, and quite a few rolls of film. For B&W negative film, on sunny days with strong shadows, and for photographs that I really care about and fuss over (not snapshots), and that I am going to process myself, and scan:

- Rate film at 1 stop slower (so Tri-X is shot at 200, for example)
- Do incident "metering", or sunny-16. Reflective is too variable, unless done off a gray card.
- Develop for 20% less time than normally recommended
(if you send out for processing, then tell them to pull 1 stop, and pray)

The above assures details in the shadows (via overexposure), and reduces the chance of blowing out highlights (via underdevelopment). Due to the latitude of B&W negative film, any other variance from "perfect" exposure aren't usually harmful.

If I'm shooting snapshots, then I just use built-in reflective metering and take the good with the bad. Sometimes you just have to relax and take pictures.

(Also, personally, I'm not sure I believe any camera manufacturer calibrates their meter's sensitivity for any particular film type. It's more likely that there are just sample variations. That being said, someone's suggestion of using a gray card to test it is great, if you insist on reflective).


barn, littleton historical museum, colorado by mike thomas, on Flickr



buick riviera, lone tree car show by mike thomas, on Flickr

(Yes, I have light leaks in my Hassy backs. Will fix them this weekend!)