Metering Help!

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use a Nikon CP5700, with a Minolta IVF Incident meter. Does anyone know
why I cannot get the hand held meter to give consistantly decent results.
For example; I will take an incident reading of a scene, use that reading
and set my camera manually to the settings called for by the Minolta. In
most cases the result is an overexposed shot. I have fooled around with
different ISO setting trying to match the camera to the Minolta. Anyone
have any ideas or suggestions? Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would suggest you need to:

1. Do an AWFUL lot of reading up on how incident metering works, and
what the pitfalls are. I presume you have done this sort of stuff
before? If not, then it's probably a technique issue, not a camera
issue, and you would be better served to trust the Nikon's metering
until you get incident metering sorted. Bear in mind that
'out-of-the-box', the Nikon is probably set up to give over contrasty
results with occasional blown highlights and its dynamic range is not
really state-of-the-art anyway - if you are not dealing with those
issues, incident metering may not be such a good idea.

2. Check the Nikon's exposure settings against a couple of other (pref.
non-digital) cameras that you !know! have accurate metering, or get it
checked at a pro photo store - tell them what you are trying to do.
It's possible the Nikon is simply not telling the truth about its
settings, be that shutter speed, aperture, or even ISO..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Saturday 01 January 2005 15:06, John wrote:

> I use a Nikon CP5700, with a Minolta IVF Incident meter. Does anyone
> know why I cannot get the hand held meter to give consistantly decent
> results.
> For example; I will take an incident reading of a scene, use that
> reading
> and set my camera manually to the settings called for by the Minolta.
> In
> most cases the result is an overexposed shot. I have fooled around
> with
> different ISO setting trying to match the camera to the Minolta.
> Anyone
> have any ideas or suggestions? Thanks

My guess is that you are using the meter incorrectly or the camera ISO
settings are not exactly equal to film ISO.

To meter properly with an incident meter you point the metering dome
toward the camera on the camera-subject axis. Pointing the dome toward
the subject as you would do with a reflectance type meter is incorrect
and will result in erroneous readings.

To check if you camera ISO settings are accurate, you'll need an 18%
neutral grey card. Afix the card to a dark vertical surface that is
exposed to full mid-day sunlight, set your camera to ISO 100, then fill
the camera frame with the grey card being careful not to let your
shadow fall on the card, and take a picture. Note the meter reading.
Using the "Sunny 16" rule, which says that the reciprocal of the ISO
number at f16 is the correct exposure in bright, mid-day sunlight. So
for an ISO of 100, you should get f16 at 1/100 sec (or the equivalent
at any other f-stop) for the reading off the grey card. If you didn't
get within 1/2 stop, plus or minus, of the Sunny 16 reading, then the
camera ISO setting isn't equivalent to film ISO, and you'll have to
make adjustments to the ISO setting on your meter, that is, set the
meter at an ISO that is higher or lower, as appropriate, than the ISO
number on the camera. Don't adjust the meter calibrations!!! They're
fine. Just adjust the ISO dial up or down on the meter to get the same
reading as the camera gave off the grey card.

As a double check, at the same time take a spot reflectance reading of
the grey card with your meter, and do a proper incident reading, too.
Compare all the results. They should all closely correlate.

Go here -- http://www.sekonic.com/IncidentVsReflect.html -- for a quick
course on proper metering technique.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:29:56 -0800, Stefan Patric
<writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:

>My guess is that you are using the meter incorrectly or the camera ISO
>settings are not exactly equal to film ISO.
>
>To meter properly with an incident meter you point the metering dome
>toward the camera on the camera-subject axis.

I think that you should point an incidental meter toward the primary
light source (not the camera), while holding it at the location of the
subject.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I think that you should point an incidental meter toward the primary
> light source (not the camera), while holding it at the location of the
> subject.
>

Nope, nada - to use an incident meter you hold it in front of the subject
and point it directly at the camera lens as the previous poster stated.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:24:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com>
wrote:

>> I think that you should point an incidental meter toward the primary
>> light source (not the camera), while holding it at the location of the
>> subject.
>>
>
>Nope, nada - to use an incident meter you hold it in front of the subject
>and point it directly at the camera lens as the previous poster stated.
>

I was always told the light meter's dome should be directly lit by the
same source that's lighting the subject. Been doing it this way for
25 years... hasn't failed me yet.

However, if you want to get anal about it <grin>, two readings should
be taken. One pointing at the light source, the other pointing at the
camera. The correct exposure would be halfway between these two
results. Still... I maintain that pointing at the light source is
good enough.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:36:24 GMT, secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:24:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> I think that you should point an incidental meter toward the primary
>>> light source (not the camera), while holding it at the location of the
>>> subject.
>>>
>>
>>Nope, nada - to use an incident meter you hold it in front of the subject
>>and point it directly at the camera lens as the previous poster stated.
>>
>
>I was always told the light meter's dome should be directly lit by the
>same source that's lighting the subject. Been doing it this way for
>25 years... hasn't failed me yet.

IUt seems as if you are arguing the same point.

>
>However, if you want to get anal about it <grin>, two readings should
>be taken. One pointing at the light source, the other pointing at the
>camera. The correct exposure would be halfway between these two
>results. Still... I maintain that pointing at the light source is
>good enough.
>
Ummm… If that is anal then I am too, as are legions of other pro
photographers ;o). When shooting commercial product, catalogue or
brochure, it is generally accepted to meter all sources of light
individually (directionally no less, no dome necessary and avoided at
all costs whenever stray light can cause a misreading. Not even
mentioning color metering here.) The meter is held as close to the
surface of the object (or model) and aimed directly at the light
source when each is measured. This often amounts to many more than
only two readings and neither is a reading of the camera itself
(unless mixing on camera flash into the equation). Only when averaging
more than one source does the meter rest upon the object pointed
directly at the camera lens. If only using one source this usually is
an insignificant (if not worthless) reading. How would one determine
the lighting of the dark side of any 3 dimensional object when using
that method?