If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Metering Help!
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:29:56 -0800, Stefan Patric
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:24:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy"
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:36:24 GMT, secheese wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:24:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy" 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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:36:24 GMT, secheese wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:24:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy" 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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
N65 or N75 - bulb and matrix metering questions | DL | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | November 7th 04 06:38 PM |
Metering Question | nk | Digital Photography | 4 | August 18th 04 02:10 AM |
reflected light vs incident light metering | Gordon Moat | 35mm Photo Equipment | 15 | July 16th 04 12:27 AM |
Can anyone recommend a good guide for spot metering? Zone system? | w | Photographing Nature | 5 | March 14th 04 06:38 PM |
spot metering help needed | w | General Photography Techniques | 14 | December 10th 03 03:14 AM |