Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: luxborealis on June 26, 2012, 12:25:19 pm
-
Okay, so I'm old school and showing my age: I fondly remember the days of shooting 4x5 and nailing down precise exposure with a Pentax Spot Meter using Exposure Values (EV).
Lately, I've moved back to a more "retro" workflow with my D800e and prime lenses, as always, on a tripod. While the Matrix (evaluative) metering in the D800e seems to be up to the task, when using the spot meter I notice two things:
- it's not as precise as the Pentax spot meter - even when pointed at clear blue sky, clouds and the sun well away from the central point make a dramatic difference;
- i miss the simplicity of using EV numbers and a zone scale to determine exposure.
I know, I know ETTR is today's mantra (and I quite agree) but it's not really any different than Fred Picker's "East Coast" Zone system (put the highest value with detail on the Zone VIII - quite the opposite of AA's West Coast version of putting the lowest value with detail on Zone II)
Is there a camera manufacturer that. when ditched in to spot meter mode, offers EVs in the viewfinder or on the LCD? Or perhaps EVs will quietly slip into the history books along with day transfer and hyperfocal distance (although that's one of the joys of prime lenses!).
-
being rather new to the digital mode of zone metering and the two schools mentioned, in a novice approach, I have to ask why you cannot place the EV "zone" value in the one you want and work the rest of the workflow to meet that desired previsioned image?
I am currently reading Picker, so I may be a bit premature in asking this question. Currently, I use a somewhat bastardized method of in-camera (D7000) spot metering by metering on the brightest value then either adding or subtracting to the exposure I want. I always do this in Manual Mode. This seems to be closer to the ETTR method but since I have only briefly perused it, do not want to make silly insinuations. I do find the meter in the D7000 to be woefully inadequate compared to my Pentax Spotmeter. It's a start, eh?
-
Quote
Okay, so I'm old school and showing my age: I fondly remember the days of shooting 4x5 and nailing down precise exposure with a Pentax Spot Meter using Exposure Values (EV).
Unquote
I would quibble about the word precise in the context of exposure. I think "best" would be more appropriate? Why because if you decide - you are a LR user - to image edit an image then that precise exposure will in most cases, if not all, be changed? Therefore the effort and money involved will be possibly a waste of time. If you don't image edit then it is worthwhile getting the "best" exposure and accept what you captured. I edit 99% of images I deem to be keepers so I decided that purchasing a light meter would be a waste of time. I think you are trying to ride two horses at the same time. Trying to think like a film photographer and a digital one. Probably best to choose which horse to ride? :)
-
Why not buy a spot meter?
-
http://www.rawdigger.com/houtouse/lightmeter-calibration
-
I went through three Pentax Spotmeters over thirty years.
The first generation (the one with an analog dial) taught me the beauty of precision exposure measurement and it clearly explained the meaning of the term "exposure latitude", right there on the dial.
The second one, my first all-digital, somehow slipped into the Fraser River late one January night. I'm sure it's still there.
The third sits in my "retired items" drawer - fond reminder of my days shooting aerials for the movie business. I loved that meter. "The Truth Teller", I called it. My backup, never used, I sold when I retired.
Movie producers are rather intolerant of exposure errors, especially helicopter aerials, which are quite expensive to implement. You can not guess, you can not bracket and you can not screw up. Period. The Pentax Spotmeters never let me down.
-
I would quibble about the word precise in the context of exposure. I think "best" would be more appropriate?
The word "precise" was used on purpose, but "best" could also be used. In the context of the post, "precise" describes more clearly the intentional reading of a tonal value in EV and its placement in relation to the Zone system in era long before LR, but well entrenched in developing for N, N+1, N-1, etc.