Video - why?

[Rob C]

Say it isn't so, Rob. My world is crumbling!

You mean, a seismic moment?

;-)

Rob

[GrahamBy]

Even HC-B is guilty.

Well look, that photo he made of the couple sitting on the street in San Francisco... couldn't even hold the camera straight. Pff.

[GrahamBy]

I enjoy using my M8.2s. I run 'em a lot like film-era Ms: fixed ISO (320, same as I'd typically choose with "400" speed neg film),

Why 320? A CMOS sensor at 320 is like MF FP4. If you use 1600 it starts to look like FP4, Tri-X is out past 3200...

(Cynthia at 1600 ISO, f/4 & 1/60 with a 200mm (300 equiv):

[Rob C]

Why 320? A CMOS sensor at 320 is like MF FP4. If you use 1600 it starts to look like FP4, Tri-X is out past 3200...

(Cynthia at 1600 ISO, f/4 & 1/60 with a 200mm (300 equiv):

Lovely tones - maybe from the piano, too.

You'd need to try pushing harder if you want Tri-X 135.

;-)

Rob

[GrahamBy]

Lovely tones - maybe from the piano, too.

Boesendorfer courtesy of the Goethe Institut It looked as good as it sounded.

[Rob C]

Boesendorfer courtesy of the Goethe Institut It looked as good as it sounded.

Your Cynthia is one intense chick!

Rob

[Telecaster]

Why 320? A CMOS sensor at 320 is like MF FP4. If you use 1600 it starts to look like FP4, Tri-X is out past 3200...

The M8.2 uses a 10-year-old CCD. (Well, it seems to use two of 'em stitched together. Processing RAWs via Sandy's PhotoRaw—no jiggery pokery—reveals what looks like a center seam in some higher-ISO infrared images.) Native ISO is 160. I chose 320 mainly because I've long used ISO 400 film at EI 320 with film Leicas. Using manual settings I can guesstimate exposure pretty well. Max ISO is 2500, which is nicely grainy (but can turn dirty with underexposure).

-Dave-

[GrahamBy]

Ah, I see I'm far out of touch with the Leica world :-)

Rob: yes; Cynthia is very intense. Admittedly this was Erlskonnig, a song cycle about pedophiles abducting and murdering children, so...
Then as soon as she steps away from the piano she goes into grinning adolescent mode (although she's 39). I'm trying to get some calm time with her in some good light away from piano and audience and her phone, but it's difficult.

[Rob C]

The M8.2 uses a 10-year-old CCD. (Well, it seems to use two of 'em stitched together. Processing RAWs via Sandy's PhotoRaw—no jiggery pokery—reveals what looks like a center seam in some higher-ISO infrared images.) Native ISO is 160. I chose 320 mainly because I've long used ISO 400 film at EI 320 with film Leicas. Using manual settings I can guesstimate exposure pretty well. Max ISO is 2500, which is nicely grainy (but can turn dirty with underexposure).

-Dave-

I've noticed that a lot of people make this same claim. I am not disputing it works - to an extent - was just about to say that I never adopted it. I used to meter absolutely everything. In both b/w and colour. The heat of the moment can easily let you lose track of a passing cloud making that dress look a little bit darker than your eyes had led you to believe.

In fact, though my F2 was a Photomic, I never used the metering capability. The olde worlde Weston Master whatever did just fine, thank you, if I knew which dark area to point it towards, and keep my own shadow out of the scene! Invercone never let me down.

Rob C

[GrahamBy]

I certainly can't from one day to another. My mind boggles at how much more light there is in summer: I have to convince myself the camera is not mis-metering by taking a test shot and staring at it. Too much adaptation. In fact even between light and shade on the same day.

[RSL]

I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness. But there often would be situations -- especially indoors under not particularly good light, when I'd be going for a street shot with the M4, Tri-X, f/2 -- where I couldn't whip out the meter and say, "Please hold still a minute while I take a reading." I learned to guess, and I learned to guess reasonably accurately. I can't completely discount Dave's claim.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I used to be quit good at guessing exposures back in film times, but I went more into spot measurements lately.

Exposure meters are damn good now…

Best regards
Erik

I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness. But there often would be situations -- especially indoors under not particularly good light, when I'd be going for a street shot with the M4, Tri-X, f/2 -- where I couldn't whip out the meter and say, "Please hold still a minute while I take a reading." I learned to guess, and I learned to guess reasonably accurately. I can't completely discount Dave's claim. The problem you run into is that if you decide to push Tri-X to ASA 800, you pretty much need to shoot everything on the roll with that intention in mind.

[Rob C]

I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness. But there often would be situations -- especially indoors under not particularly good light, when I'd be going for a street shot with the M4, Tri-X, f/2 -- where I couldn't whip out the meter and say, "Please hold still a minute while I take a reading." I learned to guess, and I learned to guess reasonably accurately. I can't completely discount Dave's claim.

Ah, true, but I never faced such situations, remember: I was doing it for my keep!

On a general footing, though, for street-style shooting one could always take a general reading on the hand-held meter (or even meter the hand!) and set the camera to suit. I don't think I ever exposed a tranny without an incident light reading first; a sort of foreplay, one could say - at a stretch.

;-)

Rob

[RSL]

Quite so. And outdoors I always used the Weston. With the 4x5 on a stand I'd often do a series of readings IAW st. Ansel's zone system.

[GrahamBy]

I guess I do very short range guesstimation, since I have the camera locked on manual. Conveniently the Pentax has a meter bar-graph on the top display, so I can just point it at some appropriately grey surface and check whether I'm close. I usually get within a half stop that way... and of course it's not Kodachrome

It seems Pentax deleted that bar-graph from the K1... silly.

[Telecaster]

I've noticed that a lot of people make this same claim.

Oh, I'm no wizard. I definitely use the meter! But I enjoy making ballpark guesstimates first too, then seeing with the meter how badly I blew it (or, occasionally, didn't). It's just part of taking pleasure in the process.

The attached pic came about due to blowing it badly and then thinking, "Hey, I like that."

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness.

I still have my dad's Weston Master II. Still works, though I can't vouch for its accuracy. He stopped using it when he "went SLR" in the late '90s (with a Nikon F3-HP rig I got for him) due to aging eyes and the resulting rangefinder focusing difficulties.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

I still have my dad's Weston Master II. Still works, though I can't vouch for its accuracy. He stopped using it when he "went SLR" in the late '90s (with a Nikon F3-HP rig I got for him) due to aging eyes and the resulting rangefinder focusing difficulties.

-Dave-

Dave - still got my F3 - not HP. Do you happen to know what the 'standard' diopter lens is that comes with the standard F3 body? My eyes stopped working with it, so I got the next two + grades upwards. One of those fell off the camera one day, along with a rubber eyecup... (Can't remember which + diopter it was fell - the camera is locked away.)

As a strange consequence of glaucoma my eyes have reverted to the stage that I now read without specs again, but my earlier, great long-distance sight now sucks. I've lost that original diopter lens, which I suppose is what I now need again, and can't remember if it was 0 or -1. Something tells me it wasn't the obvious (to me) 0. I may try to get one somewhere, just in case I start using the old thing again - it's like new.

Rob

[Telecaster]

Rob, I'm pretty sure "standard" was -1 with the F3. My dad used a non-standard diopter with his HP but I don't remember which one it was. (I got him the full set, all used & in pristine condition, for next to nothing.) Probably a + because he'd been farsighted prior to macular degeneration messing with his overall vision.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

Rob, I'm pretty sure "standard" was -1 with the F3. My dad used a non-standard diopter with his HP but I don't remember which one it was. (I got him the full set, all used & in pristine condition, for next to nothing.) Probably a + because he'd been farsighted prior to macular degeneration messing with his overall vision.

-Dave-

Thanks Dave, I'll see if I can locate something in the off chance that I get to use some of the stuff in my freezer!

Rob