Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,531   Posts: 1,572,623   Online: 985
      
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 55 of 55
  1. #51
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    Like Jason I use and need to have an accurate spot meter. I use the spot meter for exposure of my transparencies. The meter is used to check the exposure range and the brightest part of the scene;the brightest readings are normally corrected to obtain the proper exposure to maintain highlights. I usually expose in 1/2 to 1/3 stop increments.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    If you are the type of person that uses a meter BEFORE you make a photograph then you need to concern yourself about the deviation of your meters accuracy over time before you bother with a single reading from it because it will get you in trouble over longer periods of time and that is a fact. Consistent measurement linearity is the desirable end point.

    And accuracy drift over time does not have to be linear - your high or low readings can go all to hell quickly and you would not be aware of it because we all attribute the crappy results to operator error. Selenium cells deteriorate over time, micro vibrations on airplanes and in automobiles do have a cumulative affect on micro circuitry. The meter calibration industry is not a sham and in general few people concern themselves with this important support component to their photography.

    I personally send my incident and spot meters in for a caibration every other year and I always talk to the tech that does the work. I have yet to have less than 1/2 stop of adjustment and a couple of times I was off over a full stop +. I remember dropping it just before I sent that meter in and it was a good thing that I did. Considering how much I pay for ULF sheet film, it is cheap insurance.

    Cheers!

  3. #53
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    My in camera meter is 20 years old and gives perfect slides
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  4. #54
    dmr
    dmr is offline
    dmr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Markok765
    My in camera meter is 20 years old and gives perfect slides
    One of mine is ~20yo and another is ~30yo and yes, both seem to expose properly, even with Kodachrome, in the real world.

    I recently recalibrated the QL17 GIII so I could use 1600 film. For a while I was obsessing over using something as a standard, other than comparing it with the 20yo Pentax and adjusting so they agreed.

    On one hand, I would feel a bit more warm and fuzzy if I could compare these with some kind of a known standard.

    On the other hand, the recalibrated camera passes the sanity checks of test rolls, both using 200 film in everyday conditions and 1600 film in dim light.

    Oh well ...

  5. #55
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by dmr
    One of mine is ~20yo and another is ~30yo and yes, both seem to expose properly, even with Kodachrome, in the real world.

    I recently recalibrated the QL17 GIII so I could use 1600 film. For a while I was obsessing over using something as a standard, other than comparing it with the 20yo Pentax and adjusting so they agreed.

    On one hand, I would feel a bit more warm and fuzzy if I could compare these with some kind of a known standard.

    On the other hand, the recalibrated camera passes the sanity checks of test rolls, both using 200 film in everyday conditions and 1600 film in dim light.

    Oh well ...
    On my last roll i had 4 photos that were underexposed. surprisingly, none that were overexposed
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin