I admit to being intrigued by some of the capabilities of this meter, including its purported ability to use actual user generated digital sensor profiles to improve performance of the Sekonic meter over a particular digital camera's own meter. Now that is fine and dandy, but we don't care about fancy digital stuff over here. More to the point, Sekonic also claims that the meter can use profiles for up to three different film types in order to improve accuracy and information provided by the meter to the photographer in order to help us analogue types improve our photography (yes, maybe another magic bullet, but I'm one of those suckers that was born every minute). However, I have been unable to find any information anywhere, including Sekonic's online manuals for both the meter and its software, about how film profiling is actually done, and what information it may yield if different from the digital functionality. Does anyone have any knowledge/experience with this meter and its use with film? I'd very much like to hear what people have found.
Thanks,
Larry
I've been using this meter for about 3 months now, and love it to bits. It's comfortable to use, well made, and the spot memory is a feature I find fantastic (it's the reason I bought it in fact.) I fell in love with multi-point spot with the Canon T90 - yes, I know you can do exactly the same thing using your brain, but being able to see the range of metered values in a scene immediately on a handy little diagram is great.
What I haven't done yet is use the calibration facilities - I'm still using the mark 1 brain to remember the latitude of the film I'm using. Using the calibration function is one of those things on my to-do list though.
Basically, calibration is easy, and there's no difference between doing it for film or a digital sensor, other than that there are fewer combinations with digital, of course!
Basically, you just need a test target. Take repeated photos of the test target under different lighting levels, develop, scan, and feed the images into the software they provide. It will then produce a calibration profile you upload to the meter. You can also feed in additional samples taken at different speeds - e.g. pulled a stop/pushed a stop; the profile will then interpolate the values for all speeds for that film/developer combination.
Once you have a profile in the meter, you can choose the film/developer combo you are using on the meter. You can then be sure that the meter's idea of 18% grey matches your film/developer combination, but in addition the meter will also show markers on the display indicating the exposure latitude of the film at the speed you are metering at - four marks are shown, Dmin/Dmax and the top/bottom of the straight line of the film response.
Obviously, a given profile is only valid for a particular film/developer combination, and since you have to scan the developed samples to get them into the computer you need to be comfortable that you can scan them in a 'neutral' way that is useful to you, but I still think it's a neat idea.
The only downside is this: The exposure target required is ridiculously expensive. As in, almost as much as the meter itself. That's why I've not given it a try yet
__________________ Another day goes under; a little bourbon will take the strain...
Makes you wonder how the great photographers of the twentieth century ever managed without one.
My guess is the great photographers of the 20th century, probably used the best of whatever tools were available to them, rather than wearing a hair shirt and whipping themselves with birch twigs before every shoot to make sure it was as difficult as possible.
Contrary to popular belief, "shooting with film" and "being a luddite" are not actually the same thing (although for some, I grant, that is their motivation.)
__________________ Another day goes under; a little bourbon will take the strain...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Tim , the whole of the photographic manufacturing industry perpetuates itself , like the car industry trying to convince the public that their current wonder product is better than the one they already own ( i.e.. digital photography ), I realize this from more than twenty years experience of selling photographic gear for a living. I aren't technophobic , I think the technology is wonderful I just don't think it will significantly alter the final results.
Wasn't it Karsh who explained his exposure system by pointing to his bulb release and saying, "If it looks bright, I squeeze fast; if it is dim, I squeeze slow,"
And yet Saint Ansel devotes three pages of The Camera to meters, describing them as "critical to any photographer, and its characteristics and correct operation must be fully understood," and metering is of course pretty much all The Negative is about.
The features described of the 758DR is nothing more than semi-automated zone-system testing; it enables you to "fully understand [...] its characteristics" (and that of your film/developer combo) in a systematic manner.
Sure, you don't need it (like I say, I've not even used it myself yet,) but then again you don't need a meter at all, if you're happy working without one. But it's just absurd posturing and makes you look rather ridiculous when you conflate "I don't need or wish to use this" with "noone has any need or wish to use this and noone would benefit from it."
(I'm actually struggling to think of anything more critical to the successful practice of photography than metering, however you choose to do it, to be honest...)
__________________ Another day goes under; a little bourbon will take the strain...
And yet Saint Ansel devotes three pages of The Camera to meters, describing them as "critical to any photographer, and its characteristics and correct operation must be fully understood," and metering is of course pretty much all The Negative is about.
Strange, isn't it .... the MOST significant, the most well respected photographers, seem to travel their own chosen paths. Maybe - possibly - there is NO one all-encompassing concrete, uncontestible truth.
Quote:
But it's just absurd posturing and makes you look rather ridiculous when you conflate "I don't need or wish to use this"
A reasonable statement. ALL expressions of opinions are.
Quote:
.. with "noone has any need or wish to use this and noone would benefit from it."
Not reasonable. I do not have - or WANT the ablility to decide on someone else's course of action.
Does the "conflatation" make sense? No, it does not.
Quote:
(I'm actually struggling to think of anything more critical to the successful practice of photography than metering, however you choose to do it, to be honest...)
I think I might have found something ... you might consider,
Film and the Sekonic L758DR lightmeter 
. Although sometimes round these parts it's easy to forget...
Linear Mode
