trouble caliberating my meter for my camera.

[markbarendt]

checking the negatives, the shadows seems good. Then again im not the most experienced to judge.

Final result prints. They seem quite off. I lose a lot of shadow on the prints. The prints that used the iso 200 setting on the meter are better than the 400. but there seems to be room for improvement. I want to shoot closer to the mark.

Given that the negatives have detail where you want it, I'm going to say it's a problem in the printing.

Negatives are very forgiving and normally carry a lot more of the scene brightness range than what can easily be printed.

You may need to do some burning and dodging or ...

[jerry lebens]

It is more likely i am wrong somewhere in the process. Ill try to be a little more specific about my current process.

No bellows factors. Everything is far enough away.

Meter: canon 500d + 300mm (75-300 zoom)
monocrome setting, spot meter.
Iso 400 overexposes. Iso 200 better, looking to fine tune it further. For the purposes of this exercise, my meter will be set to iso 200.

Camera 4x5 (shen hao, but i dont think that is too important)
film: hp5 400
lens: 180mm shenider on copal shutter.

i also use filters. I use the filter on the meter, no further compensation takes place. I meter. Plan my zones based on iso 200 for 400 speed film. Preview on the camera back. Checking my tones.

checking the negatives, the shadows seems good. Then again im not the most experienced to judge.

Final result prints. They seem quite off. I lose a lot of shadow on the prints. The prints that used the iso 200 setting on the meter are better than the 400. but there seems to be room for improvement. I want to shoot closer to the mark.

I apreciate the help fellas.
(typed on a phone. I apologize for typos)

I can't see any reason why using a DSLR meter shouldn't work, even if the readings are 'wrong' - as long as they're consistently wrong, everything should work out fine. It's only if you later use a different meter that problems may arise.

I don't wish to appear rude but I'd suggest that, from the way you presented your question, you've not quite understood how the zone system works : When you say you are 'planning your results on iso 200', does that mean you've done film speed tests to confirm that the 'actual iso' is 200? Or have you decided on it arbitrarily? If so, then you aren't using a zone system but guessing and that isn't really how the system operates.

I'd look at Ralph Lambrecht's site or here http://www.silverprint.co.uk/pdf/Goldfinger.pdf (Page 11 onwards, It's very poorly reproduced but it's a simple method that works).

Regards
Jerry

[jnanian]

it might take a few sheets of film
but why don't you bracket your exposures to find
out what your "personal iso" is when you use your d-cam
as your light meter ?
don't just make the negatives, but make prints of each exposure.

if / when you get a new meter, you will probably have to do something
similar just to fine tune your exposure+printing.

good luck !
john

[outwest]

There is also the very good chance that your digital camera has accurate shutter speeds whereas your Copal shutter is running a bit slow (or maybe a lot slow in the case of the higher shutter speeds). This would cause your overexposure and it could vary at different shutter speeds.

[Shaggysk8]

Yeah shutter speeds just to give you an idea, i tested mine and this is what i got

5.6/210
1 = 1 sec
1/2 = 1/2
1/4*= 1/5
1/8*= 1/7
1/15*= 1/14
1/30*= 1/30
1/60*= 1/60
1/125*= 1/100
1/250*= 1/150
1/400*= 1/175

So you can see it's very important to know you equipment.

Paul

[Poisson Du Jour]

What stepping is the DSLR set to for metering? That 75-300mm zoom strikes me as oddly-fitted to the task for metering: the camera compensates for zoom extension. If the camera has multispot and average capability, use that rather than a single spot reading. What strikes me is how cumbersome this exercise appears. Invest in a hand-held meter.

As each exposure comes out through the trial, get prints done from it as "reference cards" to what you are doing.