digital camera as exposure meter

Thank you all for the interesting discussion!

For my landscape work, I'm going to spend the time to learn how to use
my spotmeter, in addition to metering from a gray card, because I
definitely blew some highlights on my latest bright sunlight shots.

For my portrait work, I'll continue to use my flash meter.

For the group, I'm amazed at the number of posts this generated.
Thanks especially to those who kept the discussion polite ;-)

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Floyd L. Davidson posted:

Lobby Dosser wrote:

I'd suggest that to Everyone. The simplest technology that will get
the job done is Always the best.

Every fly anywhere in a airplane? You really do not
want the pilot to use the simplest technology...

As one with a current pilot's license (certificate, actually), I
will tell you that you don't want to go anywhere with a pilot that
*can't* use the simplest technology. In fact, we are tested
regularly on the ability to do just that.

So you hand propped an open cockpit airplane for your
last check ride, eh? And just how many uncontrolled
airspace landings do you attempt in an average year?

Class E landings are not significantly different from landings at
uncontrolled airfields, and I do that a lot.

Or maybe you didn't *really* mean the simplest
technology at all...

No, I really did mean "simplest technology", e.g. a basic compass and a
watch. I did *not* state nor imply "the simplest configuration", as your

You don't need an electric battery on that airplane, or
an alternator on the engine. Far more advanced than the
"simplest technology" that you specified.

above example presents.

That is NOT what my example presents. It *is* the
simplest technology, just like you said. What do you
need glass windshields for? Did the Wright brothers
have that technology?

Not that such a configuration would pose much of a
problem, either.

Yeah sure. You can sell flying time to every business in
the country, and become "Back Pedal Airlines".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Digital processing of the information. If you check out
the theory, you might actually learn to appreciate it.

If you kept up to date, you would know that current meters from
Sekonic, Gossen and others process the information Just Like the DSLR.

Lets see, they give you a histogram, and provide a
blink-on-over-exposure LCD display... for the last 15
measurements?

Who needs them?

Nobody *needs* half of the features of any modern spot meter.

The point is that you said current meters do what DSLRs
do, and in fact that is not true. "Who needs them?" has
nothing to do with it.

In fact it doesn't.

If we take the Sekonic as an example, what it can do
that a DSLR does not is average up to 5 readings, and
the readout precision is 1/10 of an fstop as opposed to
1/3rd on my particular DSLR.

Now set that medium format camera to f4.33 or f9.7.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Both a DSLR and the Sekonic meter can read values that are
not typically precisely availble on MF lenses. Whoopee.

I'd take the DSLR's feature set any day.

We KNOW that.

Well, granted that is *finally* something you say that
is logical, even if it provides no perspective on
anything related to this thread other than you messed up
attitude.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Can I hook my strobes to it for metering purposes?
Why not?
'cause you won't be able to measure the ratio of fill to key.

That is the point of discussion. "You won't be able to".

This could be implemented in a camera, but is not to date.

[Exact description of how it is in fact done snipped.]

Tedious and subjective.

That is your response to a demonstration that the above
statement is absolutely false.

It is *exactly* the same way that it is done with a
flash meter.

And now we start with the whining and sniveling as you
weasel around trying to change the question, which is only

"Can it be done?"

You said "you won't be able to", and that is absolutely not
true.

Not really. Since all I need to do with a flash meter
is retract the dome, point it at a light (other lights
off) trip the light (with the meter or directly) and
read the aperture. Then adjust the lights for the
required aperture.

Tedious and subjective!

You do the same thing with the DSLR. _Measure_ the
_amount_ of _light_, and then adjust it. It clearly
can be done, and the process is virtually identical
to the one YOU use.

Repeat for the fill light at whatever ratio is needed.

Now you are going to repeat the same Luddite sniveling
that new technology is not needed. That's correct, it
isn't needed, but is sure is nice.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:

I'd suggest that to Everyone. The simplest technology that will get
the job done is Always the best.

Every fly anywhere in a airplane? You really do not
want the pilot to use the simplest technology...

Reread what I wrote. You don't understand technology.

*YOU* read it! Anyone can understand that you have said
something you cannot support. An open cockpit airplane, with
no radios, that the pilot has to hand prop *is* just about the
simplest technology available that will "get the job done" when
it comes to flying from point A to point B.

Somebody might want to do it for adventure, but nobody in
their right mind is going to book business trips for company
executives on such a flight.

The JOB differs. Does this really have to be spelled out bit by bit?

Keep weaseling, but it won't work. Your statement was
nothing but an invalid emotional outburst. But so is
virtually everything you post to this thread, Luddite.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

How does that relate to this discussion? The OP *has* a
spot meter, and did not specify landscapes or portraits
that I can remember. The actual question had to do with
how well a DSLR would fit into the workflow, including
use for test shots and light metering. What some other
meters will do is not really pertinent, nor is what you
shoot bugs with, or not.

Getting a DSLR as a meter is more expensive than getting an appropriate
meter.

The OP *has* a spot meter, and *has* a built in "full
averaging" meter.

If he wants to shoot with a DSLR, that's entirely another matter, but it
wasn't the question on the table. For portrait photography under
controlled conditions, an incident meter aimed between the two lights
will work best, and a flash incident meter if the person is shooting
with strobes.

The OP didn't specify landscapes or portraits, but *did*
specify doing "a dynamic range check ... to see ... the
sky ... without pulling out my spot meter".

None of your discussion is directed at what the OP's
situation is about.

For test shots, just to see what the framing and light balance is like,
a P&S would be cheaper than a DSLR, but it's not going to be a
sufficiently good light meter for all the previously given reasons.

So rather than a single tool, the OP should spend money
on two tools, the total cost of which is higher than the
single too, and in the process give up convenience and
flexibility... I just don't think that is good advice
at all, particularly for a guy who (right or wrong) says
he doesn't like having to pull out a spot meter just to
check the dynamic range with a few measurements.

I hadn't really put my finger on it before, but
obviously one of the prime advantages of a DSLR, and
apparently the precise reason the OP even asked, is
because he's a propeller head who likes to play with
technology! He won't think of pulling out that spot
meter (40 year old stable technology), but apparently is
adventurous enough to consider dragging around a DSLR
with 2 year old tech inside. Hmmm... whatever makes
his clock go tick... :-)

But your suggests ignore everything the OP has said so far.

If the other person wants a DSLR for its own self, they do certain
things better than medium format film and other things not so much
better without considerable expense, given that first rate used medium
format cameras with lenses can be had for under $1,000 and often under
$600 these days, and equivalent DSLRs would be at least a couple
multiples of that.

Start a different thread, please. That's a troll if I
ever saw one! ;-)

All this depends on what the original poster wants to do, though
trolling the digital uber alles at all times folks might have been part
of it.

Looks to me like *you* are making an effort at changing
this from thread with a serious question that is indeed
open to debate, to just that: a troll.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

viewerofrecphoto wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting discussion!

It has been that!

For my landscape work, I'm going to spend the time to learn how to use
my spotmeter, in addition to metering from a gray card, because I
definitely blew some highlights on my latest bright sunlight shots.

For my portrait work, I'll continue to use my flash meter.

My goodness, you've actually got *all* of the tools.
You wouldn't add much with a DSLR, though it certainly
would be interesting and fun to do it that way. But
given that you have a spot meter, a flash meter, and the
full screen meter already... learning to use them would
be the first thing to do.

Personally, I'd be saving coins though, and when it's
easy, add a DSLR to the toolbox. But I do like playing
with techie things for the sake of playing with techie
things.

For the group, I'm amazed at the number of posts this generated.

Typical Usenet.

Thanks especially to those who kept the discussion polite ;-)

That is probably more complex than you imagine though.
Is it polite for people to troll? A couple have tried.
Is a spelling flame, or quibbling over a typo,
acceptable? Is it polite for people to make absurdly
false statements just because it requires a great deal
of experience to _know_ that the statement is false and
therefore they can use it to bully an argument? That
was common.

Is it polite for me, for example, to point out examples
of the above and call people for doing that? And is it
polite for me to chide people for expressions of Luddite
mentality?

On all of the above some people will say yes and some
will say no. (Typically, those who are targeted will
obviously say it isn't polite, but... they also do it
themselves! :-)

What *was* impressive though, was a lack of the
gratuitous insults that are so common to Usenet threads.
Folks were passionate about their opinions, but not
obnoxious.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

viewerofrecphoto wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting discussion!
...
For my portrait work, I'll continue to use my flash meter.

Oh, one other thing requires a totally separate article.

Thank *YOU*. You checked back in three times after the
initial article, to clarify your question and to add
detail.

Most of all, you didn't leave us all hanging with not
idea what you did in the end! You post again! It _is_
nice to have a bit of decent closure, knowing what the
OP got from the discussion and which direction it
pointed. (That is true even if by the end there was 3
times more discussion on unrelated areas than on your
questions.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

How does that relate to this discussion? The OP *has* a
spot meter, and did not specify landscapes or portraits
that I can remember. The actual question had to do with
how well a DSLR would fit into the workflow, including
use for test shots and light metering. What some other
meters will do is not really pertinent, nor is what you
shoot bugs with, or not.

Getting a DSLR as a meter is more expensive than getting an appropriate
meter.

The OP *has* a spot meter, and *has* a built in "full
averaging" meter.

And apparently has since decided to use them better.


For test shots, just to see what the framing and light balance is like,
a P&S would be cheaper than a DSLR, but it's not going to be a
sufficiently good light meter for all the previously given reasons.

So rather than a single tool, the OP should spend money
on two tools, the total cost of which is higher than the
single too, and in the process give up convenience and
flexibility... I just don't think that is good advice
at all, particularly for a guy who (right or wrong) says
he doesn't like having to pull out a spot meter just to
check the dynamic range with a few measurements.

He owns the spot meter and the flash meter already, it appears from his
recent post. Spot meters take a bit of learning, whether they're
digital or analog. We all get GAS from time to time.


I hadn't really put my finger on it before, but
obviously one of the prime advantages of a DSLR, and
apparently the precise reason the OP even asked, is
because he's a propeller head who likes to play with
technology! He won't think of pulling out that spot
meter (40 year old stable technology), but apparently is
adventurous enough to consider dragging around a DSLR
with 2 year old tech inside. Hmmm... whatever makes
his clock go tick... :-)

And he appears to have decided to learn to use what he already owns
better rather. Isn't that interesting?


But your suggests ignore everything the OP has said so far.

He appears to shoot landscapes and flash portraits, so he's going to
learn to use the tools he already has better rather. I believe you saw
his response.

If the other person wants a DSLR for its own self, they do certain
things better than medium format film and other things not so much
better without considerable expense, given that first rate used medium
format cameras with lenses can be had for under $1,000 and often under
$600 these days, and equivalent DSLRs would be at least a couple
multiples of that.

Start a different thread, please. That's a troll if I
ever saw one! ;-)

This is crossposted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, which is here
I'm reading it.


All this depends on what the original poster wants to do, though
trolling the digital uber alles at all times folks might have been part
of it.

Looks to me like *you* are making an effort at changing
this from thread with a serious question that is indeed
open to debate, to just that: a troll.

No, you beat me to it.

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:

I'd suggest that to Everyone. The simplest technology that will get
the job done is Always the best.

Every fly anywhere in a airplane? You really do not
want the pilot to use the simplest technology...

Reread what I wrote. You don't understand technology.

*YOU* read it! Anyone can understand that you have said
something you cannot support. An open cockpit airplane, with
no radios, that the pilot has to hand prop *is* just about the
simplest technology available that will "get the job done" when
it comes to flying from point A to point B.

Somebody might want to do it for adventure, but nobody in
their right mind is going to book business trips for company
executives on such a flight.

The JOB differs. Does this really have to be spelled out bit by bit?

Keep weaseling, but it won't work. Your statement was
nothing but an invalid emotional outburst. But so is
virtually everything you post to this thread, Luddite.


Here, read it again. This time for comprehension.

I'd suggest that to Everyone. The simplest technology that will get
the job done is Always the best.

Focus on "that will get the job done". If the "job" requires getting from
Los Angeles to New York in less than a day, I recommend a jet aircraft.
If the "job" requires determining a reasonable exposure for medium format
film, I recommend an exposure meter - Not another quite expensive camera.