New To 4x5 Photography - Spotmeter Suggestions

[Paul Howell]

So why bother with the Zone system?

The Zone System is about visualization or for Minor White pre visualization, the use of a meter, selection of film, film and developer testing understanding the characteristic curve supports visualization. I agree that if a photographer is not interested in visualization then there is not that much special about the zone. For very technical oriented folks who do not want to learn visualization then Beyond the Zone System might be helpful.

Paul, neither Ansel Adams nor Phil Davis are around. Come to think of it i don't remember ever seeing images by Phil Davis.... But Ralph Lambrecht in Way Beyond Monochrome on pages 416-17 gives concise info about various meters....without bias... which might help out the OP....

The Zone and BTZS are much more than how to use a meter. I have not read WBM, I should get a copy, there are just so many good introdction texts that provide good instuction on how to use a meter. With the Zone it is all about visualization. I have seen a few images of Phil Davis, pretty good, but in my opinion not at the same level as AA.

OP wants advise on a Spotmeter, later he mentioned his intrest in the zone, not how use his current meter. I am afraid I am guilty to getting out coruse from OP original questions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well Alan, the ZS isn't a single system at all, but something you can potentially tweak or bend anyway you want to, to become your own shoe size. But I don't find it malleable enough, so only quasi-use it at best anymore. It's no secret that I'm one of those who doesn't like to compress much, and would far rather use a better film for the application instead, or if necessary, resort to supplemental contrast masking. Today's VC papers make life easier anyway. Then we've also got highlight taming tweaks like pyro stain too. I find it all more fun than challenging. The proof is in the pudding.

The question of averaging is that it is, er, just averaging, and not always telling you exactly what is going on in the shadows and highlight, although that can often be factored intuitively with enough experience shooting similar lighting scenarios over and over again. Working from the midpoint outwards in terms of acceptable repro latitude is really more suited to color photography.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Can't say how "good" my negatives are (or not), but I use a spot meter with all formats from 35mm to 8x10.

Craig, the OP has a Sekonic Studio Deluxe & specifically asked for spot meter info...

"The Zone System is something I'd really like to get into, I've been studying it from a few sources and I'd like to try it out with some of my 4x5 work come the summer, which is why I started looking into 1-degree spotmeters."

If you have a 35mm camera with integrated matrix metering,youcertainly don't need a spotmeter.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you have a 35mm camera with integrated matrix metering,youcertainly don't need a spotmeter.

OP question was about LF and a spotmeter later to include wanting to learn the ZS.

 

[Craig]

OP question was about LF and a spotmeter later to include wanting to learn the ZS.

Not quite. The OP was under the impression that his current meter wasn't good enough and he needed a spotmeter. That may be the case for some situations, but isn't a universal truth.

You can get a 35mm camera with multi-segment metering for next to nothing these days (I've been a given some for free) and the results from using that meter obviates the need for a spotmeter and the ZS in the vast bulk of cases. A spotmeter is a tool for specific circumstances, not the universal answer to everything.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Multi-segment metering isn't the same thing at all. It might be like a Gatling gun with an algorithm assistance program built it, but it's still a scattergun approach and not a sniper rifle. And a spotmeter isn't just for certain circumstances, but highly versatile. Of course, if you're going to take sudden sports or wildlife shots without metering the background conditions first, those kind of programmed small camera amenities might help you some. But a spot meter is smaller than a 35mm camera anyway. And unless you need to carry such a 35mm system in addition to other cameras, it makes more sense to carry a small precise spot meter instead, that is, if you can shell out the $$.

I'm not implying that's the only relevant style of metering at all. I cut my teeth using a primitive averaging CDs metered coupled to an early Honeywell Pentax H1a, routinely shot Kodachrome slides, and almost never got it wrong. But that was based of a lot of familiarity with my specific gear and film itself; and I wasn't attempting any kind of b&w photog back then.

And let's just say that if one is contemplating the ZS as a learning tool, along with its own little cosmos of lingo, a true spot meter is certainly going to make life a little easier. And in terms of my personal bias, if you want to call it that, I prefer sheer simplicity with no confusing or potentially fussy electronic bells and whistles involved.

 

[GregY]

Multi-segment metering isn't the same thing at all. It might be like a Gatling gun with an algorithm assistance program built it, but it's still a scattergun approach and not a sniper rifle. And a spotmeter isn't just for certain circumstances, but highly versatile. Of course, if you're going to take sudden sports or wildlife shots without metering the background conditions first, those kind of programmed small camera amenities might help you some. But a spot meter is smaller than a 35mm camera anyway. And unless you need to carry such a 35mm system in addition to other cameras, it makes more sense to carry a small precise spot meter instead, that is, if you can shell out the $$.

I'm not implying that's the only relevant style of metering at all. I cut my teeth using a primitive averaging CDs metered coupled to an early Honeywell Pentax H1a, routinely shot Kodachrome slides, and almost never got it wrong. But that was based of a lot of familiarity with my specific gear and film itself; and I wasn't attempting any kind of b&w photog back then.

And let's just say that if one is contemplating the ZS as a learning tool, along with its own little cosmos of lingo, a true spot meter is certainly going to make life a little easier. And in terms of my personal bias, if you want to call it that, I prefer sheer simplicity with no confusing or potentially fussy electronic bells and whistles involved.

I agree Drew...why would i buy a digital camera or an SLR when the exact tool i want is a spot meter?

 

[KinoGrafx]

I liked my spotmeter for both LF (not even practicing the zone system) and particularly cinematography so that i could look at a scene and say i want THAT small piece to be 3 stops under (or whatever) and then gauge where the rest would fall and adjust accordingly if that was an option. An overall reading with a still camera or ambient meter won’t do that. I traded my minolta spot to a member here and now I kind of miss it!

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

You can only use exposure compensation if camera is controlled by the meter. With the hand held meter you just can't use exposure compensation.

In regards to hand-held meter, that is not correct at all.

The L758D, as but one example and the one I mentioned earlier in this thread (along with several other ha held meters sharing like features) provides *many* options for compensation in either spot or incident. Additive or subtractive compensation, baseline meter shift, filter factor shift, ISO shift or all of those combined. That is all in addition to shifting the averaged Ev + or – ! Using multiple of these change requires a lot of experience and visualisation, not guesswork. As a decades long user of slide film, I stand very firmly by my retinue of metering skills, and it shows in the very consistent results over the same very long period of time (which includes the peculiar demands of printing to Ilfochrome Classic). Really, I do not need nor seek advice on how to handle shadows, highlights or scenes seemingly out of range for the film(s) in use. If there is a high wire-trapeze act to be done with metering, I relish the challenge and will bring home the goods.

 

[Chan Tran]

In regards to hand-held meter, that is not correct at all.

The L758D, as but one example and the one I mentioned earlier in this thread (along with several other ha held meters sharing like features) provides *many* options for compensation in either spot or incident. Additive or subtractive compensation, baseline meter shift, filter factor shift, ISO shift or all of those combined. That is all in addition to shifting the averaged Ev + or – ! Using multiple of these change requires a lot of experience and visualisation, not guesswork. As a decades long user of slide film, I stand very firmly by my retinue of metering skills, and it shows in the very consistent results over the same very long period of time (which includes the peculiar demands of printing to Ilfochrome Classic). Really, I do not need nor seek advice on how to handle shadows, highlights or scenes seemingly out of range for the film(s) in use. If there is a high wire-trapeze act to be done with metering, I relish the challenge and will bring home the goods.

OK! The only thing I want out of a meter is the LV. The rest there is no need for the meter.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not quite. The OP was under the impression that his current meter wasn't good enough and he needed a spotmeter. That may be the case for some situations, but isn't a universal truth.


I don't want to speak for OP, but he later stated that wanted to get into the zone system, at which point a spotmeter while not necessary is now thought be standard. Unless someone wants to shoot traditional ZS I don't think a spotmeter is as helpful as a incident or even a average meter. I've used the matrix metering on both film and digital cameras when shooting large and medium formats, there are times when Im just not in the zone for zone system.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A lot depends on your specific printing medium. Those who contact print on alt media, for example, can often get away with higher neg densities at the top end of the curve, or even benefit from it. Therefore, shadow values readings might be critical for placement, but not so much highlight readings. But the same negative used for conventional silver gelatin enlargement might shoulder off at the top, so care reading up there too is quite important before deciding on the exact exposure and development strategy. Another generalization I realize,
but one noteworthy to at least some.

 

[Lachlan Young]

either for the film itself or its official Tech Sheet graphs can easily see that Super-XX had an exceptionally long straight line way deep down to the shadows.

Perhaps you'd like to explain, with reference to your own sensitometric plots, why Super-XX 4142, FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100, Tmax 100 and 400 all have essentially identical toe shapes, and incredibly similar characteristic curves (barring the very top of the curve, where developer solvency may have a stronger influence on less turbid/ more accessible iodide emulsions than 4142). There are small variances within the straight-line portions (and more so in colour sensitivity), which in a well controlled side-by-side (using mainstream developers) might be just noticeable, but generally, they'd be seen as an improvement over aspects of Super-XX's performance - which was not a be-all-and-end-all ultimate performer by the end of its tenure on any measure, especially in the upper end of the scale - where its performance was not necessarily seen as favourably as you wish it was.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The simply don't, Lachlan, and never did. Not only have I done many many densitometer plots, but it's perfectly obvious from the mfg own published curves, although those are printed so small and abbreviated in typical Tech Sheets that one has to examine the respective toes more carefully. No film is "truly" straight lined, but comparatively speaking, some distinctly fall into that category, others (most) into the medium toe bin, and then there are a few which were generically described as "all toe" Plus X pan.

Super-XX was the Superstar of the "straight line" category in commercial terms; Tri X 320 of the medium toe category; and Plus-X Pan the commercial standard for high key studio portraiture. All of these, plus a number of other films, were slated replacement by the extinction event asteroid of TMax. Only Triassic-X somehow survived as a "living fossil". A the well-known pro photo academy my brother attended, these three specific films were all expected to be mastered, because at that time, they covered most of the bases, each in their own way.

Remember that back in those days, dye transfer printing was still very much alive and well, and the notion of substituting Tri-X or Plus-X for Super XX would have been insanity. In that respect, TMX 100 is even significantly better than Super-XX, and was designed to be from the first; but of course, the intended application itself - DT printing - soon waned.

This has ZERO to do with "what I wish it was" - wish for what??? I'm not some kind of blind die-hard film ideologue thinking everything was better in the good ole days. I am saying that there is no longer any realistic substitute for the very long straight line characteristic of Super XX way down into the toe. Bergger 200 is also gone; and Foma pseudo-200 has all kinds of issues. TMax films come close, but not to the same degree, but are otherwise superior in many respects.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am saying that there is no longer any realistic substitute for the very long straight line characteristic of Super XX way down into the toe. Bergger 200 is also gone; and Foma pseudo-200 has all kinds of issues. TMax films come close, but not to the same degree, but are otherwise superior in many respects.

Drew, sounds as if there is fortune waiting for the person who can combine both and sell the idea to Kodak?

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

No need. They're never going back to an updated Super XX. 95% of that straight line niche is already filled by TMax films, which are themselves highly versatile, yet with even better quality control, far finer grain, etc etc. There actually is, however, a discernible extreme deep shadow tonality difference in my own prints between those taken of Bergger 200 (comparable to Super XX), and those of TMax. But is that kind of relatively minor distinction, and the number of 8x10 or ULF photographers who really need it, enough to tempt Kodak to reinvent the wheel once again? I doubt it.